Funny...I was teaching kindergarten today and a parent was concerned over the inability to lock the doors during class time to prevent someone from coming in. I asked her if she would have a problem if I concealed carry in the class. Her response, after the Connecticut shooting hell yeah. She then told me she was not a gun owner, single mom whom had questions, and felt the safety of her child was In jeopardy with the status quo. I for one, would love to carry at school and my guess is these problems would begone in no time and move to other gun free zones... Hell even a few armed security guards would be nice and prevent this crap.
I have absolutely no problem with some members of the teaching staff in our schools to be carrying concealed as long as they are regularly trained, possibly by their local police department in proper gun safety. I see that as a common sense precaution, given the random gun violence we are facing with growing regularity.
i honestly cannot fathom what those people went through, as I work in schools, as do several family members. Granted, I don't want every moron with a pistol, but they already require special training for security guards on some of the tougher campuses and I think it would provide a significant deterrent. I was surprised with the mother I talked to today, you could see the fear in her eyes and that really pissed me off. Parents should not have to live in fear.
If the school staff is to be armed concealed, then I believe they should be required to train with local police departments regularly, perhaps even weekly, because, every gun owner knows how valuable regular practice is.
So what happens when/if one of those school staff members snaps and uses his gun on other staffers or kids? It can happen. Cops kill other cops, soldiers kill other soldiers.
It could, which is why it should be limited IMO. However, if multiple staffers have them, again, less likely to happen. How often do you hear about cops shooting other cops at the police department where everyone is armed?
Funny...I was teaching kindergarten today and a parent was concerned over the inability to lock the doors during class time to prevent someone from coming in. I asked her if she would have a problem if I concealed carry in the class. Her response, after the Connecticut shooting hell yeah. She then told me she was not a gun owner, single mom whom had questions, and felt the safety of her child was In jeopardy with the status quo. I for one, would love to carry at school and my guess is these problems would begone in no time and move to other gun free zones... Hell even a few armed security guards would be nice and prevent this crap.
I have absolutely no problem with some members of the teaching staff in our schools to be carrying concealed as long as they are regularly trained, possibly by their local police department in proper gun safety. I see that as a common sense precaution, given the random gun violence we are facing with growing regularity.
i honestly cannot fathom what those people went through, as I work in schools, as do several family members. Granted, I don't want every moron with a pistol, but they already require special training for security guards on some of the tougher campuses and I think it would provide a significant deterrent. I was surprised with the mother I talked to today, you could see the fear in her eyes and that really pissed me off. Parents should not have to live in fear.
If the school staff is to be armed concealed, then I believe they should be required to train with local police departments regularly, perhaps even weekly, because, every gun owner knows how valuable regular practice is.
So what happens when/if one of those school staff members snaps and uses his gun on other staffers or kids? It can happen. Cops kill other cops, soldiers kill other soldiers.
I don't see a rash of killings by mentally disturbed police officers. That aint the problem. Most police departments are made up of highly trained, highly reliable professionals, there's no reason some of the teaching staff in our schools can't be similarly trained.
Funny...I was teaching kindergarten today and a parent was concerned over the inability to lock the doors during class time to prevent someone from coming in. I asked her if she would have a problem if I concealed carry in the class. Her response, after the Connecticut shooting hell yeah. She then told me she was not a gun owner, single mom whom had questions, and felt the safety of her child was In jeopardy with the status quo. I for one, would love to carry at school and my guess is these problems would begone in no time and move to other gun free zones... Hell even a few armed security guards would be nice and prevent this crap.
I have absolutely no problem with some members of the teaching staff in our schools to be carrying concealed as long as they are regularly trained, possibly by their local police department in proper gun safety. I see that as a common sense precaution, given the random gun violence we are facing with growing regularity.
i honestly cannot fathom what those people went through, as I work in schools, as do several family members. Granted, I don't want every moron with a pistol, but they already require special training for security guards on some of the tougher campuses and I think it would provide a significant deterrent. I was surprised with the mother I talked to today, you could see the fear in her eyes and that really pissed me off. Parents should not have to live in fear.
If the school staff is to be armed concealed, then I believe they should be required to train with local police departments regularly, perhaps even weekly, because, every gun owner knows how valuable regular practice is.
So what happens when/if one of those school staff members snaps and uses his gun on other staffers or kids? It can happen. Cops kill other cops, soldiers kill other soldiers.
It could, which is why it should be limited IMO. However, if multiple staffers have them, again, less likely to happen. How often do you hear about cops shooting other cops at the police department where everyone is armed?
Not often at all, but it does happen. My main point on this is, the very first time a staffer shoots another, people will say none of them should have had guns in the first place. We always want to blame someone when something happens....however, sometimes, we need to say "Look, we made the best decision we could at the time. We feel that arming teachers makes kids safer. And just because this guy shot the other guy, the kids are STILL more safe."
I'm conflicted. Do I think people need an MI Abrams or MRAPs? No. However, this nation was founded in blood. Joe Schmoe went home, grabbed his rifle and went off to overthrow the government, where PV2 Snuffy also had a rifle. Take your pistol today to the White House and let me know how it works out.Also, let's be honest. The Military uses pistols. Are pistols military grade? No. How is an AR any worse then a hunting rifle? The only real differance betweem a rifle and a pistil is that a rifle is made to be more accurate.
Why does the general population need a bushmaster, or any other military grade weapon with the ability to fire multiple rounds out of extended clips?
As a gun owner, I agree. Honestly, pistols, long rifles, and shotguns are fine for me. I don't need an AR15 to defend my home, but I also believe that if we outlawed them across the board, these douchebags would use shotguns and handguns really. Sure it might decrease the amount of possible damage they could do, but these sensationalists are looking for social affirmation of their pain IMO.
Or they would still have them, because theystole them....because they are criminals.
As my posted article points out - these guns aren't being stolen now, they are being purchased legally and used by people with mental problems. That has got to stop.
Indeed, but you can't prove that they WON'T be stolen. All you can prove is that a law abiding citizen who would have used that weapon to defend himself does not have it.So if we could screen people for mental illness before they buy a gun....is that an answer?
You still haven't answered my question. As for better mental health screening - absolutely, that should be part of the process of buying a gun. We have to do things differently. We have to change the way we are enjoying our 2nd Amendment rights.
I'm conflicted. Do I think people need an MI Abrams or MRAPs? No. However, this nation was founded in blood. Joe Schmoe went home, grabbed his rifle and went off to overthrow the government, where PV2 Snuffy also had a rifle. Take your pistol today to the White House and let me know how it works out.Also, let's be honest. The Military uses pistols. Are pistols military grade? No. How is an AR any worse then a hunting rifle? The only real differance betweem a rifle and a pistil is that a rifle is made to be more accurate.
Why does the general population need a bushmaster, or any other military grade weapon with the ability to fire multiple rounds out of extended clips?
As a gun owner, I agree. Honestly, pistols, long rifles, and shotguns are fine for me. I don't need an AR15 to defend my home, but I also believe that if we outlawed them across the board, these douchebags would use shotguns and handguns really. Sure it might decrease the amount of possible damage they could do, but these sensationalists are looking for social affirmation of their pain IMO.
Or they would still have them, because theystole them....because they are criminals.
As my posted article points out - these guns aren't being stolen now, they are being purchased legally and used by people with mental problems. That has got to stop.
Indeed, but you can't prove that they WON'T be stolen. All you can prove is that a law abiding citizen who would have used that weapon to defend himself does not have it.So if we could screen people for mental illness before they buy a gun....is that an answer?
You still haven't answered my question. As for better mental health screening - absolutely, that should be part of the process of buying a gun. We have to do things differently. We have to change the way we are enjoying our 2nd Amendment rights.
I can agree that more iin depth screening in order to purchase a gun is acceptable, and indeed, a good thing. As to why the general public needs access to "military grade" weaponry, this goes back to the basic building blocks of our nation. Allow me a quote, if you will.Government, of the people by the people and for the people, belongs to the people. If the people at sometime grow weary of this government, they can use their constitutional right to amend it or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. - Abraham LincolnJDH...I think I agreed with you at the start of my post. WTF is going on? Who says people can't be civil and learn from each other.
I'm conflicted. Do I think people need an MI Abrams or MRAPs? No. However, this nation was founded in blood. Joe Schmoe went home, grabbed his rifle and went off to overthrow the government, where PV2 Snuffy also had a rifle. Take your pistol today to the White House and let me know how it works out.Also, let's be honest. The Military uses pistols. Are pistols military grade? No. How is an AR any worse then a hunting rifle? The only real differance betweem a rifle and a pistil is that a rifle is made to be more accurate.
Why does the general population need a bushmaster, or any other military grade weapon with the ability to fire multiple rounds out of extended clips?
As a gun owner, I agree. Honestly, pistols, long rifles, and shotguns are fine for me. I don't need an AR15 to defend my home, but I also believe that if we outlawed them across the board, these douchebags would use shotguns and handguns really. Sure it might decrease the amount of possible damage they could do, but these sensationalists are looking for social affirmation of their pain IMO.
Or they would still have them, because theystole them....because they are criminals.
As my posted article points out - these guns aren't being stolen now, they are being purchased legally and used by people with mental problems. That has got to stop.
Indeed, but you can't prove that they WON'T be stolen. All you can prove is that a law abiding citizen who would have used that weapon to defend himself does not have it.So if we could screen people for mental illness before they buy a gun....is that an answer?
You still haven't answered my question. As for better mental health screening - absolutely, that should be part of the process of buying a gun. We have to do things differently. We have to change the way we are enjoying our 2nd Amendment rights.
I can agree that more iin depth screening in order to purchase a gun is acceptable, and indeed, a good thing. As to why the general public needs access to "military grade" weaponry, this goes back to the basic building blocks of our nation. Allow me a quote, if you will.Government, of the people by the people and for the people, belongs to the people. If the people at sometime grow weary of this government, they can use their constitutional right to amend it or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. - Abraham LincolnJDH...I think I agreed with you at the start of my post. WTF is going on? Who says people can't be civil and learn from each other.
Civil, rational discussion of problems is rarely a bad thing - it just depends on the problem being discussed.
As for the civilian population having a violent revolution to overthrow the US government - it would be impossible to do so without the help of the US military, because the US military is the best equiped, best trained, and most eficient fighting force the human race has ever produced. It is lunacy to believe that a handful of civilians, or even 6 or 8 hundred thousand well armed civilians would be able to overthrow the US government without the help of the US military. And they have all the wepons needed for a violent overthrow of the government. Therefore, no civilian has any need to own a military grade firearm with clips capable of mass killing.
I'd have to agree that against the US Army, the civilian population would be hard pressed. But should you take their right away? Do you think soldiers would kill US Civilians? There is such a thing a an unlawful order. I don't want to get off topic, lt me refocus. A pistol, a shotgun...heck, even a knife or crossbow could be used for a mass killing. An AR15 fires one round everytime you pull the trigger and holds (I would assume) 30ish to 60. rounds. A pistol fires one round everytime you pull the trigger and can hold anywhere from 10 to 30 rounds. So what are you using to decide the acceptable weapons against the unacceptable? You've yet to tell me what "military grade" means?
Let that be my final post of the matter, at least in this thread. I know how you feel, you know how I feel. Insanity, after all, is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I thank your for the discussion, as well as for sharing your thoughts on the matter
I'd have to agree that against the US Army, the civilian population would be hard pressed. But should you take their right away? Do you think soldiers would kill US Civilians? There is such a thing a an unlawful order. I don't want to get off topic, lt me refocus. A pistol, a shotgun...heck, even a knife or crossbow could be used for a mass killing. An AR15 fires one round everytime you pull the trigger and holds (I would assume) 30ish to 60. rounds. A pistol fires one round everytime you pull the trigger and can hold anywhere from 10 to 30 rounds. So what are you using to decide the acceptable weapons against the unacceptable? You've yet to tell me what "military grade" means?
"I'd have to agree that against the US Army, the civilian population would be hard pressed. But should you take their right away? " The Founding Fathers were dead set against having a standing, professional military force. They believed the Republic would be best served by civilian soldiers, and we were until the mid-1970's. It is my opinion that the creation and support of the permanent, standing professional military force has all but negated the possibility that the civilian population could overthrow the government without the help and support of the US military, for reasons I've outlined, which also negates the argument for civilians needing military grade weapons.
"Do you think soldiers would kill US Civilians?" Yes. It would be a blody civil war, and we know how the last one went.
"You've yet to tell me what "military grade" means?" True, because I haven't had time to formulate an accurate answer yet. It would require that a lot of weapons be reviewed, but we both know what we're talking about.
Let that be my final post of the matter, at least in this thread. I know how you feel, you know how I feel. Insanity, after all, is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I thank your for the discussion, as well as for sharing your thoughts on the matter
I'm conflicted. Do I think people need an MI Abrams or MRAPs? No. However, this nation was founded in blood. Joe Schmoe went home, grabbed his rifle and went off to overthrow the government, where PV2 Snuffy also had a rifle. Take your pistol today to the White House and let me know how it works out.Also, let's be honest. The Military uses pistols. Are pistols military grade? No. How is an AR any worse then a hunting rifle? The only real differance betweem a rifle and a pistil is that a rifle is made to be more accurate.
Why does the general population need a bushmaster, or any other military grade weapon with the ability to fire multiple rounds out of extended clips?
As a gun owner, I agree. Honestly, pistols, long rifles, and shotguns are fine for me. I don't need an AR15 to defend my home, but I also believe that if we outlawed them across the board, these douchebags would use shotguns and handguns really. Sure it might decrease the amount of possible damage they could do, but these sensationalists are looking for social affirmation of their pain IMO.
A short barrell pump action shotgun with double odd could be used as a killing machine, and while their capacity is limited one can manually reload very easily. And in the hands of someone who knows how to handle a weapon could be a nightmare for a bunch of unarmed adults let alone defenseless children.. Its not the weapon its the one handling it.. Its a tragic event and it makes me sick to even think about the horror and pain this individual caused.. My prayers go out to all those affected by this senseless event.. Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Ng and Jim Jones didnt need automatic weapons to comit their evil deeds. I'm ok with having armed people at schools, but what if this happened at an abortion clinic, daycare, temple. We cant stop every bad person from doing bad things and thats the sad thing about it. I know many here do not believe in God, but I do. so may God welcome those lost souls into his bosom.
"Define military grade assault weapon." No, with all due respect, you know what we're talking about.
With all due respect, no, I don't. I have the same issue with this statement as Rain does. The term is meaningless without well defined limits. I remember (briefly, as I am but a wee whippersnapper) the 1994 assualt weapons ban where the simple act of replacing the standard butt of my 12 ga. with a folding stock turned it into an assault weapon... and heaven help you if you wanted a pistol grip. I live in a state where adding a stock with a thumb hole to a .22 rifle turns it into a weapon of terror. Yet a .45 Colt lever action rifle that can hold 10+ rounds is A-OK. I have no problems discussing what is and is not reasonable for personal ownership, but "military grade assault weapon" literally has no universal meaning. Many militaries have used many different weapons over many years. If we are to discuss possible changes to gun law I would want clear cut definitions of what we are talking about before we proceed to prevent BOTH sides from using weasel words to benefit themselves.
JDH:
"...either we are for gun control or we are for the murder of six year olds." Not so. I maintain that the right to own a military grade firearm and the ammo it uses is not more valuable than the life of one innocent person that has been lost. It becomes a choice of which is more valuable, and are these innocents "expendable" and acceptable "collateral damage" in order for the general population to have these weapon.
But that comes back to definitions and some really hard value judgements. In the Mother Jones story you linked, many of the weapons used were not even 'assault weapons' by their definition, but handguns, revolvers, and shotguns. Are you for banning those too? What about the guy in China with a knife that attacked 22 kids, should we get rid of those too? I just cannot fathom how the tool can take the blame.
JDH:
"And why do you think the crazy person or the criminal will respect a law against a weapon any more than a law against murder?" I don't. But if they cannot have access to these weapons, then the probability of these mass killings will go down. Additionally, as a nation, we must do better in our treatment of mental health problems.
I completely agree with your second point. However, I would rather address that failing then compound it by removing rights from law abiding citizens. To use an example, this would be like having a problem with drunk drivers, then, instead of working to help and prevent drunk driving, we instead took cars away from everyone. The drunks would still be around... and now we would have drunk bicyclists... which anyone who went to my college can testify is an entirely new terror. Fix the root, don't patch the symptoms. Whether they have rifles, or knives, or rocks,or fertilizer bombs, or flamethrowers (which are surprising legal in the US for private ownership) people with issues will find the means to kill. Help those that would use tools to cause harm, maybe even remove access to tools to those people, but don't remove the rights of many due to the actions of a few... On a side note, this is why I find much of the 'enhanced' TSA security a pointless joke.
JDH:
"Do you mean to say that despite this and countless other people's brothers being killed throughout the years, that the right to own a car outweighs my brother's right to life?" First let me offer my condolences for your loss. That must have been tough. To answer your question, absolutely not. I hope I am not wrong in assuming that your brother died in an accident. There was no accident at Sandy hook, or any of the other mass killings outlined in that article. That is a huge difference.
Thank you for your codolences. I was very, very young, so not much memory there. True, my brother's case was an accident, but people have used cars to intentionally murder people. And planes. And box cutters. Why is one class of weapon treated differently than other types?
JDH:
"And now one person...ONE LONE GUY..." There have been over 60 mass killings since the 1980's. Please read the article I posted. It's not just one guy. This is happening on average twice ever year now.
I did read the article. These were all lone acts, many by disturbed individuals killing at least 4 people. And I will voice what is very unpopular to say... 4 people into even the annual gun homicide (not even the annual homicide rate) isn't even a statistical blip for a population of our size. Approximately 45 people are murdered daily in the US, and of those, 30ish are killed by firearms. Don't mistake my statements here, each and every death is a tragedy. But pretending that singular outliers should carry more weight than those that are killed every day for a variety of reasons is insulting to those that lost loved ones in 'only' a regular homicide instead of a shooting spree. We should, as a country, work to reduce and eliminate violent crime. And we have been succeeding, as many studies have shown.
Look, I agree, something must be done. And I agree, that whether mass killings are a statistically significant issue or not, if we can find ways to reduce or stop them entirely, we should. But, frankly, the whole call for banning the weapons used in this particular rampage and, even worse in my opinion, censoring media that this troubled man may have enjoyed screams of knee-jerk reactionism. The desire to do something, anything, to protect others from going through this same terrible event, whether or not the actions taken will actually address the cause of the issue instead of merely scapegoating socially acceptable targets.
In the end, I agree with you entirely that we, as a country, have for too long been swept along in Media tide, only being outraged or concerned when the TV says we should. We do need to work to eliminate these issues, but we must also be willing to take the time to evaluate, to learn, and to make a rational, well founded choices to prevent such things from happening again.
....Ok, sorry if that last bit sounds like JThanatos's stump speach...
I'm conflicted. Do I think people need an MI Abrams or MRAPs? No. However, this nation was founded in blood. Joe Schmoe went home, grabbed his rifle and went off to overthrow the government, where PV2 Snuffy also had a rifle. Take your pistol today to the White House and let me know how it works out.Also, let's be honest. The Military uses pistols. Are pistols military grade? No. How is an AR any worse then a hunting rifle? The only real differance betweem a rifle and a pistil is that a rifle is made to be more accurate.
Why does the general population need a bushmaster, or any other military grade weapon with the ability to fire multiple rounds out of extended clips?
As a gun owner, I agree. Honestly, pistols, long rifles, and shotguns are fine for me. I don't need an AR15 to defend my home, but I also believe that if we outlawed them across the board, these douchebags would use shotguns and handguns really. Sure it might decrease the amount of possible damage they could do, but these sensationalists are looking for social affirmation of their pain IMO.
A short barrell pump action shotgun with double odd could be used as a killing machine, and while their capacity is limited one can manually reload very easily. And in the hands of someone who knows how to handle a weapon could be a nightmare for a bunch of unarmed adults let alone defenseless children.. Its not the weapon its the one handling it.. Its a tragic event and it makes me sick to even think about the horror and pain this individual caused.. My prayers go out to all those affected by this senseless event.. Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Charles Ng and Jim Jones didnt need automatic weapons to comit their evil deeds. I'm ok with having armed people at schools, but what if this happened at an abortion clinic, daycare, temple. We cant stop every bad person from doing bad things and thats the sad thing about it. I know many here do not believe in God, but I do. so may God welcome those lost souls into his bosom.
I see no reason why I could not do as much damage as this kid with a semi auto shotgun. My 1187 only holds 5 rounds, but I can smash with extreme accuracy in seconds with it, and it is not considered an assault rifle. The only thing banning rifles like AR15's will do is force these morons to use a lesser evil, and kill a few less kids.... However, I can get a fully automatic weapon with a phone call, and faster then any gun law would allow me to in the legal manner.
All I can say is that, for those of you who want zero change in our current gun laws; expect to be dissapointed. Newtown is, I believe, as significant an event as 9/11 and the murder of MLK. Enough is Enough. Access to military grade assult weapons and large clips of ammo for the general population is going to be restricted, thank God Almighty.
A long overdue change in the way we enjoy our 2nd Amendment rights is coming.
I've been a little out-of-the-loop lately, and must admit up front I haven't read most of this thread. That said, I have a couple questions, and I'll try to catch up later.
Did the assault weapons ban bring about a change? Decrease the statistical # of events? I think my Marlin .22 rifle may have been included in the ban, as it holds 10 rounds, and will fire them quite rapidly.
Anyone else think giving name recognition and 24 hour news coverage to these idiots is a bad idea? Perhaps they could be referred to as "Dipsh1t number xxx", and have NONE of their agenda publicized after their particular act of terror.
Could anyone imagine being able to create as much or more destruction with simple items from the local hardware store, and gas station?
That said, I've no use for a 30 round clip, etc. It's not an easy problem, there are no easy answers. .
i may get bashed for this, but.....assault weapons, and guns in general is not the problem....crazy ass people are. my assault weapons and guns have not killed anyone lately. i have them for protection of myself and my family, and to just go out and shoot for fun. im a former police officer and i firmly believe good law abiding people should have the right to have what ever kind of gun they want. criminals will not give up their guns, and honestly neither will I. the funny thing is, a 12 gauge shot gun is a far more devastating weapon than an assault rifle at close range, but no one is wanting to ban those.....what happened in the school was about the most horrible thing i have ever seen and heard of, and my heart goes out to the families 100 percent. but banning guns or the "the assault weapon ban of the 1990"s" didn't actually ban anything. this is what you could not have on a post assault weapon ban AR-15.....ready for this? a flash hider, thats it. oh, and you were not supposed to put a 30 round mag in it...but guess what EVERYONE did. they still fit the exact same way in both pre and post ban guns. so people that said the 1990's assault weapons ban did so much. you are just a complete dumb ass and you have no clue what you are talking about. Im a southern boy, living in Chicago where i hear all about how bad guns are, and how we need to restrict them all the time.....wake up, an unarmed society, is just a society of victims. look at other countries that have already banned guns. i like the saying about gun control, i not only practice gun control, but i practice trigger control as well, so i hit where i am aiming........
All I can say is that, for those of you who want zero change in our current gun laws; expect to be dissapointed. Newtown is, I believe, as significant an event as 9/11 and the murder of MLK. Enough is Enough. Access to military grade assult weapons and large clips of ammo for the general population is going to be restricted, thank God Almighty.
A long overdue change in the way we enjoy our 2nd Amendment rights is coming.
I don't disagree that there is most likely going to be tougher laws passed... most likely a return to the 1994 ban, and maybe even tightening of that. What worries me is that this will be touted as the answer to all our woes as it was in 1994... and everything will continue as usual. The law did nothing then, will do nothing now. We need to fix the root causes. To reach those that would do these things before it happens, whether with better mental care or even simply better education of the population at large to recognize pontential threats before lives are lost. Will we ever stop everybody? No, but we can do better. At the end of the day, it is the person using a tool to kill. If you get rid of the tool, they will just find a new one. I especially worry with the 'right now' approach the new effort lead by Biden seems to have, and the push it is getting from both sides. The President is right, just because an issue is complex is no excuse to not work on it, but at the same time, it is no excuse to rush into changes without taking the time to fully evaluate their effectiveness.
The fact is that sometimes events overwhelm the law as well a common sense. We all decry the horrible event that occurred last week. As a parent, I can't begin to imagine the grief and loss the parents of those murdered children are experiencing. Just think what it must be like to have gone home that evening and looked into your child's room, knowing it would be empty from then on, not to mention having to deal with the manner of how your child lost their life.
Now, the assailant here used two legally owned handguns. He took them from his mother, killed her then went about the business of commiting the above mentioned atrocity. No extended magazine, no assualt weapon, just regular semi-automatic handguns.
The difficulty here is that the horror of this event will almost certainly result in a tightening of firearm laws. I have been an avid firearms owner since boyhood. I'm 61 now. In my capacity as an attorney, I have assisted the NRA in a suit to help preserve gunowners' rights. But, like Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the tide of anger, that should have been concentrated on Bin Laden and his hosts in Afganistan will wash over law abiding citizens.
It is important that as the discussion goes forward, that those of us who value the real meaning of the second amendment be willing to discuss this topic. It will be important to recognize that this sort of thing is, in fact, occurring far too frequently. For example, when you can't go see "Batman" without somebody shooting up the theatre, when you can't go Christmas shopping without sombody shooting up the mall, when you can't kiss your five year old goodbye in the morning, without them being dead two hours later, we have to admit that mentally unstable can get their hands on guns very easily.
What's the answer?? Hell, I have no clue. We must, however, be willing to engage in a conversation to find one or we will all lose a piece of our freedom.
The fact is that sometimes events overwhelm the law as well a common sense. We all decry the horrible event that occurred last week. As a parent, I can't begin to imagine the grief and loss the parents of those murdered children are experiencing. Just think what it must be like to have gone home that evening and looked into your child's room, knowing it would be empty from then on, not to mention having to deal with the manner of how your child lost their life.
Now, the assailant here used two legally owned handguns. He took them from his mother, killed her then went about the business of commiting the above mentioned atrocity. No extended magazine, no assualt weapon, just regular semi-automatic handguns.
The difficulty here is that the horror of this event will almost certainly result in a tightening of firearm laws. I have been an avid firearms owner since boyhood. I'm 61 now. In my capacity as an attorney, I have assisted the NRA in a suit to help preserve gunowners' rights. But, like Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the tide of anger, that should have been concentrated on Bin Laden and his hosts in Afganistan will wash over law abiding citizens.
It is important that as the discussion goes forward, that those of us who value the real meaning of the second amendment be willing to discuss this topic. It will be important to recognize that this sort of thing is, in fact, occurring far too frequently. For example, when you can't go see "Batman" without somebody shooting up the theatre, when you can't go Christmas shopping without sombody shooting up the mall, when you can't kiss your five year old goodbye in the morning, without them being dead two hours later, we have to admit that mentally unstable can get their hands on guns very easily.
What's the answer?? Hell, I have no clue. We must, however, be willing to engage in a conversation to find one or we will all lose a piece of our freedom.
"No extended magazine, no assualt weapon, just regular semi-automatic handguns. ..."
That is not accurate. He used a bushmaster to kill his victims, and one of his handguns to kill himself.
I am also 61. When I was growing up, the NRA was a big part of my upbringing, but those were days when the NRA was focused entirely on gun safety, and hunting. When Wayne La Piere took over, and militarized the organization, and started refering to the US government as "Nazi jackbooted thugs", and developed this paranoid thinking that it represents today, my father, who had been a lifelong member since the 1940's tore up his membership.
I believe the NRA today is a destructive force in this country, and have too many of its members believing that black UN helicopters are ferrying Soviet troops all over the country, and other ridiculous paranoid anti-government ideas. Anyone who really believes that they need a military assault weapon so that they can overthrow the US government would be better served if they put their money into mental health counseling instead of a bushmaster.
The fact is that sometimes events overwhelm the law as well a common sense. We all decry the horrible event that occurred last week. As a parent, I can't begin to imagine the grief and loss the parents of those murdered children are experiencing. Just think what it must be like to have gone home that evening and looked into your child's room, knowing it would be empty from then on, not to mention having to deal with the manner of how your child lost their life.
Now, the assailant here used two legally owned handguns. He took them from his mother, killed her then went about the business of commiting the above mentioned atrocity. No extended magazine, no assualt weapon, just regular semi-automatic handguns.
The difficulty here is that the horror of this event will almost certainly result in a tightening of firearm laws. I have been an avid firearms owner since boyhood. I'm 61 now. In my capacity as an attorney, I have assisted the NRA in a suit to help preserve gunowners' rights. But, like Iraq had nothing to do with the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the tide of anger, that should have been concentrated on Bin Laden and his hosts in Afganistan will wash over law abiding citizens.
It is important that as the discussion goes forward, that those of us who value the real meaning of the second amendment be willing to discuss this topic. It will be important to recognize that this sort of thing is, in fact, occurring far too frequently. For example, when you can't go see "Batman" without somebody shooting up the theatre, when you can't go Christmas shopping without sombody shooting up the mall, when you can't kiss your five year old goodbye in the morning, without them being dead two hours later, we have to admit that mentally unstable can get their hands on guns very easily.
What's the answer?? Hell, I have no clue. We must, however, be willing to engage in a conversation to find one or we will all lose a piece of our freedom.
I agree with most of this except maybe the Iraq thing,, ;o) But nothing is gonna change,, They may close the gun show loophole,, which imo is a good thing, but other than that Its too late. The country is flooded with firearms, private sales are still gonna happen. If anything sales will go under the table as in prohibition days. There are so many automatic weapons out there and nobody is gonna surrender what they have. They may try to limit the ammunition but there will be ways around that as well,, If anything people will probably just have to start loading their own, as I'm sure the brass will still be available.. Either way none of this will stem violent crime. What I dont understand is why people dont use gun safes to store their firearms and or ammunition. The mother paid the ultimate price for not storing her firearms properly. I too often hear of how a 4th grader brought a loaded handgun to school. Or how a 9 year old brings a gun to school and shoots his classmate.
Interesting, curious if you know what the penalty is for someone who can legally own a firarm carries a cocealed weapon in one of these cities/ states where it is illegal to conceal carry.
Up to 4 years in NYC. in the sourounding cities its 2-4 without a permit. The funny thing is that people do have permits in NYC but most of them are Multi Milliionares that most anti gun supporters go figure. One of the craziest things I've seen are people with permits carrying firearms on a plane. If your plane lands in JKF instead of Newark or Albany due to weather its 4 years in a state prison.
Interesting, curious if you know what the penalty is for someone who can legally own a firarm carries a cocealed weapon in one of these cities/ states where it is illegal to conceal carry.
Up to 4 years in NYC. in the sourounding cities its 2-4 without a permit. The funny thing is that people do have permits in NYC but most of them are Multi Milliionares that most anti gun supporters go figure. One of the craziest things I've seen are people with permits carrying firearms on a plane. If your plane lands in JKF instead of Newark or Albany due to weather its 4 years in a state prison.
Plus loosing ones right to own a firearm on top of it..Yea dfinately not worth it for any law abiding citizen, but criminals will be criminals...I didnt think anyone but LE could carry a firearm on a plane, even with a permit. Or are we talking private jet??
But the symbols of that ideological struggle have since been shattered by the harvest sown from violent, mind-numbing video games and gruesome Hollywood movies that dangerously desensitizes those who struggle with mental health challenges. Add military-styled weapons and high capacity magazines to that equation and tragedy can never be too far behind.
Here is the problem. Right here in added bold font for emphasis. It is two-fold:
First, mental illness is too big a problem here. There are many reasons for this and you can point to inferior health care all you want, but in the end it's mostly that people need to start keeping score again. Kids need to lose, they need to fail. So that their first loss isn't a highschool breakup and their first failure isn't on a college essay assignment. People can't handle that. They break.
Next, we need to stop legislating everyone based on the needs of the handicapped, and I mean that in a very broad way. Just because some people would eat trans fats at every meal doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to treat myself now and then. Just because some people would lose their life savings doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to gamble responsibly.
Well, sorry, but we will just have to agree to disagree here. I can't see any common ground. I am in complete agreement with Mr. Scarborough, and I hope that this is a turning point. Enough is enough. There is no reason to tolerate a mass slaughter of innocents once or twice every year. I hope the American people demand that we change, because this kind of behavior cannot go on.
This all sounds great, even as a pro gun person if there was a way to ban guns I'd say do it but there isnt. Some of the cities with the stricitst gun laws have the most guns. NYC city is one of them no body can say since the law prohibits guns there are no hand guns in NYC. You even need a permit to own a rifle, even NYPD limits the type of hanguns their officers can use on duty. they have to have a 15 pound trigger which does not limit how many rounds you fire or accidently fire it only limits accuracy. In the 30's you could mail order a fully auto tommy gun and these types of things just didnt happen but then again they didnt allow crazy people to roam the streets. the problem is far more deep rooted than just guns. Making laws will only increase violence and americas thirst to obtain these weapons. Last time I checked crack was still illegal but for teenagers it easier to obtain than cigs or beer. And as i posted earlier the funny part to me about anti gun lobbyist in NY most of them are concealed carry permit holders in nyc ironic. Most rich people use the excuse that they need a handgun because the carry large sums around and make frequent trips to the bank. Only hole in this is its a federal crime to carry a gun in a bank even in with a permit.
Interesting, curious if you know what the penalty is for someone who can legally own a firarm carries a cocealed weapon in one of these cities/ states where it is illegal to conceal carry.
Up to 4 years in NYC. in the sourounding cities its 2-4 without a permit. The funny thing is that people do have permits in NYC but most of them are Multi Milliionares that most anti gun supporters go figure. One of the craziest things I've seen are people with permits carrying firearms on a plane. If your plane lands in JKF instead of Newark or Albany due to weather its 4 years in a state prison.
Plus loosing ones right to own a firearm on top of it..Yea dfinately not worth it for any law abiding citizen, but criminals will be criminals...I didnt think anyone but LE could carry a firearm on a plane, even with a permit. Or are we talking private jet??
Not concealed but you can carry it locked underneith the plane. But like I said if following the rules and happen to get directed to NYC I get 4 year when if I land in albany all is good crazy.
Banning anything won't fix anything. I am sick to death about every time I turn the tv on I have to listen to this shooting. I was appalled at what happened, I mean shooting little kids! But the thing that no one is talking about is this: MENTAL HEALTH and a "PARENTS" responsibility. I mean if the mom was a good parent then she would have had her weapons locked up or not at all, I mean her kid was seeing mental help.
Why is it that every time something like this happens everyone gets all up in arms then after a few weeks it's back to american idol? I don't hear the outrage for a village that a drone bombs. I don't hear the outrage on all the dying children due to lack of food. I don't hear about how many people die by drive bys? I mean really? The best thing that we can do as a culture is attack .223 weapons and say they should be banned. Like that will stop anything. Every time you ban something there is more interest in it and it just opens up less desirable people to obtain it. Look at drugs, that's working well.
The reality is this, a bunch of people were killed that shouldn't have if a parent had done their job as a parent, end of story. And let's just say that her son stole these guns or wasn't mentally insane and he just went on a rampage, it's not the gun's fault. He could have easily have used a bomb or gas from household chemicals. Would that mean that bleach would be on the chopping block?
Anyone who really believes that they need a military assault weapon so that they can overthrow the US government would be better served if they put their money into mental health counseling instead of a bushmaster.
It seems that many are completely forgetting that our Founding Fathers feared a standing, professional military, and were convinced that it would pose the greatest threat to the concept of a Democratic Republic. The idea was for a citizen militia to come to the aid of the Republic when danger arose; thus the need for the population to be armed. That worked well for us until the 1970's when Congress decided that the citizen militia (or the universal draft) was no longer needed. I am convinced that the day we established a standing, professional military, the 2nd amendment was altered, because the citizenry relinquished responsibility for defending the Republic.
Anyone who wishes to raise up in armed rebellion against the US government will also have to go up against the most powerful fighting force the planet has ever known. Good luck with that.
Comments
As for the civilian population having a violent revolution to overthrow the US government - it would be impossible to do so without the help of the US military, because the US military is the best equiped, best trained, and most eficient fighting force the human race has ever produced. It is lunacy to believe that a handful of civilians, or even 6 or 8 hundred thousand well armed civilians would be able to overthrow the US government without the help of the US military. And they have all the wepons needed for a violent overthrow of the government. Therefore, no civilian has any need to own a military grade firearm with clips capable of mass killing.
"Do you think soldiers would kill US Civilians?" Yes. It would be a blody civil war, and we know how the last one went.
"You've yet to tell me what "military grade" means?" True, because I haven't had time to formulate an accurate answer yet. It would require that a lot of weapons be reviewed, but we both know what we're talking about.
But that comes back to definitions and some really hard value judgements. In the Mother Jones story you linked, many of the weapons used were not even 'assault weapons' by their definition, but handguns, revolvers, and shotguns. Are you for banning those too? What about the guy in China with a knife that attacked 22 kids, should we get rid of those too? I just cannot fathom how the tool can take the blame.
I completely agree with your second point. However, I would rather address that failing then compound it by removing rights from law abiding citizens. To use an example, this would be like having a problem with drunk drivers, then, instead of working to help and prevent drunk driving, we instead took cars away from everyone. The drunks would still be around... and now we would have drunk bicyclists... which anyone who went to my college can testify is an entirely new terror. Fix the root, don't patch the symptoms. Whether they have rifles, or knives, or rocks,or fertilizer bombs, or flamethrowers (which are surprising legal in the US for private ownership) people with issues will find the means to kill. Help those that would use tools to cause harm, maybe even remove access to tools to those people, but don't remove the rights of many due to the actions of a few... On a side note, this is why I find much of the 'enhanced' TSA security a pointless joke.
Thank you for your codolences. I was very, very young, so not much memory there. True, my brother's case was an accident, but people have used cars to intentionally murder people. And planes. And box cutters. Why is one class of weapon treated differently than other types?
I did read the article. These were all lone acts, many by disturbed individuals killing at least 4 people. And I will voice what is very unpopular to say... 4 people into even the annual gun homicide (not even the annual homicide rate) isn't even a statistical blip for a population of our size. Approximately 45 people are murdered daily in the US, and of those, 30ish are killed by firearms. Don't mistake my statements here, each and every death is a tragedy. But pretending that singular outliers should carry more weight than those that are killed every day for a variety of reasons is insulting to those that lost loved ones in 'only' a regular homicide instead of a shooting spree. We should, as a country, work to reduce and eliminate violent crime. And we have been succeeding, as many studies have shown.
Look, I agree, something must be done. And I agree, that whether mass killings are a statistically significant issue or not, if we can find ways to reduce or stop them entirely, we should. But, frankly, the whole call for banning the weapons used in this particular rampage and, even worse in my opinion, censoring media that this troubled man may have enjoyed screams of knee-jerk reactionism. The desire to do something, anything, to protect others from going through this same terrible event, whether or not the actions taken will actually address the cause of the issue instead of merely scapegoating socially acceptable targets.
In the end, I agree with you entirely that we, as a country, have for too long been swept along in Media tide, only being outraged or concerned when the TV says we should. We do need to work to eliminate these issues, but we must also be willing to take the time to evaluate, to learn, and to make a rational, well founded choices to prevent such things from happening again.
....Ok, sorry if that last bit sounds like JThanatos's stump speach...
A long overdue change in the way we enjoy our 2nd Amendment rights is coming.
Did the assault weapons ban bring about a change? Decrease the statistical # of events? I think my Marlin .22 rifle may have been included in the ban, as it holds 10 rounds, and will fire them quite rapidly.
Anyone else think giving name recognition and 24 hour news coverage to these idiots is a bad idea? Perhaps they could be referred to as "Dipsh1t number xxx", and have NONE of their agenda publicized after their particular act of terror.
Could anyone imagine being able to create as much or more destruction with simple items from the local hardware store, and gas station?
That said, I've no use for a 30 round clip, etc. It's not an easy problem, there are no easy answers.
.
That is not accurate. He used a bushmaster to kill his victims, and one of his handguns to kill himself.
I am also 61. When I was growing up, the NRA was a big part of my upbringing, but those were days when the NRA was focused entirely on gun safety, and hunting. When Wayne La Piere took over, and militarized the organization, and started refering to the US government as "Nazi jackbooted thugs", and developed this paranoid thinking that it represents today, my father, who had been a lifelong member since the 1940's tore up his membership.
I believe the NRA today is a destructive force in this country, and have too many of its members believing that black UN helicopters are ferrying Soviet troops all over the country, and other ridiculous paranoid anti-government ideas. Anyone who really believes that they need a military assault weapon so that they can overthrow the US government would be better served if they put their money into mental health counseling instead of a bushmaster.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57383339/wash-boy-9-to-be-charged-in-shooting-of-girl-8/
The parents or gunowners in these cases should be dealt with harshly.
Why is it that every time something like this happens everyone gets all up in arms then after a few weeks it's back to american idol? I don't hear the outrage for a village that a drone bombs. I don't hear the outrage on all the dying children due to lack of food. I don't hear about how many people die by drive bys? I mean really? The best thing that we can do as a culture is attack .223 weapons and say they should be banned. Like that will stop anything. Every time you ban something there is more interest in it and it just opens up less desirable people to obtain it. Look at drugs, that's working well.
The reality is this, a bunch of people were killed that shouldn't have if a parent had done their job as a parent, end of story. And let's just say that her son stole these guns or wasn't mentally insane and he just went on a rampage, it's not the gun's fault. He could have easily have used a bomb or gas from household chemicals. Would that mean that bleach would be on the chopping block?
It seems that many are completely forgetting that our Founding Fathers feared a standing, professional military, and were convinced that it would pose the greatest threat to the concept of a Democratic Republic. The idea was for a citizen militia to come to the aid of the Republic when danger arose; thus the need for the population to be armed. That worked well for us until the 1970's when Congress decided that the citizen militia (or the universal draft) was no longer needed. I am convinced that the day we established a standing, professional military, the 2nd amendment was altered, because the citizenry relinquished responsibility for defending the Republic.
Anyone who wishes to raise up in armed rebellion against the US government will also have to go up against the most powerful fighting force the planet has ever known. Good luck with that.