Quote :

"NeuseRvrRat MOLON LABE 27620 Posts user info edit post there's just as many studies saying it didn't work as those saying it did. both sides are pencil-whipping the hell out of it. 12/17/2012 11:27:55 PM "

That's just not true. The Harvard study even looked at them, they were unsubstantial.

12/18/2012 8:15:08 AM

Quote :

"Let me ask you pro gun control people this. When confronted with a deadly force, how to you respond to end it? How do you end a deadly threat/attack? The only way to end a deadly attack/threat is to fight back with an equal or overwhelming force."

Playing Devils advocate, but at what point does this stop? Sounds akin to Cold War escalation in a sense. The last two large mass shooting the killers had military grade armor, no? To appropriately defend yourself would you not need to be wearing similar in your scenario?

Yes I know it's silly but it's the danger of saying things like "it's the only way."

v it happens more than you think. That said, very little chance that it stops a guy with armor and the arsenal the last two had

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 8:37 AM. Reason : X]

12/18/2012 8:32:34 AM

when was the last time a person with a concealed weapon used their weapon to stop someone from shooting people in public?

12/18/2012 8:35:46 AM

Has anyone noticed this strain running through establishment-Republican media like the National Review, that the "problem" here is that it's too difficult to involuntarily commit people to mental institutions, thanks to those dirty liberal commies in the ACLU?

That is to say: Why use the government to control guns when we could just control people directly?

Other great ideas they're pushing:

* Arm the teachers and principles (you know: those overpaid, incompetent, union thugs)

* Greater in-school security apparatus (TSA for kindergarteners)

* "Change the culture of violence." which coincidentally refers only to liberal institutions like Hollywood, video games, music, "the meeeedia"...and not a single word about the survivalist, paranoid, wild west fantasizing, gun-fetishizing, basically-pro-bullying culture on the right.

These are all better options than limiting or eliminating access to military-grade weaponry for civilians, apparently.


Strangely, no mention of racial profiling as an option. Oh, wait....



[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 8:45 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 8:41:11 AM

Quote :

"when was the last time a person with a concealed weapon used their weapon to stop someone from shooting people in public?"

last week

Quote :

"The last two large mass shooting the killers had military grade armor, no?"

are you sure about that? i heard reports that the guy in colorado had "body armor" and then i read that he simply had a vest with a bunch of pockets. haven't heard either way about Lanza. i don't watch much news, so if you've got a link please post it.

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/18/2012 8:46:37 AM

^http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html

12/18/2012 8:49:38 AM

Yeah all the gun sites were flaunting this yesterday. He didn't even shoot his gun, and there's no proof the shooter even saw him.

Note how, nonetheless, that whole article is written like a Die Hard fanfiction, it's simply propaganda. This is exactly the kind of culture that needs to be changed.



[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 8:58 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 8:53:34 AM

If guns in schools is the answer, then why are principals begging for armed guards? Why are courts ordering armed police in Pittsburgh schools? Why are some towns telling their armed police to visit schools at least once per day?

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM. Reason : /]

12/18/2012 8:58:56 AM

So what if he didn't shoot his gun. He could have shown the shooter that some sort of armed resistance was present, and then the shooter decided to throw in the towel.

I agree that the writing is a little over the top...but the story still happened. WRAL aired the same story on the noon news yesterday.

12/18/2012 8:59:34 AM

There is no evidence the shooter saw him. None. At all.

And yes, he "could" have seen him, and stopped. Or maybe Nick "could" have been less trained, and shot an innocent bystander, making Nick #2 down the hall mistake him for the bad guy and start shooting, making Nick #3 think Nick #2 was the bad guy. It goes on. I don't see how one guy who considered using a CCW and decided not to, a few minutes before the killer offed himself, somehow translates into "Clearly we need to fill this mall with more CCW'ers"

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 9:04 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 9:01:24 AM

^Hard to get evidence from a dead guy.

12/18/2012 9:03:03 AM

So just go ahead and assume whatever fits the fantasy narrative. Should I really be this hard to find clear cut, evidenced examples of CCW'ers saving the day if it's as cut and dry as gun enthusiasts would have you think?

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 9:05 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 9:04:59 AM

So are you saying the concealed carry holder lied? Why cant you accept that someone with a gun may have saved lives?

12/18/2012 9:05:40 AM

Why should I accept something without evidence? And I never said he lied, it's just as likely that confirmation bias or other cognitive failings of the human mind convinced him of the narrative, like it does with every gun enthusiast who reads a story like that and fails to notice the leaps in logic and gaps in evidence.

12/18/2012 9:06:49 AM

The leap in logic that a guy with a concealed carry license actually used it? Hardly a leap.

12/18/2012 9:07:34 AM

The leap in logic that he had it out, therefore the killer saw he was doomed because of a brave local patriot and so offed himself.

The leap in logic that a trained security guard is somehow analogous to every other CCW holder or who WOULD be a CCW holder if the gun enthusiasts got their way as to the standards and certifications.

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 9:09 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 9:08:27 AM

The fact is that gun enthusiasts are so indignant about their competency with a gun it just exudes insecurity everywhere they go. They think that when you say "I don't think the average person should be walking around the mall with a gun, and I don't think average people with guns will make a shooting situation better." you're personally insulting their competency, and not just remarking on the general failings of the human animal.

I mean, there's no much about (the hardcore) gun nuts that doesn't exude insecurity, but in particular they seem unable to fathom that not everybody who owns a gun has internalized Colonel Jeff Coopers Rules and will act cool and collected and instantly assess the situation within microseconds of the first shot ringing out like an action movie hero. They are just hopelessly optimistic about their brethren gun-owners, because they're so often tribal-type people with a persecution complex.

Don't get me wrong, trained security guards like Nick I have a bit more confidence in, because they're trained and probably psychologically profiled before being handed a weapon. I still don't think every off-duty security guard should be armed everywhere he goes, that's just a police state with poor coordination.


[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 9:24 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 9:10:06 AM

i dont think the average person should be able to vote either

Quote :

"because they're trained and probably psychologically profiled before being handed a weapon"

lol @ that

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 9:28 AM. Reason : a]

12/18/2012 9:27:38 AM

Reminder also that the 2nd amendment's original intent was to arm (at public expense) local white men for when the sheriff needed a posse to help put down slave rebellions and murder indians.

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 9:35 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 9:34:25 AM

^^ Yeah, isn't "mall security guard" a job for "G.E.D. holder making minimum wage or close to it?"

12/18/2012 9:41:10 AM

Idk whether he was MALL security, I think we can all agree mall cops should not have anything more dangerous than a wiffle bat on them

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 9:42 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 9:42:04 AM

Reminder also that the 2nd amendment's original intent was to arm the people with the same tools as their government in order to fight tyranny.

Reminder also that much of the current gun control, at least in the South, was created to prevent blacks from obtaining firearms.

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 9:45:21 AM

Both of those ships have sailed.

12/18/2012 9:48:29 AM

Proposals for gun control:

Quote :

"Str8Foolish All American 4588 Posts user info edit post Use the system above for sport-shooting, and limit self-defense purchases to pistols, shotguns, and (non-semiautomatic) rifles."

Quote :

"dtownral All American 2637 Posts user info edit post My proposals: - Start a massive government buy-back program for long guns and hand guns, fund it with taxes for gun manufacturers who sell in the US - Require registration of all handguns - Better define the AOW category of the NFA, extend it to include high capacity magazines for long guns and maybe some other things. Provide some kind of permitting process to better allow private citizens to purchase some of these controlled weapons and leave the barrier where its at for others. Essentially make a two-tier system and not just call some people dealers and let them have whatever. - Increase the penalty for unsecured firearms drastically - Increase the penalty for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm - Increase base purchase permitting requirements at the federal level for state programs, allow states to have requirements above and beyond so long as they do not run contrary to 2nd Amendment case-law "

Quote :

"RedGuard All American 5359 Posts user info edit post Guns are not the root cause of the problem; we have much more complicated issues of America's [...] That being said, the ready availability of certain types of firearms and firearm accessories in the United States, in particular high capacity magazines paired with semi-automatic handguns and rifles, does have a significant multiplier effect in the number of death from these sorts of violent incidents. They make it easier to kill a large number of people in a short period of time with little difficulty in acquiring the means."

which i think means that we need to limit high capacity magazines?

Quote :

"OopsPowSrprs All American 6233 Posts user info edit post PSAs that make people understand the need to secure their guns and recognize mental illness could work if we got serious about it. Like ads during the Super Bowl stuff. That would be something we could try without taking everyone's guns. But if that doesn't work then we have to severely limit the number of guns by making the barrier to get one high enough that only the hardcore would submit themselves to get one. Something similar to a Top Secret SCI federal clearance where the FBI hooks you up to a lie detector and interviews your neighbors."

12/18/2012 9:57:03 AM

market response:
Sporting goods chain suspends sale of certain semi-automatic after shooting
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/justice/connecticut-dicks-guns/

Cerberus to Sell Freedom Group, a Gunmaker
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/cerberus-to-sell-gunmaker-freedom-group/?hp

12/18/2012 10:04:39 AM

Quote :

"Reminder also that the 2nd amendment's original intent was to arm the people with the same tools as their government in order to fight tyranny."

Then it's irrelevant, unless you are making the argument that average citizens should be armed with the same weapons a modern military is.

12/18/2012 10:05:03 AM

glad to see cerberus scrambling. worthless fucks.

12/18/2012 10:26:41 AM

So, just to give a little background, and to attempt to convey that I am not talking out of my ass about this (not that most of you will comprehend or believe).... I am substantially trained in the use of firearms, tactics, and the knowledge of what they do/dont do.
I have a minimum of 80 hours of advanced firearm training every year, am a certified armorer for one of those scary evil weapons, and am an instructor on some topics. I also shoot competitively in my spare time.

Quote :

"That said, very little chance that it stops a guy with armor and the arsenal the last two had"

1. What exactly is an arsenal? A few guns =/= arsenal.
2. Body armor protects vitals only. That means you can still get shot over most of your body. If you take a round to the vest, it can still break ribs, collapse lungs, and/or cause a heart attack.
3. Body armor isn't cheap. Especially for stuff that will actually stop a lot of rounds, or prevent the more serious injuries from stopping bullets. Granted it could be stolen as well. Also, there are already laws against wearing body armor while committing a crime. A good set will cost upwards of $1500 and up to $5k+. The $2-300 options you see online will not protect you as the movies would have you believe.

Quote :

"These are all better options than limiting or eliminating access to military-grade weaponry for civilians, apparently."

4. What exactly is military grade weaponry? Assault rifles have not been for sale to the general public since 1984, and are used in .001% (or near that) of gun crimes. Those that are used, are stolen or illegally modified guns. The ACTUAL definition of assault weapon (ie, what the military uses) is a select fire, lightweight, intermediate round(low(ish) powered) shoulder fired weapon. Therefore you must be referring to scary looking guns. Are you saying all semi-automatic weapons should be destroyed? A Glock is predominantly used by law enforcement, and minimally used by the military. It is used for its reliability, durability, and simplicity. What makes it more dangerous than a 8 shot revolver? Oh, nothing.
An AR-15 shoots one shot per trigger pull, is used in dozens of nationally recognized target shooting organizations, and can be made to look scary, or like something your great great great grandpappy used.

This is an M1A1 rifle. It was used in Vietnam. It is also used for target shooting and hunting.


This is also an M1a1 rifle.


Here is a mini14. It is a semi-automatic rifle that is popular in the US for target shooting and killing varmits eg ground hogs, coyotes, and prairie dogs. It is also the exact same caliber as the "high-powered" AR-15.


This is also a Mini14


I can get more pictures if you would like..... or are you saying we should go back to (inaccurate) muskets for self defense and target shooting?

Quote :

"Arm the teachers and principles (you know: those overpaid, incompetent, union thugs)"

5. Wait, all teachers are overpaid, incompetent, union thugs? Way to stereotype. I didn't know that starting pay of $28k a year, while working 60 hours a week was overpaid. I didn't know that degrees and gov't licenses made you incompetent either. And last I checked, teacher and union can be separate. What makes a trained and licensed individual who has a concealed weapon/handgun permit less capable once they enter a school? No one is advocating just handing every teacher a gun. That is dumb, but is the image you are trying to push.
When I was teaching middle school, I was forced to leave my gun at home. I couldn't have it on school grounds or I would be a felon. This also meant that to and from school I also had to be unarmed. The law stopped the good guy, but never stops the bad guy with the gun/knife/high on drugs from coming onto the campus.

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 10:49:40 AM

great post, but now we are going to spend 3 pages arguing about it instead of talking about gun control options

12/18/2012 10:57:05 AM

The line between "good guy" and "bad guy" when it comes to guns is a thin one.

The good guy who accidentally shoot someone becomes the bad guy in about a half second.

In my eyes there are only people with guns and people without guns. The person without a gun can't shoot me if they want to or not.

12/18/2012 10:59:46 AM

Remember this next time a conservative tells you that Hollywood and liberal musics are responsible for our "culture of violence". Bear it in mind also next time you read about Adam Lanza being bullied for being somewhat effeminate as a child.

Quote :

"I can get more pictures if you would like..... or are you saying we should go back to (inaccurate) muskets for self defense and target shooting?"

Yes, clearly there's no options aside from semi-automatic rifles and muskets. Thanks for jacking off all over this thread and closing with a false dichotomy.

Quote :

"Are you saying all semi-automatic weapons should be destroyed? A Glock is predominantly used by law enforcement, and minimally used by the military."

Actually, if you'd read my prior posts instead of assuming I'm just another ASSAULT WEAPONS R SCARY dumbshit, you'd know I specifically mentioned that I'm okay with semi-auto pistols. You'll also see that I predicted exactly the kind of post you just made:

Quote :

""Oh, I'm totally in favor of modest gun regulation, but rather than tell you what I'd support, let me first pick apart the AWB, then 'educate' you on the differences between gun X and gun Y to demonstrate how much I know about them, then hopefully by the end you'll forget I ever promised to tell you what regulations I'd support.""

One more thing:

Quote :

" The law stopped the good guy, but never stops the bad guy with the gun/knife/high on drugs from coming onto the campus."

Every Joe Sixpack with a gun thinks he's the good guy. Almost nobody with a gun doubts their own competence and ability...it's almost as though the thing they're holding gives them an inflated sense of confidence. Not every gun owner is you. Maybe if folks like you actually showed some taste and shunned the kind of violent, insecure, machismo culture like that in the ad I posted above, I'd be a little more amenable.


[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 11:01:34 AM

I don't think committing a crime vs. not committing a crime is an issue of competence with the weapon.

12/18/2012 11:10:23 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/dash-gun-changes/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Quote :

"Editor's note: Anil Dash is an entrepreneur and writer in New York. He blogs at dashes.com Follow him on Twitter. (CNN) -- I'm writing about some changes we need to make in the wake of the horrible school shootings in Sandy Hook. Now stop. Take two deep breaths. Anil DashStop. Don't race to the bottom of the screen to leave a comment repeating the same statements you've made after every such shooting in your life. We have the same conversation each time. We say things that alienate our friends on Facebook. Or we get affirmative agreement from our family members. And nothing changes. Here's the good news: There are specific, meaningful policy guidelines we can adopt as a country that nearly everyone agrees with across the political spectrum. We'll never eliminate unexpected violence, but a small number of changes could save thousands of lives. Will Newtown change America's attitude toward guns? I've shared two key ideas with more than half a million people across a variety of social networks online in recent days, and even over this incredibly stressful weekend with such passionate feelings behind everyone's words, I've heard nearly universal consensus on implementing these two changes. Become a fan of CNNOpinion Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments. 1. Mental health screenings before gun purchases. Because everyone in America will have health coverage next year, we can ask for a simple, straightforward clean bill of mental health before a person can buy a gun. Just like we ask drivers to take an eye test before hitting the road, we should do the same when someone wants to buy a gun. The most passionate target shooters, hunters and self-defense enthusiasts I know all agree: There are often warning signs in the boys and young men who usually carry out these acts of mass violence, and broadly implemented tests could reduce the number of them who have access to guns, without affecting any of the hundreds of millions of safe, responsible gun owners in America. While law enforcement officials say that the guns used in Newtown had been bought legally by Adam Lanza's mother, there are instances when rampage shooters have acquired guns illegally. And we are talking here about areas for broad agreement. A place to start. Which brings us to the second key idea. 'Fun day' helps distract from tragedy Carney: Hard to forget rawness of Newton Newtown tragedy renews fierce debates 2. More accountable gun distribution and retailing. Since the earliest days of our country, guns have been relatively readily available, and there's no need to compromise that to improve the safety of our gun distribution infrastructure. Instead, we can look at weak points in gun distribution through which guns go from legal manufacturers to illegal use. Gun shows that require only a brief in-person event with no live-fire training to qualify for a purchase permit, or that allow bulk purchase of weapons disrespect the care and dedication with which most gun owners teach themselves and their children. Again, a few simple changes requiring proof of real safety, such as shooting lessons before buying a weapon just makes common sense, not only to prevent irresponsible gun distribution, but to ensure that future generations of gun owners obey the traditions of the hundreds of years of millions of thoughtful, smart gun owners in America. Lawmakers seem prepared to take on gun control Now stop. If you're like most Americans, you already have some canned response ready. You want to talk about a slippery slope or how guns don't kill people, people do. Or you want to rant about how barbaric and foolish gun owners are and how the Second Amendment was written in a totally different period in history. Two deep breaths. We've all heard all this before. When you fall back into those tired cliches, you put us back in the cycle where no progress happens. You put us back into a cycle where the responsible gun owners who don't mind some minor changes to encourage upholding the American tradition of safe shooting get stuck feeling defensive against the condescension of people who've never fired a gun. You put us back into a cycle where hundreds of millions of thoughtful opponents of the proliferation of lethal weapons in the hands of unstable people are forced to stand in disbelief as people tell them that these kinds of tragedies are somehow inherently American and thus can't be prevented. When I shared these two simple ideas with about half a million people across a few social networks, at first people responded out of habit, with extremists ranting about fantasies of armed insurrection against the government or of hundreds of millions of guns being melted down. Analysis: Guns and the law But once they read what we're actually saying, hundreds of people, from across the political spectrum, came together and agreed on these principles, that a few simple ideas can make a big difference. I've seen gun-owning Obama voters in the hip hop industry who agree with prominent Romney supporters in the financial industry who would never bring a gun into their home, with all in favor of a few common-sense guidelines. We know we can fix things because we've made huge progress already. America is a far less violent country that it used to be. Violent crime overall is lower than it has been in decades. The reality is, the overwhelming majority of Americans kids are safe. But dozens of our kids are shot every week, so we have to do better. And just as we've made so much progress on so many intractable problems, we can fix this one, too. Step away from the usual rehearsed responses. Stop demonizing your fellow Americans, your fellow countrymen who love their kids as much as you do. Instead, start. Start with two simple ideas. And start by talking to someone who disagrees with you overall on all the big issues around guns and violence in our society, and see if you can't agree on these two points. We won't solve the whole problem, but at long, long last, we'll make a small bit of meaningful progress, and will have a policy that our representatives across the political spectrum can unite behind. "

I had a conversation that the article suggests with a coworker yesterday. it was nice to get out of the standard predictable arguments in gun control. I know it sounds stupid but I think it is almost better to not have "experts" debate gun control because the end goal gets lost with the small details and bullshit that doesn't matter. i.e

Quote :

"""Oh, I'm totally in favor of modest gun regulation, but rather than tell you what I'd support, let me first pick apart the AWB, then 'educate' you on the differences between gun X and gun Y to demonstrate how much I know about them, then hopefully by the end you'll forget I ever promised to tell you what regulations I'd support."""

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 11:17 AM. Reason : order]

12/18/2012 11:13:31 AM

Quote :

"I don't think committing a crime vs. not committing a crime is an issue of competence with the weapon."

Yes, clearly that's what I was referring to, not things like safely storing and caring for your gun, being trained to use it in a shooting spree situation, not shooting bystanders accidentally, and not getting drunk with your CCW.

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 11:16:48 AM

Quote :

"^^ Yeah, isn't "mall security guard" a job for "G.E.D. holder making minimum wage or close to it?" "

yeah, but i meant more that training in general isnt a guarantee of any outcome. im sure there are plenty of trained cops and soldiers who are lazy as shit and dont follow proper firearms saftey regs.

12/18/2012 11:19:00 AM

^^ you were responding to coming onto campus, sorry if you're a dumb ass

12/18/2012 11:25:15 AM

Uh, yes, I know. I don't think the average person can be trusted to bring a gun on a campus and cause more good than harm, for the reasons listed above. I don't think being a non-bad-guy with a gun necessarily makes you a good-guy who should be welcomed to public places like Wyatt Earp.

Keep digging, dumbass, maybe you'll find a point of substance to make sooner or later.


[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 11:28:02 AM

Quote :

"1. What exactly is an arsenal? A few guns =/= arsenal. 2. Body armor protects vitals only. That means you can still get shot over most of your body. If you take a round to the vest, it can still break ribs, collapse lungs, and/or cause a heart attack. 3. Body armor isn't cheap. Especially for stuff that will actually stop a lot of rounds, or prevent the more serious injuries from stopping bullets. Granted it could be stolen as well. Also, there are already laws against wearing body armor while committing a crime. A good set will cost upwards of $1500 and up to $5k+. The $2-300 options you see online will not protect you as the movies would have you believe."

I'll address the part of your post that was in reference to my comments.

I took liberty with the word "arsenal" admittedly, but I'm simply referring to the type and number of guns the two gunmen had. Simply put, a CCW holder in a mall or a movie theater or a greenway would be vastly outgunned by the two in these particular situations. I assume most would agree.

With regards to body armor, I'm simply responding to the person who said that to defend yourself you must have equal or greater force (and implicit in this, protection) as an assailant. I realize there are penetration points but especially in a dark theater the chances of an armed civilian being able to recognize and aim amidst the chaos are slim at best.

As far as cost, I highly doubt that is a barrier to these kids who go in to it obviously with no intention of coming out the other side. Save money for a month or two or put it on credit and that's that.

Again, I'm firmly in the corner of responsible people being able to carry, but I also acknowledge that some things can be examined and if need be changed.

12/18/2012 11:29:54 AM

I've left more substance dripping out of your mother than you have in this thread

Bringing a gun on campus is not an issue of competence, its an issue of will I use this gun to commit a crime or am I carrying a gun and will not commit a crime. If you're not going to commit a crime, there is no competence issue.

12/18/2012 11:31:11 AM

If you are holding a gun, competence is an issue, always.

12/18/2012 11:32:46 AM

concealed in your hand

12/18/2012 11:34:05 AM

Quote :

" took liberty with the word "arsenal" admittedly, but I'm simply referring to the type and number of guns the two gunmen had. Simply put, a CCW holder in a mall or a movie theater or a greenway would be vastly outgunned by the two in these particular situations. I assume most would agree."

this is just as stupid as the "well, we can't stop all murders, so we might as well do nothing" argument.

12/18/2012 11:47:11 AM

In context it was referring to a post that said that "the only way" to overpower an assailant is to have equal or greater force.

I made no leap to say that I don't think there is value in a civilian with a concealed weapon. Simply that no one is "outgunning" these mass shooters.

I do agree with dtownral though that my particular responses aren't furthering any gun control debate so I'll refrain from them for now.

12/18/2012 11:53:31 AM

Quote :

"Bringing a gun on campus is not an issue of competence, its an issue of will I use this gun to commit a crime or am I carrying a gun and will not commit a crime. If you're not going to commit a crime, there is no competence issue."

Competence is most definitely an issue when a gun is used, even legally, in the presence of other innocent people. The non-criminal trying to take out the criminal in a public place, like a school campus, needs to be able to avoid hitting anyone other than the criminal shooter. That requires a level of competence, which in turn requires a certain level of training.

12/18/2012 12:00:04 PM

Damn Hollywood liberals glorifying violence...



Oh, ermm...

12/18/2012 12:03:10 PM

Quote :

"Yes, clearly there's no options aside from semi-automatic rifles and muskets. Thanks for jacking off all over this thread and closing with a false dichotomy."

You are correct, I must have been jacking off. Oh, no, that wasn't it.
There are bolt action rifles. Most on the market today come with or can be made to accept detachable magazines. (main argument of most anti-gun people). They can also be fired very quickly. This is where the term mad minute came from (british; how many accurate rounds fired down range in one minute from the bolt action)
There are also a couple of revolver based rifles, but there are so many problems with that idea that I won't even go into it.

Quote :

"Every Joe Sixpack with a gun thinks he's the good guy. Almost nobody with a gun doubts their own competence and ability...it's almost as though the thing they're holding gives them an inflated sense of confidence. Not every gun owner is you. Maybe if folks like you actually showed some taste and shunned the kind of violent, insecure, machismo culture like that in the ad I posted above, I'd be a little more amenable. "

Generally speaking, if the person went through the channels to get his carry permission (2A problems all over this one) then they are a good guy. FBI study in texas found that a CHL holder was less likely to commit a crime than a sworn law enforcement officer.
A gun does give people more confidence. It should. Confidence to walk away, not be confrontational, be the better person.
In GA, an officer was being beaten by the person he was trying to arrest. Most people drove by. One person stopped, and shot the BG. The officer credits that person for being alive today.
Now you are on to personal attacks again? Against my taste no less, and you don't even know me.
I guess you don't like beer commercials either that have those pretty women in them? And you don't like sports cars either?

Quote :

"Yes, clearly that's what I was referring to, not things like safely storing and caring for your gun, being trained to use it in a shooting spree situation, not shooting bystanders accidentally, and not getting drunk with your CCW."

You were replying to my carry in school. You might want to keep your own context as well.
But, amazingly, there are already laws against not storing firearms properly, shooting people, and drinking and carrying. I do think it is difficult for ANYONE to try and train for a shooting spree situation, which is why the police have units specifically for that, and do active shooters training.

Quote :

"Uh, yes, I know. I don't think the average person can be trusted with a gun on a campus and cause more good than harm, for the reasons listed above"

That will start a whole different debate which already has its own threads. There are over 2 dozen schools in the US that explicitly allow students and faculty to carry guns. There are about 20 states that say it is legal, but the schools make their own laws. VA is one of those, where you might get expelled, but you would be alive if it was needed.
Though it does bring up the point again: What makes a person on campus different than the person at the grocery store, Target, movie theater, soccer field, etc? They are legally allowed to carry and have the gov't issued permit that says so.

Quote :

"I took liberty with the word "arsenal" admittedly, but I'm simply referring to the type and number of guns the two gunmen had. Simply put, a CCW holder in a mall or a movie theater or a greenway would be vastly outgunned by the two in these particular situations. I assume most would agree."

Both shooters had jams in their guns if the media reports are correct. These are easy opening, even for a person with only a pocket knife. As I stated about body armor, shoot them in the chest anyway. Then re-apply as needed.

Quote :

"Damn Hollywood liberals glorifying violence..."

I'm glad you can find a couple of movies (giving you credit for all Dirty Harry) that help make your point.



Now, on to what you said that I can't possibly do.... My ideas and stuff....

1. It was mentioned that there should be a mandatory mental health evaluation for any gun purchase. NO. That is just like the jim crow era laws. It is easy for the governing body to say that the desire to own a gun is proof that you are unstable and can not have one. Some sheriff departments still say no to some weapons "because no person needs one".
There is already a medical record check that looks to see if you have a mental illness history. That is fine and should be better utilized. Some people have mental health problems, but do not get picked up by the system when they purchase firearms.

2. No Gun Free Zones. NONE. This includes all forms of travel inside of the US. These are just signs saying go here first. Do you see police stations getting shot up regularly? Do you see gun stores being robbed? Do you know of criminals actively seeking places where guns are? A 1990 survey of prisoners gave one amazing statistic. They aren't afraid of police, but are afraid of a civilian that has a gun. That is what is in the back of their mind.

3a. Felony Crimes committed with a firearm, mandatory sentences. (1-10 years)
b. Felony Crimes committed with a stolen firearm, 50 years in prison. (get rid of cable tv in prisons)
c. Murder 1, death penalty, no appeals, completed within 6 months of sentence. Firing squad, hanging, gas chamber, burned at the stake, victims family's choice.

4. NICS check for handguns and FFL purchases OK.

5. I can live with having to acquire CHP for guns, though I disagree with it. Mandatory training in laws and handling required (like in NC) ok as well, but for a market determined price.

6. Castle Doctrine expanded.

That covers what I can think of at this point. I'm sure there is more, but that seems to be a basic overview.

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 12:10 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 12:21 PM. Reason : .]

12/18/2012 12:05:42 PM

Proposals for gun control:

Quote :

"wdprice3 next to muskets 37980 Posts user info edit post [...] Speaking of "gun control", I wouldn't entirely be opposed to a new system. I haven't vetted most of this, so I'm just going to puke out some words: Shall Issue gun permits, provided by the states, for the purchase of any firearm (long, pistol, full auto) which every state in the union recognizes and would allow purchases in any other state or country. Requirements of the permit would be class room legal education, class room firearm safety and use, demonstration test, background check, mental health check, and renewed every 5 years (when checks are redone), for a minimal fee. Violent crimes, mental health changes, etc. are causes for revocation or denial for renewal or issuance. In turn, almost all restrictions on open and concealed carry are abolished, except those related to carrying or using a firearm while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Possession of a permit or firearm by a non-eligible person, murder with any object, and use of a dangerous item in any crime is punishable by 50 years in prison (per victim). The drug war ends, drug users aren't sent to prisons/jail. In addition, a repeat offender law (for any serious crime - e.g. violence, major theft, etc.), or stricter laws should be on the books and enforced. Accomplices to non-eligible persons in obtaining firearms, either by negligence or purpose is punishable by 50 years. Say you have a son and you know he's a bit off/depressed/angry/etc., then you shouldn't allow him access to your firearms. This only comes into play when 1) the person has knowledge of someone being unstable and 2) the firearms aren't taken by force. (not perfect, I know.) So if you have a pissy emo high school son who knows the combination to your safe and he takes possession or uses those firearms in a crime, then you are liable for criminal penalty. If he busts open the safe, you're not. This certainly needs some vetting/work. Lastly, the ATF is reorganized and re-imagined such that political winds have less impact how the ATF enforces laws, writes regulations, and interferes with the free trade of firearms (ATF currently bans many firearms based on cosmetics). "

Quote :

"Str8Foolish All American 4588 Posts user info edit post Use the system above for sport-shooting, and limit self-defense purchases to pistols, shotguns, and (non-semiautomatic) rifles."

Quote :

"dtownral All American 2637 Posts user info edit post My proposals: - Start a massive government buy-back program for long guns and hand guns, fund it with taxes for gun manufacturers who sell in the US - Require registration of all handguns - Better define the AOW category of the NFA, extend it to include high capacity magazines for long guns and maybe some other things. Provide some kind of permitting process to better allow private citizens to purchase some of these controlled weapons and leave the barrier where its at for others. Essentially make a two-tier system and not just call some people dealers and let them have whatever. - Increase the penalty for unsecured firearms drastically - Increase the penalty for failing to report a lost or stolen firearm - Increase base purchase permitting requirements at the federal level for state programs, allow states to have requirements above and beyond so long as they do not run contrary to 2nd Amendment case-law "

Quote :

"RedGuard All American 5359 Posts user info edit post Guns are not the root cause of the problem; we have much more complicated issues of America's [...] That being said, the ready availability of certain types of firearms and firearm accessories in the United States, in particular high capacity magazines paired with semi-automatic handguns and rifles, does have a significant multiplier effect in the number of death from these sorts of violent incidents. They make it easier to kill a large number of people in a short period of time with little difficulty in acquiring the means."

which i think means that we need to limit high capacity magazines?

Quote :

"OopsPowSrprs All American 6233 Posts user info edit post PSAs that make people understand the need to secure their guns and recognize mental illness could work if we got serious about it. Like ads during the Super Bowl stuff. That would be something we could try without taking everyone's guns. But if that doesn't work then we have to severely limit the number of guns by making the barrier to get one high enough that only the hardcore would submit themselves to get one. Something similar to a Top Secret SCI federal clearance where the FBI hooks you up to a lie detector and interviews your neighbors."

Quote :

"MaximaDrvr All American 8853 Posts user info edit post [...] Now, on to what you said that I can't possibly do.... My ideas and stuff.... 1. It was mentioned that there should be a mandatory mental health evaluation for any gun purchase. NO. That is just like the jim crow era laws. It is easy for the governing body to say that the desire to own a gun is proof that you are unstable and can not have one. Some sheriff departments still say no to some weapons "because no person needs one". There is already a medical record check that looks to see if you have a mental illness history. That is fine and should be better utilized. Some people have mental health problems, but do not get picked up by the system when they purchase firearms. 2. No Gun Free Zones. NONE. This includes all forms of travel inside of the US. These are just signs saying go here first. Do you see police stations getting shot up regularly? Do you see gun stores being robbed? Do you know of criminals actively seeking places where guns are? A 1990 survey of prisoners gave one amazing statistic. They aren't afraid of police, but are afraid of a civilian that has a gun. That is what is in the back of their mind. 3a. Crimes committed with a firearm, mandatory sentences. (1-10 years) b. Crimes committed with a stolen firearm, 50 years in prison. (get rid of cable tv in prisons) c. Murder 1, death penalty, no appeals, completed within 6 months of sentence. Firing squad, hanging, gas chamber, burned at the stake, victims family's choice. 4. NICS check for handguns and FFL purchases OK. 5. I can live with having to acquire CHP for guns, though I disagree with it. Mandatory training in laws and handling required (like in NC) ok as well, but for a market determined price. 6. Castle Doctrine expanded. "

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 12:12 PM. Reason : v thanks, did i miss any others?]

12/18/2012 12:05:57 PM

^ You missed wdprice3's from page 4.

Quote :

"3a. Crimes committed with a firearm, mandatory sentences. (1-10 years) b. Crimes committed with a stolen firearm, 50 years in prison. (get rid of cable tv in prisons) c. Murder 1, death penalty, no appeals, completed within 6 months of sentence. Firing squad, hanging, gas chamber, burned at the stake, victims family's choice."

I absolutely, 100% disagree with all of this. Mandatory sentences removes the possibility of any extenuating circumstances. And the death penalty with no appeals and the method of death chosen by the victim's family? I don't have time right now to point out everything I see wrong with that.

[Edited on December 18, 2012 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

12/18/2012 12:08:51 PM

Quote :

"NeuseRvrRat MOLON LABE 27629 Posts user info edit post a national system similar to the NC CHP process i attend a meaningful, reasonably priced, easily accessible training course. upon completion of a background check, i am issued a firearm permit which allows me to purchase firearms. further training and permitting allows me a similar permit that allows the purchase of items covered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. tough penalties for those who fail to secure their firearms. i think this would be a very good start. what would you add? [Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:00 PM. Reason : permit must be renewed for a reasonable fee every 5 years] [Edited on December 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM. Reason : training should include live fire exercises] 12/17/2012 1:59:26 PM "

12/18/2012 12:13:10 PM

So lets start putting them together and see what meshes, lets try to make a unified gun control program with all of these ideas. Let's see how many work with each other and how many don't.

12/18/2012 12:14:20 PM