Okay, so now that you opened it up, bear with me.

I would like to entertain ideas for how mass shootings could be avoided in the future, and to be honest, I only see one solution that would actually work. That is as the NRA has said, have someone armed there to stop them.

Lets run through the reasons gun control will NOT work.
Make guns illegal for everyone: Aside from the fact that the majority of gun owners are simply law abiding citizens who you are now punishing for no reason at all, the real problem is that there is no way to get rid of all of them. Lets assume that a really high percentage of legal gun owners just roll over and turn in their guns. Say 99%. The remaining percentage of 1% means at a minimum of 3million privately held firearms will remain. Guns last a long time. I still have my great grandfather's octagon barrel repeating rifle from the 1800's. Soooo it really only stops the law abiding from owning the firearms that they may have had in their family for generations.

Get rid of "Assault Weapons" for everyone but cops: Why? Because they aren't good for self defense? As a buddy of mine who was in Iraq said, "I always kept my pistol on me. It's what I used to get to my rifle." A rifle is better than a shotgun. A shotgun is better than a pistol. Think about it, you are saying that the gun the media has been saying is a very effective killing tool would not be good for home defense?

Get rid of high capacity magazines: Sounds great and all, but there are an unknown number of high capacity magazines on the market, and in private hands. Most people I know who have one high capacity magazine have several. Magazines can last for decades at least. And if they wear out, it's not difficult to repair them. really. it's a simple box with a spring used to push rounds up to feed the weapon. Besides, even if you ban the high capacity magazines, the gunman just keeps firing and changing mags until he runs out of ammo, or someone with a gun stops him.

Get rid of these automatic weapons: Um... go online and try to purchase an automatic weapon. It's not cheap. It takes better than 6 months to get. approved for it, and even then they go through a very strict process to transfer one to you... Oh and the reason they are not cheap: they have been banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934. which required a tax stamp and registration. With the FOPA of 1986 they stopped allowing new automatic weapons to be registered.


Please spare me the "We don't want a shootout at the schools." It's already going to be a shooting gallery. How well can you shoot if someone is shooting back at you? And if the gunman turns to take on the guy with a gun, GREAT! He's not shooting at KIDS! Besides, that assumes that the gun owner who likely took the same kind of courses I took would ignore the fact that if he misses and hits someone else, he is STILL LIABLE FOR THEIR DEATH OR INJURY! The murdering b****** doesn't care about getting sued or prosecuted. HE'S ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW! The law abiding person with the gun MUST think about the possible repercussions of his shots missing. That's why even though (at least) 3 people had legal carry permits at the Giffords shooting none of them shot Laughner. One even came out of the store drew a bead on a guy with a gun, and didn't fire because he didn't know for a fact that the guy with the gun was the bad guy. Turns out it was one of the people holding Laughner. If you fire your weapon at someone and don't know for a fact that they are the bad guy, you WILL face charges. You WILL be arrested. And at a minimum you will end up with a felony which will preclude you ever owning a firearm again. It's not like the movies.

I am not for getting rid of guns... I am for getting rid of high capacity magazines, yes I understand what you are saying, but I am against making it easy for people to shop to kill. There is no reason for them, period end of story. If someone is too lazy to reload, then they should find another hobby.

What I think should be done is make gun owners responsible for their firearms. If my gun is taken from my home by a family member or anyone else that I allow access to my house and shoots up a school, mall, movie theater, etc, etc…. Then I should be held accountable both civilly and criminally. Oh you can cite the case of the mother was the first one dead in the recent school shooting, maybe if she knew she could be held criminally accountable for not locking up her weapons, she may be alive today. This really shouldn’t be a big deal, any responsible gun owner should already be keeping their weapons out of unwanted hands now.

One thing the shooting proves is that strict gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings or high crime rates (just look at Chicago or even DC). Not so sure banning high capacity magazines will make much difference either b/c criminals ignore the law anyway and can do end runs around the law via smuggling/black market (or becoming very adept at switching out clips very quickly). That said, you both make very legitimate points. I see no reason responsible law abiding gun owners should be penalized b/c of some crackpot, but neither should they have a big problem w/being extremely careful to keep their weapons secured when they're not using them themselves (gun range, hunting, etc..).

I see no reason responsible law abiding gun owners should be penalized b/c of some crackpot, but neither should they have a big problem w/being extremely careful to keep their weapons secured when they're not using them themselves (gun range, hunting, etc..).

When the crackpot is someone they know and they were stupid enough to give access to a tool for mass murder then they deserve to be held accountable. We are each responsible for our own freedom and rights and if that person does not have that right because of mental illness, felony conviction or age, then we are responsible for keeping our freedom out of their hands so they don’t violate someone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Besides if you have a law stating they are responsible to keep their gun out of such hands and they violate that law, then they are not law aiding gun owners any longer.

People love saying guns are just a tool. Well a car is just a tool too and in the wrong hands a car can be used to murder too. If you allow access to your car to someone that does not have the legal capacity to operate it and they kill someone else, then you can be held legally and criminally responsible. What is the difference if you consider firearm just tools to?

My point about the mags is that it doesn't stop the killing. the only thing that stopped the killing when the bad guy stopped shooting. He fired hundreds of rounds. that means he changed magazines multiple times. And as I said before, There are hundreds of millions of magazines out there. Good luck getting rid of those. I have a few magazines from WWII that still function like new.

I agree that gun owners should take more responsibility for their firearms. The problem is where you draw the line. If my car is stolen and someone uses it to run someone down, I'm not liable. If I could I'd rather keep my primary firearms on me at all times. The problem is all the "Gun free zones" that prevent me from keeping control of them. A police officer friend just had her car broken in to and her weapon stolen from it while she was in a "Gun Free" establishment(she didn't want to make a scene and all that, just get in, get her groceries and get out). We cannot maintain control of our firearms all the time if we cannot carry them all the time. Even a safe. I Know of a few people who had their safe stolen from their house. One they even broke the slab.

My point about the mags is that it doesn't stop the killing. the only thing that stopped the killing when the bad guy stopped shooting. He fired hundreds of rounds. that means he changed magazines multiple times. And as I said before, There are hundreds of millions of magazines out there. Good luck getting rid of those. I have a few magazines from WWII that still function like new. SO what? I agree with you they are out there, we are not going to get rid of them anytime soon, but there is no reason to make it easy for someone planning mass murder, make them at least have to do some work to find them. I am also under the impression that lower magazine capacity could save lives. I know personally I am more like to attack someone reloading rather than attacking someone shooting me in the face. Also think my chances of success would be likely better while they are not shooting me.

I agree that gun owners should take more responsibility for their firearms. The problem is where you draw the line. If my car is stolen and someone uses it to run someone down, I'm not liable. If I could I'd rather keep my primary firearms on me at all times. The problem is all the "Gun free zones" that prevent me from keeping control of them. A police officer friend just had her car broken in to and her weapon stolen from it while she was in a "Gun Free" establishment(she didn't want to make a scene and all that, just get in, get her groceries and get out). We cannot maintain control of our firearms all the time if we cannot carry them all the time. Even a safe. I Know of a few people who had their safe stolen from their house. One they even broke the slab. Yes nothing is foolproof. Stuff can get stolen, but there is a big difference between having something locked up in a safe, closet or car than having easy access setting in the open in the family room or under a pillow in the master bedroom. Someone breaks into the house and steals the weapon locked up in the house, then no you are not liable. Someone that lives in the house or has legal access to the house takes the gun from the house then you should legally responsible, even possible criminally (provided there was some legal reason (mental illness felony, age) that the person should not have had access to the weapon.

You pretty much answered your own question with the car example. You are not liable if it is stolen. However if you leave the keys on the kitchen table and your 5 year gets the keys starts the car, throws in in reverse and backs through the neighbors house. Then you are legally liable.

When the crackpot is someone they know and they were stupid enough to give access to a tool for mass murder then they deserve to be held accountable. We are each responsible for our own freedom and rights and if that person does not have that right because of mental illness, felony conviction or age, then we are responsible for keeping our freedom out of their hands so they don’t violate someone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Besides if you have a law stating they are responsible to keep their gun out of such hands and they violate that law, then they are not law aiding gun owners any longer.

People love saying guns are just a tool. Well a car is just a tool too and in the wrong hands a car can be used to murder too. If you allow access to your car to someone that does not have the legal capacity to operate it and they kill someone else, then you can be held legally and criminally responsible. What is the difference if you consider firearm just tools to?

I meant law abiding gun owners collectively, not merely the "victim" of said crackpot. (ie. b/c someone in one state is lax does not mean people elsewhere should have their rights proscribed). Otherwise, as I basically indicated, we're pretty much in agreement on that point (personal responsibility).

I meant law abiding gun owners collectively, not merely the "victim" of said crackpot I would hardly call the people that allowed the crackpot access to the gun the "victim," I can feel sorry for them, but to me the true victim are the innocents that got murdered by a gun they allowed access to.

I would hardly call the people that allowed the crackpot access to the gun the "victim," I can feel sorry for them, but to me the true victim are the innocents that got murdered by a gun they allowed access to.

On this we can agree. If anything I would call her an unwilling accomplice. She KNEW she had a problem with Adam. She was in the process of forcibly committing him. But she still recklessly allowed him access to the firearms.

As to your assumption that you would jump him: He had more than one firearm. Oh and just to be clear, the higher capacity mags tend to jam a lot more. That's what the guy in portalnd found.

I just feel that the whole gun debate is a bit like some drunk driver goes on a bender all night, and crashes his pickup into a school bus killing a bunch of kids, and suddenly we're talking about banning the pickup and making all other drivers have a breathalyzer interlock device in their cars.

@mim--if I meant they were really victims, I wouldn't have used the ""s around the word. It's safe to say that the three of us pretty much agree that gun owners should be very aware of where their weapons are and that they're properly secured and stored when not in use.

I just feel that the whole gun debate is a bit like some drunk driver goes on a bender all night, and crashes his pickup into a school bus killing a bunch of kids, and suddenly we're talking about banning the pickup and making all other drivers have a breathalyzer interlock device in their cars.

Nicely put.

One of the things that annoys me slightly by the public debate is people trying to point to Chicago and say gun control does not work. Sorry that is completely a bogus cop-out. Chicago does not work because criminals still get guns from neighboring towns. The use straw purchases, CNN did a story last night and the idiot talking heads went straight to they did not point out that straw purchases are illegal since the 1960's. So what? The problem with the law is all you have to say is the gun was stolen after you purchased it should the weapon be traced back to you after a crime or murder. So if you are so irresponsible to not report the theft of a deadly weapon, then you are not responsible enough to own a weapon. That person is either a criminal or so stupid that they are a danger to them-self and society. Chicago Superintendent wants make a state law that you have to report a theft of a deadly weapon (something that is just stupid to even be necessary), but the NRA is against this as it restricts the gun owners rights and you can't trust the Superintendent since he is from New York (and we all know how they are). That was they last straw for me, I remember when the NRA was for responsible gun ownership, now they are just give everyone a gun and let the gun god sort it out. I LOL when they said something about wanting to talk about protecting children. Yeah arm the 7 year olds was probably at the top of their list.

Pointing to such things as "gun free zones" and cities with strict gun control laws as being ineffective isn't a bogus cop-out. Ultimately, criminals don't care what laws you come up with or where you designate gun free zones b/c they just don't give a damn. Still, I'd agree that opposition to even some common sense rules is daft. The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for not reporting a stolen weapon is that you might be incriminating yourself for criminal negligence and wish to spare yourself the embarrassment. Of course if/when said weapon shows up in a criminal investigation, embarrassment will be the least of your worries.

Pointing to such things as "gun free zones" and cities with strict gun control laws as being ineffective isn't a bogus cop-out. Ultimately, criminals don't care what laws you come up with or where you designate gun free zones b/c they just don't give a damn. Still, I'd agree that opposition to even some common sense rules is daft. The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for not reporting a stolen weapon is that you might be incriminating yourself for criminal negligence and wish to spare yourself the embarrassment. Of course if/when said weapon shows up in a criminal investigation, embarrassment will be the least of your worries.

Pointing it out when you know the reason the gun free zone does work is because other area don't enforce their own rules is bogus. It isn't that Chicago rules don't work, it is that the surrounding areas that don't enforce federal laws at all. It is a loophole and it isn't about embarrassement or worry, because with the loophole their is no embarrassement or worry, you say it was stolen way back when and you did not report it and you get a get out of jail scott free card. It also is not about being a innoccent gun owner, it is being a low life criminal that is a accessory to a crime even murder because of suppling guns to criminals for profit.

Funny thing you can say it is a loophole it can't be enforces, but the NRA saying they don't want to close the loophole, sounds to me like they support giving criminals guns and thus support the Chicago murder rate and why not it support the advertisment to sell more guns elsewhere. All about the money to hell with human life.

The reason a lot of "gun free zones" don't work is not b/c law abiding citizens generally ignore them. Recognizing that isn't bogus, so we'll just have to disagree on that general point. Again, it comes down to the criminals. Society can make all the rules it wants, but making rules is all it will be (and we're not merely talking about the example you laid out above). Btw, that doesn't mean you don't have laws or that you don't enforce the ones already on the books. It's just ironic that areas in the US w/very strict gun laws often have higher violent gun crime rates.

As to the loophole in question, unless the "low level accessory" is actually buying guns and then selling them on the black market for profit and using the loophole as a get-out-of-jail free card, then why wouldn't they initially report the stolen firearm in the first place (which is what my point about embarrassment was addressing)?

yeah wasn't talking about rules, big difference between laws and rules. When you disreguard a law then you are no longer a law abiding citizens, you are a low life criminal.

But whatever, typical people find ways around laws and then people point out it doesn't work because it means more profits, after all life is cheap. Funny thing the people that think breaking these laws are fine are the same ones that think it is terrible that immigration laws are bent and broken. Law is law, and both should be enforced. Someone breaks the law then they are criminals plan and simple.

Usually, when society makes rules.....they're called laws. But am I to take it from your response that anyone who disobeys any laws is a low life criminal? Also, since you bring it up, might be interesting to find out how many rabid gun opponents prefer looking the other way on immigration violations...... ;)

Usually, when society makes rules.....they're called laws. But am I to take it from your response that anyone who disobeys any laws is a low life criminal? Nothing ever ever that black and white, but if we are talking about buying guns for profit to sale to criminals, then yes.

Rule: keep off grass

Law: Don't murder or buy guns for murders so they can murder.

Laws are still nothing more than rules about what you're allowed to do or not according to the society you live in. All you can really hope for is that whatever laws are passed both make sense and are enforceable. Making laws to look you're doing something is at best farcical. The Assault Weapons ban of the mid 90's did nothing to stop Columbine. :giveup:

No it did not stop Columbine.... another one of the give everyone gun aguments that I will never understand...No way short of going back and taking everyone's assault weapon that is already on the market would stop all murders with assault weapons. NRA loves to point this and other gun laws out should they do not work when they were the ones that lobbied (paidoff) Washington to make sure any gun law passed is so weak that it couldn't possibly work.

Taft Union High School had a armed guard, but the armed guard didn't stop the school shooting there either (see it works both ways when people use 1/2 truths and misinformation to make their point).

Another one of my favorite auguments out of the gun nuts (trust me only a gun nut would make this argument) is we need assualt weapons to defend ourselves from the government. Word of advice, if it ever comes to the point that you have to defend yourself against a US military soldier, put down the weapon or you will die. Our greatest protection against a government take over, is we the people are the government and we the people are the military. People that think they need assault weapons to stand up against our troops shouldn't be allowed to own weapons, they are too stupid and a danger to their ownself.

Um the Taft guard was out that day.

Also, I heard that the majority of the deaths in Aurora were caused by the shotgun he was carrying. Even if that isn't true, I can pretty much prove that a shotgun can be significantly more deadly than an AR-15. Especially in close quarters like a theater or school.

In all honesty, with roughly 90million gun owners, and 1.4 million soldiers, If 1 in 10 kills the people trying to take the guns, gun owners still win. That's also assuming that soldiers would fire on civilians and family members. That's also assuming that the soldiers and pilots could accept killing those in the US. And to be frank, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. Be it our own or another.

The one I laugh at is the anti gunners saying that there is no need for an AR-15 for home defense. First off it ignores a couple things. First is that either it's a deadly weapon that is efficient at killing, and therefore a useful tool for home defense, or it's not effective, and there is no reason to ban it. The advantage of an AR is really for the lighter frame users(aka women). While a shotgun is my preferred home defense firearm, it is significantly easier for my girlfriend to carry aim and shoot the lighter AR-15. The second thing they don't realize is that for home defense, PISTOLS SUCK! Seriously. If I could, I'd rather carry a rifle all day than a pistol. Pistols are only good for being concealed. Use your pistol to get to your shotgun or rifle. Use your shotgun to get to your rifle.

I think I would be okay with all sales having to go through a background check at gun shows(That's already the case in Florida). The problem comes when talking about private sales outside of the gun show. There's really no way to regulate that. It also makes it more difficult to pass a firearm down to your kids after your death. I may not have gotten my great grandfather's rifle had the restrictions been in place that Feinstein wants.

And really, why go after "assault weapons" anyway. Since the gun ban was lifted on "Assault Weapons" there have been a grand total of less than 500 murders committed with an "Assault Weapon." That's 8 years worth of murders, and it doesn't even equal the number of murders committed in Chicago last year. It's less than the number of murders committed with a hammer. The real reason for the ban is pretty obvious. It was even stated by Feinstein that she wanted a total ban on all guns, and the AWB was the first step.

Um the Taft guard was out that day. I know that, why do you think I pointed out it was a 1/2 truth. I was pointing out both sides can use half/truths (lies) to support their cause and it is doing nothing at all to limit these types of murder. Open honest discussion and honest implication of common sense laws can save lives, but no law or amount of weapons will end this type of violence. If one nut job decides to murder people, they will. Armed guards, no guns, armed teachers, no assault weapons, no clips... so on and so on, nothing will stop it. Even if you locked up all nut jobs, someone would fall through the cracks. Nothing will stop it. So to me, the goal should be limiting the magnitude of the events and the ease in which people pull off these events.

There were "23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000" So to me, not everyone that qualifies to own a firearm, should be armed. To me owning a firearm is a great responsibility and as such it should be treated with respect. You arm all teachers, mall worker and everyone else working in public areas, you think the chances of accidental shooting and deaths go up or down? I am sure we can all think of many people that could pass the gun requirements, but have no business having a drivers license much less a firearm.

In all honesty, with roughly 90million gun owners, and 1.4 million soldiers, If 1 in 10 kills the people trying to take the guns, gun owners still win. That's also assuming that soldiers would fire on civilians and family members. That's also assuming that the soldiers and pilots could accept killing those in the US. And to be frank, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. Be it our own or another. Yeah, guns would work wonders against tanks, aircraft, drones and everything else the military has to offer. You also lost my point (ignored it) I don't believe our military would attack our civilians and I also know of at least one of those 90 million gun owners that would not attack our soldiers who are sworn to protect me and uphold The Constitution. It is a stupid nonsensical argument on why we should have assault weapons. Saying I like using them for target practice or home protection is a valid reason, saying I need them to protect us against our own soldiers is idiotic.

Man with AR-15 goes up against a platoon of American Soldiers, man with AR-15 is dead.

People need to read up on the original intention of the Second Amendment. (http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm)

It should then become obvious as to why certain factions have been chipping away at it for nearly a century.

Mim. Fine then, we should be allowed to purchase any weapon or vehicle our government can. Feel better? honestly when talking about out right civil war, there is no guarantee of how it would be fought. Tanks come rolling in they may find out how resourceful the rednecks can be.

Accidental shootings: Well, first off, that's why I would say they should be allowed to carry IF they have their CCW as that requires their willingness to own rather than forcing teachers to carry. Which by the way, I wouldn't mind if they tightened up the training requirements. I also feel that there should be a legal requirement that any place that has a sign that says "No Firearms Permitted" should have an armed guard to enforce that rule. Simply putting up the sign only covers the law abiding. If you disarm me, you take on the responsibility of protecting me.

Also, lets look at the truth behind the "Assault Weapon"
http://www.assaultweapon.info/)

Mim. Fine then, we should be allowed to purchase any weapon or vehicle our government can. Feel better? So you are saying it is ok for me to own nuclear weapons, but it is not alright for a foreign country to own them? Or are you now saying you support Iran and North Korea’s right to have nuclear weapons?
Putting words in others mouth can work both ways, because I am not saying we should have the same weapons as the government. I am saying that assault weapons would be useless in protecting us from a government takeover. Just because Billy Bob watched a couple john wayne movies, does not make them a expert at going against trained soldiers.

I never said anything of the kind. I haven't said people should not have assault weapons. I just said if someone is stupid enough to want an assault weapon (since it is a useless overprice weapon) at least give a valid reason and quit spouting off stupidity. I even wrote; I want to use it for target practice or I want it for home protection are valid reasons. These idiot gun nuts just need to stop making people think all gun owners are stupid and paranoid idiots. In other works the NRA needs to get better people in front of the camera.

Accidental shootings: Well, first off, that's why I would say they should be allowed to carry IF they have their CCW as that requires their willingness to own rather than forcing teachers to carry. Which by the way, I wouldn't mind if they tightened up the training requirements. CCW is not a magic pill. People with CCW still have weapons involved in accidental shootings.

I also feel that there should be a legal requirement that any place that has a sign that says "No Firearms Permitted" should have an armed guard to enforce that rule. Simply putting up the sign only covers the law abiding. If you disarm me, you take on the responsibility of protecting me.Why? If you don’t like it, then don’t go into those areas. It isn’t rocket science and this is not Beirut.

This is another of those things that has been bugging me in the news lately. I am not trying to take away anyone’s weapon. Like I have said before I am a gun owner. I am actually legally armed at the moment. However, if I go somewhere that has a “No Firearms Permitted” I will unarm. I am not trying to shove my belief structure down anyone’s throat and the only people responsible for a shooting is the person pulling the trigger and the person responsible for the firearm (if they have a legal or criminal responsibility would depend on the circumstances).
Also, lets look at the truth behind the "Assault Weapon"
http://www.assaultweapon.info/)
No…Link doesn’t work, but is this part of the debate, because you and Totenkopf seem to agree on this and I don’t care. Assault Weapon are a useless weapon in my opinion. They are not good for hunting and IMO useless for home protection. That was an opinion given to me by a US Marine and a former Navy Seal (notice I did not call the Marine former). No article is going to change my mind when my father and uncle taught me otherwise over years. I have recently shot an AR-15 former army friend bought since he believes Obama will take away his guns. Nothing changed my mind from first hand contact. At close enough range (as in a home) I would much rather have the shotgun over the AR-15 in my house.

My only thing suggestion on the subject is people should be responsible for their firearms. However, I seemed to have been meet with people have the right to guns…no matter what. Only thing I am convinced of now is I will support businesses that have signs that say no firearms. At least there I only have to worry about nut cases and criminals shooting me instead of idiots that think they are going to save America.

Actually mimartin, I was saying it. And actually, I say DISARM OUR GOVERNMENT! If we cannot have it, the government shouldn't either. And that would include Nukes. And heck, if someone wants to buy a $5 billion nuclear powered submarine(I could see Larry Ellison wanting one)

I already pointed out why an "Assault Weapon" is actually pretty good for home defense. But let me explain that a bit better, as I know I can sometimes ramble and the point can be lost.

Reasons for an AR-15 for home defense
A rifle is more accurate than a pistol.
The .223 round is effective at stopping a threat.
The chances of over-penetration are lower than many pistol rounds
The AR-15 can carry more rounds should there be more than one attacker.
Should you have to move, you have even more control of your firearm.
Even though you are using it as a rifle, it actually sticks out less than a pistol.
Unlike a shotgun you can place your shots more carefully.
The AR-15 is light enough for a woman to easily use.
Because I can't afford an assault rifle (http://www.nfasales.com/machineguns.htm).

As for the CCW: I should have explained that it's a matter of where you get them right now. Some places get the CCW as a free prize in a Cracker Jack's box. There should be a bit more to the training and more consistent training at that. I would even be fine with requiring that persons wishing to carry on their school grounds be required to undertake even further training. Right now, the schools are a great place to practice shooting at moving targets without fear of anyone shooting back. Ask yourself why there have never been any mass shootings at a gun show. There are THOUSANDS of guns there. And before the shooting I went to a gun show and there were more than a thousand AR-15's for sale and being carried.

Actually mimartin, I was saying it. And actually, I say DISARM OUR GOVERNMENT! If we cannot have it, the government shouldn't either. And that would include Nukes. And heck, if someone wants to buy a $5 billion nuclear powered submarine(I could see Larry Ellison wanting one)
You lost me...this has gone from what I thought was serious discussion, to nonsensical. If I want to be exposed to these types of arguments I will just listen to Rush, Hanity, or foxnews...sounds like their talking points.

I never said a pistol was better than a AR-15. I said in my opinion a assualt weapon is crap for home defense. I have three pistols, but that isn't what I will grab if someone breaks into my home.

The problem with this debate in the end is symbolism over substance. NY just passed a very restrictive gun control law that limits the number of bullets per mag/clip to be only 7. How many criminals are gonna give a rat's ass what these laws say? Those who'd trade their liberty for false promises of security deserve neither and will lose both. FTR, lest my position be twisted out of context, I'm fine with certain regulations (reqs to take gun safety courses, that people have to safely store their guns, etc..). I just recognize that creating laws that often go unenforced/are unenforceable is symbolic bs meant to appeal to emotion and little else. Btw, I'm less worried about some militia guy shooting me in a gun free zone like the post office than I am about a drunken illegal hitting me when I'm on the road.

You lost me...this has gone from what I thought was serious discussion, to nonsensical. If I want to be exposed to these types of arguments I will just listen to Rush, Hanity, or foxnews...sounds like their talking points.

I never said a pistol was better than a AR-15. I said in my opinion a assualt weapon is crap for home defense. I have three pistols, but that isn't what I will grab if someone breaks into my home.

Maybe I didn't explain it very well. I do not believe that our government should have things you would not trust the common person with. And that would include nuclear devices. I would not want a person to have one of those, and don't feel that the government should either. Tanks, and jets, why not? Heck, we have all those aging A-10's that might actually be fun to fly(It could also help with our budget:D ). Look at the people in our government. Would you really call them smart? Who's finger would you trust on the trigger, yours or GW?

I personally prefer a shotgun for home defense, but it is far easier for my girlfriend to wield the AR than the shotgun. Plus the recoil on it is far less than the shottie. She's WAAAY more accurate. And she doesn't end up with a bruise.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159830/debt-gov-dysfunction-rise-top-americans-issue-list.aspx)

*whistles innocently*


Cliffs for the lazy:
Apparently the American people don't give two ****s about gun control, but the politicians sure do. I wonder why. Could this all be an elaborate ruse to distract the citizenry's attention away from the lousy job that they're doing while making yet another blatant power-grab that benefits no one but them (and the criminals, too, but hey, what's the difference :p)?
/tinfoil

NRA says possibly put guards in schools: OHMYGOD EVILS
Obama says maybe put guards in schools: *Cheering fanfare*

Feinstein uses tragedy to push antigun legislation she's been trying to push for years: antigunners cheer
NRA says maybe we should look deeper at the causes: OHMYGOD You're politicizing the murder of 20 innocent kids.

Sometimes I just wish we could be two separate countries.....

NRA says lock up those with mental problem (even though they have done nothing wrong, but only a doctor says they could), so we take away someone's freedom on the chance they could be a danger to themselves or others because people, who are really too irresponsible to own a gun, don't want to act like responsible adults and keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals, children and those with mental issues. Oh the inconvenience I have to report something stolen or I have to preform a backgroup check and not be able to sell my gun to this two time loser.

To hell with "due process" lock them up.

NRA says lock up those with mental problem (even though they have done nothing wrong, but only a doctor says they could), so we take away someone's freedom on the chance they could be a danger to themselves or others because people, who are really too irresponsible to own a gun, don't want to act like responsible adults and keep their weapons out of the hands of criminals, children and those with mental issues. Oh the inconvenience I have to report something stolen or I have to preform a backgroup check and not be able to sell my gun to this two time loser.

To hell with "due process" lock them up.

That would work a heck of a lot better than getting rid of "Assault Weapons." Of course we both know the NRA did not say that, but whatever. They did say have a database of those that ARE mentally ill and violent. Interestingly the same thing Obama wanted to do(cue fanfare). Maybe you confused the statements the NRA said. They wanted to lock up violent criminals. And they also wanted to get the mentally ill the help they need.

That would work a heck of a lot better than getting rid of "Assault Weapons." Of course we both know the NRA did not say that, but whatever.
I know for darn sure a idiot representive of the NRA did say that. It was a idiot, but so are most of their talking heads.


I hadn't thought of this, someone pointed it out to me, 1. I wish someone would have been armed at Fort Hood to stop that mass shooting. 2. There was a armed guard a Columbine....hmmm seems this isn't the rainbow and puppy dog fix the NRA seem to making it out to be. Don't believe me - Neil Gardner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7cUaJ80gs)

I know for darn sure a idiot representive of the NRA did say that. It was a idiot, but so are most of their talking heads.


I hadn't thought of this, someone pointed it out to me, 1. I wish someone would have been armed at Fort Hood to stop that mass shooting. 2. There was a armed guard a Columbine....hmmm seems this isn't the rainbow and puppy dog fix the NRA seem to making it out to be. Don't believe me - Neil Gardner (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci7cUaJ80gs)
As for the quote, I would like a confirmation of it. Who said to lock up the mentally ill.

You ever been on a military base? Ever tried to carry a firearm on a military base? Thanks to the higher ups, only a few people are allowed and only in specific areas for their duties. Military personnel are no better off on a base than most civilians are waiting on the police. Just to be clear on that one.

As for Columbine: According to the CNN reports of that day, and official reports, he DID in fact save several dozen lives. even though he started from OFF CAMPUS and had to rush from the "smoker's pit" to the scene of the shooting.

But don't worry, it was the AR-15's that they were carrying that made their killing so easy. Just like Cho used his AR-15. wait....

As for the quote, I would like a confirmation of it. Who said to lock up the mentally ill. I heard it on the radio...I am not going to look it up. I could careless if you have your confirmation or not.

Even if I were to find it you would spin it back to assualt weapons, which I have already said I could careless either way about.

Oh and I have been on a miltary base many, many times...as a matter of fact I have been in Fort Hood many times. Best friend was stationed there for about 5 years. I have also seen a armed officer walk up to me and ask me why I was looking at a radio in a Humvee. Was a little scared until he saw that my friend everything was fine. It may be a miltary base, but it is still in the heart of Texas.

I heard it on the radio...I am not going to look it up. I could careless if you have your confirmation or not.

Even if I were to find it you would spin it back to assualt weapons, which I have already said I could careless either way about.


Okay, well I was just trying to see if it was you mistaking what LaPierre said for something else. I know his phrasing was something like "Lock up criminals and get the treatment for the mentally ill." Which I would understand the mistaken association. But since you're not willing to say who it was, nor when, nor provide any kind of verification... whatever.

But you were right in your post regarding the only way to get things done is through honest open talks. The problem is(much as I have demonstrated) people are often too heightened and tense to have a rational discussion. Thus far, it's been too much of a blame game. I mean we're just hearing that the Aurora shooter's "High Capacity Magazine" jammed on him(anyone who's used them knows it happens more frequently) so he switched to murdering people with the shotgun. The point is it is not what kind of weapon, but WHO gets the weapon. Blaming the firearm is about the same as LaPierre blaming video games and movies. For some it may trigger something. But we know almost nothing about the causes of the 3(recent) shootings. When we stop pointing the fingers, we might see the truth. I feel that schools SHOULD have someone to protect the children. I mean we have a cop at almost every Walmart all the time. Perhaps we could maybe protect our kids as well as Walmart?

The point is it is not what kind of weapon, but WHO gets the weapon.I agree with that... especially the WHO gets the weapon. And when the system and the gunowner allows them to get the weapon. They are also responsible for the murders. In the case of Sandy Brook, Virginia Tech shooting and Columbine these could have been limited had somone acted like responsible gun owners.

No I need not misunderstand anything. I am not stuid, I heard it on a rightwing nut job talk radio talk show. hanity, rush, savage, michael berry....not sure which one and I am not going to waste my time looking because at least in the case of rush I know they edit their transscripts.

I agree with that... And when the system and the gunowner allows them to get the weapon. They are also responsible for the murders. In the case of Sandy Brook, Virginia Tech shooting and Columbine these could have been limited had somone acted like responsible gun owners.

No I need not misunderstand anything. I am not stuid, I heard it on a rightwing nut job talk radio talk show. hanity, rush, savage, michael berry....not sure which one and I am not going to waste my time looking because at least in the case of rush I know they edit their transscripts.

The quote: Fair enough. That's probably why I never heard it. I don't listen to them.

Responsible gun owners: I think that most gun owners would agree that responsible gun ownership saves lives. If you have several firearms in the house, you NEED to have a safe. And that safe NEEDS to be bolted down. So what if you don't have kids. So what if you're the only one that lives there. BREAK IN'S HAPPEN! The problem with it, is enforcement. Adam Lanza's mother COULD have prevented the tragedy by following rule 5 of gun safety... ALWAYS maintain control of your firearm.

Actually, most of the accidents involving firearms require a violation of at least one firearm rule.
1 ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED. Never believe a firearm is not loaded, check it, and afterwards treat it as though it were loaded.
2 NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU SO NOT WANT TO DESTROY. That means don't point it at your friends even in jest.
3 KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO FIRE. Really. It's simple. A cop nearly blew the head off a subject because she was keying her mic and had her other finger on the trigger.
4 KNOW YOUR TARGET AND WHAT'S AROUND IT. A buddy of mine was shooting and after he was done, he was cleaning up and that's when the quads raced past on the trail that was between where he was standing and where he set up his targets.
5 ALWAYS MAINTAIN CONTROL OF YOUR FIREARM. If you aren't using or carrying it, LOCK IT UP. I think we covered that.

It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens. :wonder:

You know the old saying.....Do as I say, not as I do. ;)

It's more than a little hypocritical that the same administration that thought it was a good idea to "gunwalk" thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal) wants to prohibit legal ownership of the same type of weapons by law-abiding American citizens. :wonder:

No, that actually fits the idea that the firearms were able to be legally purchased here in the US by people who could pass the NICS check. What's hypocritical is that this administration sent Arms to Libyan Rebels (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) but thinks we shouldn't be able to purchase the same arms they GAVE AWAY.

america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.

america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.

You actually have a higher violent crime rate(per capita) than we do. Sure, if you eliminate guns, gun crime should go down. But that doesn't mean the crime stops. In fact according to your own government, rapes have gone up since the ban. Yes, gun crime went down. But you already had a lower gun crime rate than we did in the US. How many school shootings did you have BEFORE your ban. And guess what. Your gun crime went town 30% since your ban. OUR gun crime went down by 30% in the same time period. Your "Violent crime" went up during that time. Ours went down.


Oh and you are misinterpreting the meaning of the second. Read our supreme court ruling DC V Heller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html). It holds that the opening portion of the second was not a requisite for the second part. The second was put in for the same reason the third was put in. At the time the British government was preventing those persons from arming themselves, and forcing citizens in the colonies to quarter troops in their homes(and give up their crops, food, daughters etc.). King George was not very nice to the colonies. And the people there decided they had had enough and voiced their opinions. Keep in mind that the cannons used were also owned by private citizens, not connected with the military. So it was NOT specifically requiring militias, and DID cover for self defense... Oh and if you think a shotgun works for everyone, You're a fool. Smaller framed persons have a harder time with a big bore firearm such as a shotgun.

And we do have over 20000 laws on the book regarding firearms. Nost of them are useless feel good bans like the ones in CT that did not stop the shooting. Automatic weapons have been illegal to sell any new ones since the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act) which put a stop to new tax stamps being issued for firearms listed on the National Firearms Act of 1934 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)(which) included machine guns and automatic firearms, as well as rocket launchers, grenades, and a few other destructive devices). The only ones available for sale are too expensive for criminals to use. (http://www.nfasales.com/) They instead use illegally modified firearms like the AK-47's that were used during the North Hollywood Shootout that happened DURING the "Federal Assault Weapons Ban." The ones used in crimes are the illegally obtained ones. Generally stolen from Law Enforcement and the military.

america is a funny place, from an on looers point of view, they have taken their "right to bare arms" far too literal.. it was originally made for local militias in times of war and what have you, then twisted into a more self defense stance and justification to have a "arsenal" of weapons.. silly if you ask me.

if america insists on arming their citizens with little control (let's face it, gun control is disgraceful in the states) then make high rate of fire weapons and automatic weaponry illegal (sub machine guns, assault rifles etc) because if you want to defend your home, that is fair play.. but you only need a pistol or shotgun at best, just over kill to have an Uzi or M4 rifle or what ever they are. .

Just look at us n the UK, we have very strict laws and we have one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world. Don't get me wrong, we still have the odd shooting but only once a decade or so and not 3 to 6 massacres a YEAR america seems to have due to poor gun control and poor mindsets to weapons.
Aaaand again:
People need to read up on the original intention of the Second Amendment. (http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm)
The founding fathers wanted us armed to prevent our government from pushing us around like yours does to you.

The US is not a socialist nanny state yet, though we seem to be getting closer all the time.

I'll just throw my two cents here.

All empirical evidence – as well as plain old common sense – shows that gun control does not prevent violence and only leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless against it, whereas madmen and crooks could still obtain guns (well, most of them already get them illegally).

The Second Amendment clearly states: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And I'll just leave this (http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/32514-this-may-be-the-best-argument-for-the-second-amendment/) here.

I think a lot of the problem stems from 2 things: the misbegotten notion that making laws will protect you from those who care nothing for the law AND a desire to use govt to control the populace at some point down the road. If you disarm your populations, govt control becomes much easier.

It seems to me that increasing gun ownership restrictions makes a lot more sense for preventing suicides/crimes of passion than it does to prevent rampages.

I don't think it's too reasonable to base any laws on things which are so insignificant in terms of life loss as these rampages are. I feel the same about most terrorism; it simply isn't a big enough problem to justify the reaction it has obtained.

Mostly, I feel that if you have to reach for rare and emotional events like rampages to justify your political interests regarding gun control, you clearly are not looking in the right places for your reasons. If you want to ban guns to whatever extent, that's a perfectly legitimate goal-- but don't outright manipulate people who are hurting. It's crass and feels like going to someone's funeral so you can sell life insurance.

While I largely agree with you, I will point out both sides are doing manipulation and fear mongering to advanced their agenda.

I also think is disingenuous to point that gun control will does stop all violent crimes, when the same can be said about armed security does not stop these type of rampages. Nothing will stop crazies from killing if their mind is set on mass murder. The best you can hope for is limiting the number of victims while hoping your solution does not put more people in harm’s way.

Guns are not going away in this country, no matter what the extremist from either side tell you. Both parties love their gun too much, but that does not mean those in the middle of the debate can’t do things to ensure guns stay out of certain peoples (that are a known danger to themselves and others hands). Personally I would like to see guns take a little more effort to purchase than buying a BigMac. It is not invading someone's rights under the 2nd amendment to force them to be what the already should be in owning a gun, a responsible gun owners, with rights comes responsibilities.

Well, I for one am all for background checks on all purchases at gun shows, but since I don't have access to do background checks for a private sale, I have a problem with regulating outside of that. Unless they have a web interface that allows you to do a quick check without having the FFL license, no way. Not that I sell a lot of firearms(in fact I still own nearly every firearm I have ever purchased) but IF I decide to sell my old 30-06 to someone else, I would like the ability to do so without dragging myself down to the gun dealer, waiting in the long line for them to do an NICS check on all the other guys selling the right way(while criminals will simply take money to "lose" their firearm). Keep in mind Lanza actually couldn't get a firearm. So he stole one.

I agree it should not be overly complicated, what I think should be stopped is people legally buy guns and then selling them to criminals, so a gun owner should be responsible for their gun, if your gun is "stolen" then you should have to report it to the police or face the consequences when it is used by some criminal killing someone in Chicago (or anywhere else). Let face it, people that buy guns for profit to sale to people that can not legally purchase a weapon are not only breaking federal laws today, but are also aiding and abetting for whatever crime their weapon is used for. However, they use their get out of jail card, it was stolen and profit from the blood money. Close that loop hole, but as far as I am concern the NRA is aiding and abetting because they want to protect the criminal activity.

Keep in mind Lanza actually couldn't get a firearm. So he stole one. He took a gun that he had regular access to from his mother. In this case, I would say the mother is responsible for giving easy access to a gun, her punishment did not fit the crime though, she paid with her life for her irresponsibility. Too bad, her irresponsibly gun ownership cost others their lives.