in light of gun violence, where does one sell a used gun?

[eddief]

I know just about zero about guns, except that when my father passed, he left me with a fine condition Glock 26. Been sitting a long time in the back of the closet. I would actually feel safer without it. Where does one go to sell a used gun?

[MattTuck]

I know just about zero about guns, except that when my father passed, he left me with a fine condition Glock 26. Been sitting a long time in the back of the closet. I would actually feel safer without it. Where does one go to sell a used gun?

gunbroker.com

But, why sell it? Why not keep it in a safe or safety deposit box? I can understand not wanting to keep it in the closet.

[Louis]

could you remove the firing pin?

(Caveat: I know very little about guns.)

[dave thompson]

Eddie, don't attempt to sell it yourself. Take it to a reputable gun dealer and either consign it or sell it outright to them. They will do the necessary background check on a potential buyer and legally transfer the pistol to them. You will then be totally out of the picture.

[gemship]

I know just about zero about guns, except that when my father passed, he left me with a fine condition Glock 26. Been sitting a long time in the back of the closet. I would actually feel safer without it. Where does one go to sell a used gun?

Well since you're being righteous and thoughtful about it I think you should seek out a gun buy back program directed by your nearest police dept. After all it's not all about the money now is it? They will give you a couple hundred bucks for it, tax write off I imagine and the best part your taking it off the street which in essence is your achievable goal. Otherwise you risk selling to a crazy person and that would be some bloody irony for sure.

[Louis]

Eddie, don't attempt to sell it yourself. Take it to a reputable gun dealer and either consign it or sell it outright to them. They will do the necessary background check on a potential buyer and legally transfer the pistol to them. You will then be totally out of the picture.

Dave, as always, the voice of reason...

[bart998]

Nice gun. Similar to my M&P I carry off duty. It's worth about $400 if it's in near new shape. Dave's advice was good or you can check with your local PD and see if any of them would like to buy it. I bet one would, great for concealed carry. Or, go to an NRA course and learn how to use and store it safely. You'll have fun! No need to fear a gun, just get educated. I firmly believe in putting guns in the hands of good people to counter balance the bad ones who get them.

[gdw]

"Where does one go to sell a used gun?"

Oakland.

[mossman]

+1 to police buyback program, so it's properly disposed of.

[carpediemracing]

Before you transport it anywhere, check with your destination (police dept, gun broker, etc) before you move the gun. Typically gun owners are allowed to transport a gun to buy it or to go to a competition, probably to sell it, but if you end up transporting it and not selling it and something happens (car accident, moving violation, car is stolen, etc) you could be facing a felony offense.

I'd check local gun laws too as every state is radically different. It may be that you can carry it where ever you want with no penalty.

[Llewellyn]

Deleted

[Louis]

OK, I'm now officially taking bets: How long until the thread is locked?

Over/Under = 11 hours

[MattTuck]

OK, I'm now officially taking bets: How long until the thread is locked?

Over/Under = 11 hours

I think we are a civil bunch here and will keep this on topic. If it is locked in under 11 hours, I'll donate $10 to the forum.

[dave thompson]

There's an assumption that all buyback programs finish with the purchased firearms being destroyed. Not necessarily so. In some cases, because of budget cuts to the public protection sector (police, fire departments etc.) the guns are bundled into "lots" and sold at auction to firearm dealers, the money going back to the departments that sold them.

In a majority of the buyback programs, the guns 'removed' from the streets are more often than not, very cheap, broken or otherwise unusable and have little if no value. The guns that the authorities want 'off the streets' are worth far more 'on the streets' that what the buyback programs offer. In my opinion, buyback programs are mostly a salve that makes us feel good about 'doing something' regarding firearms.

At the risk of highjacking Eddie's thread, my comment regarding gun control is that we are a nation of laws, but this only works if the laws are implemented and enforced. There are many laws on the books now, State and Federal, that aren't being enforced because of both budget and political reasons. That's what needs to change.

[akelman]

That's what needs to change.

And I would suggest, with all due respect to one of the forum members who deserves real respect, that that's only one among many things that needs to change. To be clear, I'm not advocating any position on this issue, as I don't think this is the appropriate place for such advocacy. I am, however, suggesting that all parties need to keep an open mind as the nation embarks on what's sure to be a very difficult dialogue about gun safety, mental health, and, as Dave suggests above, the rule of law.

[dave thompson]

I do think we are already seeing a shift, particularly in the dialog regarding firearms; ownership, rights and responsibilities. There's always the far right/left that are extremely loud but I think sensible folks will come to the forefront and do the real gruntwork in forming reasonable opinions, rules and perhaps new laws.

[beeatnik]

Big GBB program going on in LA at the moment.

When I was a kid, a school chum was in a gang. His gang was based in the local housing project and they had about 30 members. Many of them were under regular surveillance by the LAPD. His gang owned one gun, a 22. Innocent times...

[Ray]

No need to fear a gun, just get educated. I firmly believe in putting guns in the hands of good people to counter balance the bad ones who get them.

I agree with the first part of this and would like to agree with the second part. But we've got more legal guns in our society than anyplace in the world, the vast majority of them in the hands of good honest law-abiding folks, and we have the highest rates of gun violence too. So how's it working out? I'm not being antagonistic - I think it's a good rational argument. But I think the experiment has been in place for a long time now and the results don't seem to indicate that all of those good folks with guns seem to be stopping many of the bad ones. But I'd love to find out I'm wrong. Because they're not gonna just disappear, no matter what we do with the laws. So I'd like to somehow see a society full of guns work better regarding gun violence. Since we have the society full of them already.

-Ray

[LouDeeter]

There are gun shows in most large towns where you can sell guns, but it is just like selling bikes. The vest pocket dealers and real dealers want to pay low and sell high. You can transport a gun in most states without a permit by locking it unloaded, away from ammunition, in either a container or your glove box. Taking it to a gun shop for either an outright sale or consignment is probably the best way to sell it safely. www.gunbroker.com is a good place to get a feel for pricing. You have to have a federal firearms license to ship a gun so even if you list and sell, you'll still need to find someone with the license, like a gun shop, to ship it for you.

[rwsaunders]

I agree with the first part of this and would like to agree with the second part. But we've got more legal guns in our society than anyplace in the world, the vast majority of them in the hands of good honest law-abiding folks, and we have the highest rates of gun violence too. So how's it working out? I'm not being antagonistic - I think it's a good rational argument. But I think the experiment has been in place for a long time now and the results don't seem to indicate that all of those good folks with guns seem to be stopping many of the bad ones. But I'd love to find out I'm wrong. Because they're not gonna just disappear, no matter what we do with the laws. So I'd like to somehow see a society full of guns work better regarding gun violence. Since we have the society full of them already.

-Ray

Ray...I question your general statement that the US has the highest rates of gun violence in the world, but we are not the lowest by any means. It appears that we have the highest ownership per capita, but the study left out our good friends in China and Russia. I'm not even sure how Honduras can be measured...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world

I do agree that it's disturbing that 60% of all homicides in the US are from the use of a firearm, and that access to a firearm seems surprisingly simple. I am not qualified to comment beyond my personal opinion either, since statitiscs invloving personal safety, hunting and sport can sway the ownership numbers. I have to add that I don't own a firearm.

[Ralph]

There are gun shows in most large towns where you can sell guns, but it is just like selling bikes. The vest pocket dealers and real dealers want to pay low and sell high. You can transport a gun in most states without a permit by locking it unloaded, away from ammunition, in either a container or your glove box. Taking it to a gun shop for either an outright sale or consignment is probably the best way to sell it safely. www.gunbroker.com is a good place to get a feel for pricing. You have to have a federal firearms license to ship a gun so even if you list and sell, you'll still need to find someone with the license, like a gun shop, to ship it for you.

Lou.....With your military background I know you will know the answer to this. I have a friend who is "into" guns (he enjoys shooting at targets) and he says at gun shows about as many guns are sold and traded among the attending public themselves....without records or checks, as is sold by legitimate dealers following the law. Is this so? I've never been to one of these gun and knife shows....but do see big ads for them.

[93legendti]

A gun is safely and legally stored in a locked safe/gun vault. If you feel better, it can be stored in 3 pieces, per IDF regulations for keeping guns at home. Our guns are stored in a gun vault, the clips are stored in a second place and ammo is stored in a 3rd place.

If you're looking to sell, I'd google dealers in your area and call them up. I just bought a used gun Thursday morning from a local dealer.

[jpw]

what do the Swiss do?

[verticaldoug]

(12 days is all it took)

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.
That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

[witcombusa]

(12 days is all it took)

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. .

The remarkable thing to me was the massive surrender of the Aussie "sheep".

The problem is not the "cell phones, cars, guns", it's simply the PEOPLE using them.

Let's see you try and fix that!

[verticaldoug]

I don't advocate banning of firearms, but one thing the Port Arthur, Utoya Island, Aurora, Sandy Hook hand in common were the high capacity clips with assault rifles. You don't need 30+ clips, drums for hunting. In self defense, I doubt a full out fire fight is very effective either. When I was young and actively hunted, the size of magazine just correlated with the number of shells I wasted.

[93legendti]

http://www.examiner.com/article/australia-experiencing-more-violent-crime-despite-gun-ban
http:// www.newsmax.com/JohnLott/Lott-guns-Chicago-crime/2010/05/06/id/358060
Assault rifle is a made up term.
Weapons weren't allowed by the 2nd amendment only for hunting.

Violence increases because of gun bans. Australia and Chicago certainly know that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/chicago-gun-ban-axed-afte_n_627773.html
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/23/a-familiar-pattern-as-sales-of-firearms-go-up-…-crime-goes-down/
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-30/violent-crime-out-of-control/1373014

If gun bans reduced violence, Chicago would not be murder capital of the world.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/25/chicago-once-again-the-us_n_137804.html

[happycampyer]

I don't advocate banning of firearms, but one thing the Port Arthur, Utoya Island, Aurora, Sandy Hook hand in common were the high capacity clips with assault rifles. You don't need 30+ clips, drums for hunting. In self defense, I doubt a full out fire fight is very effective either. When I was young and actively hunted, the size of magazine just correlated with the number of shells I wasted.did you hunt actively, or were you actively hunted?

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . please keep in mind that there is sometimes a fine line between discourse and dispute," said Dave, with a jaunty tip of his Moderator's hat.

BBD

[mister]

Nice gun. Similar to my M&P I carry off duty. It's worth about $400 if it's in near new shape. Dave's advice was good or you can check with your local PD and see if any of them would like to buy it. I bet one would, great for concealed carry. Or, go to an NRA course and learn how to use and store it safely. You'll have fun! No need to fear a gun, just get educated. I firmly believe in putting guns in the hands of good people to counter balance the bad ones who get them.

gotta say this is a reasonable thought

i think the best way to make sure the gun doesn't end up in bad hands...continue to be the caretaker of the gun
learn to use it, or just store it in a safe, or both

[christian]

I think there is a fundamental question of whether one can ethically dispose of a handgun in this country in any way other than destroying it. Given the vast numbers of handguns in this country and the (correlated) number of handgun deaths, I tend to think the answer is no.

And I say this as someone who hunts, owns hunting rifles, and carried a H&K G3 (AK4) and an FN FNC (AK5C) in the service.

And though I think it's a separate topic, and substantially less germane to reducing firearm-related deaths, I am mystified by American fascination with "tactical" weapons. I know the HK41 semi-automatic version of the H&K G3 is a popular rifle in the states. I can understand what purposes it serves for police and paramilitary units, but hunting whitetail with a G3? No, I don't think so. Pretty much any standard .308 would be preferable.

[William]

A gun is safely and legally stored in a locked safe/gun vault. If you feel better, it can be stored in 3 pieces, per IDF regulations for keeping guns at home. Our guns are stored in a gun vault, the clips are stored in a second place and ammo is stored in a 3rd place.

If you're looking to sell, I'd google dealers in your area and call them up. I just bought a used gun Thursday morning from a local dealer.

+100

If you decide to keep it...

Locked and bolted to a floor in the closet or into wall studs.

http://pictures.gunauction.com/2647085256/11254434/41bevtazhnl.jpg_thumbnail0.jpg

http://www.center-of-mass.com/Images/ShotLock/ShotL1911ClosedLH1.jpg




William

[Ray]

Weapons weren't allowed by the 2nd amendment only for hunting.

Another good point, and true of the founder's intent, but with troublesome implications in the modern world. The point wasn't about hunting at all - it was about a defending against government run amok, which those folks had just finished fighting against in gaining independence and had a healthy disregard for. But in those days the best armed military you could ever expect to face was shooting muskets, with maybe an occasional canon tossed in for good measure. And any small militia could easily match that firepower and have a reasonable chance of a fair fight with relatively limited collateral damage. Today, there's no real hope of keeping pace with the US Military, if its the US government you fear. They've got drones, nukes, all kinds of fully automatic weapons. So if the US military really wants to put the smack-down on an individual or armed group, game over. We obviously don't want to allow any US citizen to be able to arm themselves well enough to take on the US military right? So then where to draw the line?

I think the founders had a really good point and clear intent. But realistically, the battle they were fighting with the intent of the second amendment has been lost. So the question, it seems to me, has to shift. We're never going to truly achieve THAT intent. So what's the next intent and are limits consistent with that? I really think the conversation has to shift because everything about the context has... For both better and worse...

-Ray

[oldpotatoe]

I think there is a fundamental question of whether one can ethically dispose of a handgun in this country in any way other than destroying it. Given the vast numbers of handguns in this country and the (correlated) number of handgun deaths, I tend to think the answer is no.

And I say this as someone who hunts, owns hunting rifles, and carried a H&K G3 (AK4) and an FN FNC (AK5C) in the service.

And though I think it's a separate topic, and substantially less germane to reducing firearm-related deaths, I am mystified by American fascination with "tactical" weapons. I know the HK41 semi-automatic version of the H&K G3 is a popular rifle in the states. I can understand what purposes it serves for police and paramilitary units, but hunting whitetail with a G3? No, I don't think so. Pretty much any standard .308 would be preferable.

I agree BUT the genie is out of the bottle and high capacity rifles and handguns are a common item. Exist in HUGE numbers in the US.

There must be some common ground and reason here. One ban on future assault type weapons/high capacity clip type weapons/ammunition designed to kill humans, does not mean the 2nd amendment will be repealed and the 'guvment' isn't going to come knocking on your door to 'take' your guns.

There HAS to be a way to control non background check sales at gun shows.

There HAS to be a way to track those with documented/diagnosed mental health disease so they do not buy a firearm.

Those who advocate some reason in light of this tragedy are not 'sheep' nor 'targets'. Those types of comments just builds the wall between the two groups and prevents any reasonable discussion to happen.

Kids shouldn't die. Their death is NOT the price of freedom.

[William]

Another good point, and true of the founder's intent, but with troublesome implications in the modern world. The point wasn't about hunting at all - it was about a defending against government run amok, which those folks had just finished fighting against in gaining independence and had a healthy disregard for. But in those days the best armed military you could ever expect to face was shooting muskets, with maybe an occasional canon tossed in for good measure. Today, there's no real hope of keeping pace with the US Military, if its the US government you fear. They've got drones, nukes, all kinds of fully automatic weapons. So if the US military really wants to put the smack-down on an individual or armed group, game over. We obviously don't want to allow any US citizen to be able to arm themselves well enough to take on the US military right? So then where to draw the line.

I think the founders had a really good point and clear intent. But realistically, the battle they were fighting with the intent of the second amendment has been lost. So the question, it seems to me, has to shift. We're never going to truly achieve THAT intent. So what's the next intent and are limits consistent with that? I really think the conversation has to shift because everything about the context has... For both better and worse...

-Ray

Ray, are you suggesting that since the public is now so out gunned with the military that they should just throw down and give up all arms? I'm certainly not suggesting escalation to catch back up (though some might), but just giving up the right to bear arms is exactly what the second amendment was against.




William

[christian]

I agree BUT the genie is out of the bottle and high capacity rifles and handguns are a common item. Exist in HUGE numbers in the US.But that's my point. If you are to act in an ethical manner, consistent with the 2nd formulation of Kant's categorical imperative, I don't think you can sell a (hand) gun. I think you have to destroy it. Selling a gun is perpetuating the prevalence of (hand) guns in the US. I think prevalence and access is (a substantial) part of the problem.

Kids shouldn't die. Their death is NOT the price of freedom."Freedom," let's say. Explicitly, it seems to me that that is actually exactly the calculus Americans (and, consequently, their elected representatives) have made. A given number of spree killings, and a vast number of individual hand gun deaths (intentional or not) are worth the right to possess the guns we want.

And I suspect that 6 months from now, absolutely nothing will have changed. If that turns out to be wrong, I'd be more shocked than I ever have been.

[Richard]

I think we (I at least) have to concede that the right to bear arms is here to stay. Given that, I think the debate about control should shift to a combination of regulation and market based solutions. For instance, much like we require auto owners to carry liability insurance, we should require gun owners to do the same. Let the insurance industry weave its magic to determine the cost associated with ownership and have the owners pay. Failure to maintain insurance would be a crime ala auto insurance with the penalty the loss of the gun. Just one thought.

[Elefantino]

And I suspect that 6 months from now, absolutely nothing will have changed. If that turns out to be wrong, I'd be more shocked than I ever have been.
Cynical.

True, too.

[verticaldoug]

I don't think anyone is saying give up the 2 Amendment. The question is whether or not there is a reasonable limitation. We have freedom of speech but cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.

Besides, if you ever fought with our Government, they'll just blow you up with a drone targeted to your cell phone. They don't need a gun anymore.

[oldpotatoe]

But that's my point. If you are to act in an ethical manner, consistent with the 2nd formulation of Kant's categorical imperative, I don't think you can sell a (hand) gun. I think you have to destroy it. Selling a gun is perpetuating the prevalence of (hand) guns in the US. I think prevalence and access is (a substantial) part of the problem.

"Freedom," let's say. Explicitly, it seems to me that that is actually exactly the calculus Americans (and, consequently, their elected representatives) have made. A given number of spree killings, and a vast number of individual hand gun deaths (intentional or not) are worth the right to possess the guns we want.

And I suspect that 6 months from now, absolutely nothing will have changed. If that turns out to be wrong, I'd be more shocked than I ever have been.

Yep. Lubricated by the huge amount of bribes(called donations to reelection campaigns).

I don't know. I'll bet the assault weapons ban will resurface. Whether or not it becomes law is another matter(see $/bribes above). Another election round in 2014.

[eddief]

I wrote my original posting when it was late yesterday in a long work day. I thought twice before writing as I wanted to be sensitive to the tragedy that took place in Newtown. I had no intention of starting a controversy here on the forum, but merely to get the practical answer to my question. But we here are such an amazing microcosm of the gun sentiment in the country. What an emotional and polarizing issue it is. We stopped a zillion people from smoking. We mostly all wear seatbelts when we drive. We mostly all wear helmets when we ride with no law to do so. We can take constructive steps to stopping some of the carnage.

[witcombusa]

But that's my point. If you are to act in an ethical manner, consistent with the 2nd formulation of Kant's categorical imperative, I don't think you can sell a (hand) gun. I think you have to destroy it. Selling a gun is perpetuating the prevalence of (hand) guns in the US. I think prevalence and access is (a substantial) part of the problem.

.


Of course you can sell a handgun.

You can destroy yours if that is your wish, but thinking that will help the issue is absurd. And if you do, you better keep whats left of it since you are responsible for it as long as you legally own it.

[Rada]

The remarkable thing to me was the massive surrender of the Aussie "sheep".

The problem is not the "cell phones, cars, guns", it's simply the PEOPLE using them.

Let's see you try and fix that!

Sounds like your saying it all boils down to the fact we have a lot more violent and stupid people in the USA than elsewhere.

[witcombusa]

I wrote my original posting when it was late yesterday in a long work day. I thought twice before writing as I wanted to be sensitive to the tragedy that took place in Newtown. I had no intention of starting a controversy here on the forum, but merely to get the practical answer to my question. But we here are such an amazing microcosm of the gun sentiment in the country. What an emotional and polarizing issue it is. We stopped a zillion people from smoking. We mostly all wear seatbelts when we drive. We mostly all wear helmets when we ride with no law to do so. We can take constructive steps to stopping some of the carnage.

"constructive steps"?

Haven't heard one yet. Eveyone is looking to "fix" the problem but refuse to see the real issue. It's the people that are broken.

Let's look at the drug problem. If people did not want the drugs, there would be no "drug problem". Sounds really simple right.

People are an uncontrollable commodity. They make up the very best and worst of what being human means. Stop blaming the "thing" for their actions.

[jr59]

I think I'll add one thing and stay out of this.
It's a hot button topic for sure.

Bad people will find a way to do bad things.
The "Assault weapons" term sure is a hot button.

To the person that sited the assuie piece.
I would look no farther than Mexico, and their srict gun laws.
They sure are finding ways to shoot each other there!
Or The United Kingdom, where it almost takes an act of the crown to
have a hand gun. Never seemed to bother the IRA!

Again, Bad people will find ways to do bad things!

[verticaldoug]

I lived in Japan for 17 years. Japan has few guns. I felt very safe. The police are more relaxed because they aren't worried about you pulling a gun on them. Now, I could carry a concealed weapon in Japan and probably feel even safer. However, Japanese society at large is probably less safe because of my actions.

Now, I also travel in parts of the sub Sahara Africa. There are parts of the region regardless of travelling with weapons, where you never really feel safe.

The United States seems to be somewhere between the two extremes. If given a choice, I prefer we move more to the Japan model although I feel like we are moving more to the banana republic.

[verticaldoug]

I think I'll add one thing and stay out of this.
It's a hot button topic for sure.

Bad people will find a way to do bad things.
The "Assault weapons" term sure is a hot button.

To the person that sited the assuie piece.
I would look no farther than Mexico, and their srict gun laws.
They sure are finding ways to shoot each other there!
Or The United Kingdom, where it almost takes an act of the crown to
have a hand gun. Never seemed to bother the IRA!

Again, Bad people will find ways to do bad things!

The irony here is we sell the guns to Mexico

[Ray]

Ray, are you suggesting that since the public is now so out gunned with the military that they should just throw down and give up all arms? I'm certainly not suggesting escalation to catch back up (though some might), but just giving up the right to bear arms is exactly what the second amendment was against.

No, I'm not suggesting banning or giving up all arms, but we already have limits (fully automatic weapons are not allowed are they - not that I get all the fine differences between semi and fully automatic) and it might be worth re-examining what we want to achieve with our gun policies, whatever they are. Since we're not going to reasonably be able to defend ourself against our own government at this point without an escalation that almost nobody would advocate, what is the next reasonable goal and how do we best achieve THAT? Is it self-defense against intruders? Hunting? Whatever it is, we should have reasonable limits that allow those goals to be met and hopefully reduce the amount of gun violence that's currently running rampant in our society. I'd never pretend that we can do away with that violence, but we should be able to greatly reduce it through a combination of measures, one part of which might involve gun and ammo regulation.

Or maybe we can't even make a dent, but its a conversation worth having in light of vastly changed circumstances since the original amendment was drafted...

Hell, I grew up in Arizona in the '60s and '70s, before it was nearly as populated as it is now. I did a good amount of shooting as a kid - I'll never forget the first time I shot a 30 aught 6 when I was a very skinny 10-11 year old - about took my arm off and knocked me on my ass. I don't have guns now, but we have them in the family and I don't have a problem with the idea that we should have that right. But its already not an unlimited right and I think it should be somewhat more limited than it is now.

-Ray

[phcollard]

This is an interesting discussion. I hope it's not going to slip into lock mode.

Being geographically out of the debate I don't have anything to add. I just sincerely hope that you guys will soon find a solution to stop the horror, whatever the solution is. I have never hidden my love for your country and all the good people in the USA. You deserve much better and I am confident that you will make it.

[jimcav]

Been shooting since i was a kid, and am still in the military (staff corps, not line, but still seems everyone has guns) . I have 3 firearms, 2 being handed down in the family, but NO ammo for them. I like to shoot and am a good shot. I have single-shot, spring-loaded pellet guns: air rifle and pistol, for when i feel like keeping up my shooting skills.
I personally see no need for any magazine of any capacity. The evolution of firearms has always been about the increasing ability to kill other people, which was arguably necessary as our nation pushed west over anything in the way, and then becoming a nation powerful enough that we are drawn into the wider world's conflicts. And so it goes from firearm to drones--USA makes the best, but it doesn't need to be in any/every household.
Individuals aren't supposed to have certain classes of lasers, yet we have just set the bar far too low on weapons in the home.
I'd vote single shot only. easy access to any weapons with multiple rounds means mass shootings, whether handgun or rifle. 4 revolvers = maybe 24 kids, 4 semi-auto, maybe 60 before reloading--which is damn fast with magazines. 4 single shot pistols, maybe 4, and much better chance of running clear or beating him with his own gun as he tried to get a single round loaded.

[witcombusa]

No, I'm not suggesting banning or giving up all arms, but we already have limits (fully automatic weapons are not allowed are they - not that I get all the fine differences between semi and fully automatic) -Ray



You can posess a fully automatic weapon legally in most locations. Class Three weapons have a process, fees and approvals to go through but it is there if you want to jump through the hoops required. Same holds true for silencers.

[christian]

Haven't heard one yet. Eveyone is looking to "fix" the problem but refuse to see the real issue. It's the people that are broken.Do you believe that Americans are, as a matter of course, more broken than, say, Canadians?

[Ray]

Been shooting since i was a kid, and am still in the military (staff corps, not line, but still seems everyone has guns) . I have 3 firearms, 2 being handed down in the family, but NO ammo for them. I like to shoot and am a good shot. I have single-shot, spring-loaded pellet guns: air rifle and pistol, for when i feel like keeping up my shooting skills.
I personally see no need for any magazine of any capacity. The evolution of firearms has always been about the increasing ability to kill other people, which was arguably necessary as our nation pushed west over anything in the way, and then becoming a nation powerful enough that we are drawn into the wider world's conflicts. And so it goes from firearm to drones--USA makes the best, but it doesn't need to be in any/every household.
Individuals aren't supposed to have certain classes of lasers, yet we have just set the bar far too low on weapons in the home.
I'd vote single shot only. easy access to any weapons with multiple rounds means mass shootings, whether handgun or rifle. 4 revolvers = maybe 24 kids, 4 semi-auto, maybe 60 before reloading--which is damn fast with magazines. 4 single shot pistols, maybe 4, and much better chance of running clear or beating him with his own gun as he tried to get a single round loaded.

To me this sounds very rational and something that a lot of gun supporters - not all but a lot - could support. I've never done any kind of shooting that would require more than a single shot and can't imagine when I'd want or need to in anything short of a combat situation. It might not be achievable with so many multi-shot weapons on the street already, but with time we could probably make a pretty serious dent in it. Look, even with today's lax laws, this kid gave up on buying his guns at the Sports Authority - if his Mom hadn't been so well armed he might not have done it, or might have gone in with weapons that would have enabled him to kill just a few people instead of almost 30. But his mom was armed to deal with the end of the world and, unfortunately, the end of HER world and too many others resulted.

-Ray

[Skenry]

To the original poster- I'll buy it if you are looking to sell rather than get rid of / or destroy. Its an easy process of your local gun shop doing the paperwork who ships it to my local gun shop.

Legal, safe and done.

Scott Henry
Dayton, OH

[witcombusa]

Do you believe that Americans are, as a matter of course, more broken than, say, Canadians?

YES!

Did you ever see the piece about the difference between the people living in Windor,ON vs. Detroit,MI? Just miles apart in physical distance and worlds apart in state of mind. Just watching what they're "exposed" to on their respective nightly news programs was amazing.

We have a very damaged culture here and it's only getting worse. And the guns are not the reason why...

[christian]

YES! Then doesn't it follow that it's irresponsible and unethical to sell a handgun to Americans? Or does the seller have to assess whether the buyer meets the "Canadian cultural/ethical standard"?

[PQJ]

Sounds like your saying it all boils down to the fact we have a lot more violent and stupid people in the USA than elsewhere.

We have more in common with radical islamic fundamentalists than we think.

[LouDeeter]

Lou.....With your military background I know you will know the answer to this. I have a friend who is "into" guns (he enjoys shooting at targets) and he says at gun shows about as many guns are sold and traded among the attending public themselves....without records or checks, as is sold by legitimate dealers following the law. Is this so? I've never been to one of these gun and knife shows....but do see big ads for them.


The gun show I go to in Orlando always has a LOT of police and a LOT of people looking to sell a gun person-to-person. The seller will stand outside the show with the gun and a sign. Or, they'll walk around inside with the sign visible. I have no idea how many actually exchange hands like this, but my guess is that it is a small percentage to the transactions with the dealers. There is also a lot of ammunition sold at this particular show. No checks needed to buy ammunition, just a drivers license which I've never been asked to show. And, LOTs of assault weapons for sale at these shows. There is a table where you can get a background check done while you wait.

[Ahneida Ride]

Police buy back programs are taxpayer paid buy back programs.
The buyback frns just don't emanate outa thin air.

Please save me the tax, throw it into a deep lake or the ocean.

[jr59]

YES!

Did you ever see the piece about the difference between the people living in Windor,ON vs. Detroit,MI? Just miles apart in physical distance and worlds apart in state of mind. Just watching what they're "exposed" to on their respective nightly news programs was amazing.

We have a very damaged culture here and it's only getting worse. And the guns are not the reason why...

Agree with this.
Canada has very, very lax gun laws. Yet you rarely hear of mass shootings!

[BumbleBeeDave]

We have a very damaged culture here and it's only getting worse. And the guns are not the reason why...

. . . and it's a whole different discussion.

There are already 300 million guns out there in our country alone. Even if we did the same thing as the earlier poster said Australia did and had the buyback with similar success, it would still leave 240 million guns out there. The horses have already escaped from the barn on banning guns. There's simply too many already out there.

BBD

[54ny77]

i think there's too many fishing reels in circulation. think of the fish. the fish!

http://www.funpeak.com/funnypics/huge-ugly-fish.jpg

[christian]

i think there's too many fishing reels in circulation. Yes, and that's just on my Saturday group ride! Ride Campagnolo!

[SamIAm]

I am in no way for modification to gun laws. There is evil in this world and man cannot contain it.

But if you are going to change gun laws, do it the right way and modify the constitution, then I will be on board, otherwise its just another attempt to circumvent the constitution.

[William]

. . . and it's a whole different discussion.

There are already 300 million guns out there in our country alone. Even if we did the same thing as the earlier poster said Australia did and had the buyback with similar success, it would still leave 240 million guns out there. The horses have already escaped from the barn on banning guns. There's simply too many already out there.

BBD

If you consider that statistic for a moment, 300 million firearms, that means there are a whole lot of gun owners out there not committing crimes with said guns. Not to take anything away from criminals or people with mental issues committing heinous crimes, but their numbers statistically are very small in comparison. Like anything in life, it's generally the small numbers at the fringe that cause the biggest problems.

I find myself somewhere in the middle. Do I think guns should be banned? No. Do I think the average Joe Citizen needs large capacity clips and AR style firearms? No. Do I think guns that the average John or Jane Doe owns should be single shot only? No. Do I have a problem with extensive background checks for evidence of criminal activity or mental instability? No. The problem in this discussion will be dealing with the fringes on both sides of this debate. I am in favor of reasonable discussion......how to define that will be the question.






William

[jr59]

Just because some nut job shoots people, doesn't mean we should ban weapons that were legally bought by law abbiding people.
That goes for ANY type of weapon!

It's like saying that drinking and driving kills people.
So lets ban all alcohol.

This is all a simple knee-jerk reaction. And a bad one at that!


CRAP!!!!

i told myself I would I wasn't going to get caught up in stuff like this any more!:mad:

[Tony T]

I am in no way for modification to gun laws. There is evil in this world and man cannot contain it.

But if you are going to change gun laws, do it the right way and modify the constitution, then I will be on board, otherwise its just another attempt to circumvent the constitution.

Not true. Existing laws already regulate the sale and ownership of guns. (See: Gun laws in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)))

Banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles and large capacity clips does not need a constitution amendment.

There is absolutely no reason for individual ownership of semi-automatic weapons with large capacity clips. Change comes slowly and one step at a time. And the time is now.

[witcombusa]

Then doesn't it follow that it's irresponsible and unethical to sell a handgun to Americans? Or does the seller have to assess whether the buyer meets the "Canadian cultural/ethical standard"?

No!

But I would not personally make that determination. I would sell it to a licensed firearm dealer. He would then have to deal with where it will legally go next. Here in CT, we actually already have some of the strictest requirements in the country.

[witcombusa]

Not true. Existing laws already regulate the sale and ownership of guns. (See: Gun laws in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)))

There is absolutely no reason for individual ownership of semi-automatic weapons with large capacity clips. Change comes slowly and one step at a time. And the time is now.

THIS is YOUR opinion. I personally disagree with you.

You do not have to buy one, but you have no right to keep me from doing so if I wish to.

[Ray]

i think there's too many fishing reels in circulation. think of the fish. the fish!


I'll take the bait.... nyuk. To use the analogy, there are a LOT of fishing reels in circulation, and they're not regulated. But they're all basically single "shot" technology, no? The thing that's analogous to semi-automatic or automatic guns would be large net fishing. And that's regulated with all sorts of technical standards to limit the damage they can do, no? So its more on point than you may have intended...

-Ray

[christian]

You do not have to buy one, but you have no right to keep me from doing so if I wish to.Do you believe there is there any negative externality which would impose such a cost on society that we should be able to regulate your behavior?

In other words, you're a sensible individual, so should you be allowed to own a grenade launcher? Sarin gas? A critical mass of fissible material?

I think you're throwing up straw men rather than trying to engage in rational conversation.

What objection would you have to a law that mandates, for instance, a maximum magazine capacity of 5 cartridges? For plinking, you can keep spare magazines, and for hunting, if you can't bring down an animal with 5 shots, you need to get out of the woods. The argument against would be what, re-loading convenience?

[jr59]

I am in no way for modification to gun laws. There is evil in this world and man cannot contain it.

But if you are going to change gun laws, do it the right way and modify the constitution, then I will be on board, otherwise its just another attempt to circumvent the constitution.

agree

Not true. Existing laws already regulate the sale and ownership of guns. (See: Gun laws in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)))

Banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles and large capacity clips does not need a constitution amendment.

There is absolutely no reason for individual ownership of semi-automatic weapons with large capacity clips. Change comes slowly and one step at a time. And the time is now.

STRONGLY DISAGREE

THIS is YOUR opinion. I personally disagree with you.

You do not have to buy one, but you have no right to keep me from doing so if I wish to.

Strongly agree!

[bluto]

There is absolutely no reason for individual ownership of semi-automatic weapons with large capacity clips. Change comes slowly and one step at a time. And the time is now.

+1000

Agree wholeheartedly. Something needs to change.

[Tony T]

THIS is YOUR opinion. I personally disagree with you.

You do not have to buy one, but you have no right to keep me from doing so if I wish to.

As of now, yes, I cannot keep you from owning/buying a semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity clip. That is why we need change to the existing laws. I would really like to see a buyback of existing assault rifles, but for now we must start with a ban on new sales.

As I said, there is absolutely no reason (none, nada, zip) for an individual to own a semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity clip.

[MattTuck]

OK, I'm now officially taking bets: How long until the thread is locked?

Over/Under = 11 hours

I think we are a civil bunch here and will keep this on topic. If it is locked in under 11 hours, I'll donate $10 to the forum.

I'm proud of you Paceline.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . you have no right to keep me from doing so if I wish to.

. . . and the wider problem. Keep in mind this is NOT a personal attack on witcomb--he just happened to be the one who said this.

So many Americans seem to feel that the freedoms described in the Constitution apply to anything they happen to want to do. Nobody has any right to keep anybody from doing anything they wish up to a certain limit. But that limit has now been stretched so far that everyone's desires are bumping up against what they can do without possibly hurting others.

BBD

[oldpotatoe]

As of now, yes, I cannot keep you from owning/buying a semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity clip. That is why we need change to the existing laws. I would really like to see a buyback of existing assault rifles, but for now we must start with a ban on new sales.

As I said, there is absolutely no reason (none, nada, zip) for an individual to own a semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity clip.

I agree.

I think the 'issue' is the perceived erosion of gun owner's rights. Too often many 'gun owner's rights' individuals see ANY gun regulation as the first step to gun bans, a police state confiscating guns, the very tyranny that the 2nd amendment was really written for.


That's simply not true, in spite of what the NRA would have you believe.

[azrider]

I've always gotten a kick out of those guys at my work (and anyone for that matter) who own semi automatic weapons with high volume mag clips response when asked "what they need it for" they're only defense is "It's my right."

Absolutely no "need" for those guns period. The law (which was written 2 centuries ago) is past due for a re-write. IMO

[witcombusa]

Do you believe there is there any negative externality which would impose such a cost on society that we should be able to regulate your behavior?


What objection would you have to a law that mandates, for instance, a maximum magazine capacity of 5 cartridges? For plinking, you can keep spare magazines, and for hunting, if you can't bring down an animal with 5 shots, you need to get out of the woods. The argument against would be what, re-loading convenience?

Not if MY behavior does not break any laws.

Again, why should I NOT be allowed to posess 30 or 40 round magazines if I wanted too. I will not be doing any illegal acts with them.

The problem is the people that will. Lets deal with that. How many people have died in the US in car accidents since last Friday? Let's ban cars....

[Vientomas]

Not true. Existing laws already regulate the sale and ownership of guns. (See: Gun laws in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)))

Banning the sale of semi-automatic rifles and large capacity clips does not need a constitution amendment.

There is absolutely no reason for individual ownership of semi-automatic weapons with large capacity clips. Change comes slowly and one step at a time. And the time is now.

Tony T and I agree on something. The Mayans must be right, the world IS coming to an end!

[azrider]

Again, why should I NOT be allowed to posess 30 or 40 round magazines if I wanted too. I will not be doing any illegal acts with them.

Lanza's mom wasn't "doing any illegal acts" with hers.......

And the car analogy is pretty weak in my opinion. A car or transportation in general is necessary. A semi automatic machine gun is absolutely not necessary.

[Vientomas]

Not if MY behavior does not break any laws.

Again, why should I NOT be allowed to posess 30 or 40 round magazines if I wanted too. I will not be doing any illegal acts with them.

The problem is the people that will. Lets deal with that. How many people have died in the US in car accidents since last Friday? Let's ban cars....

The operative word in your statement is "accident". Slaughtering children was no accident. A motor vehicle has a benign purpose. A semi-automatic weapon does not.

Why should I not be allowed to possess a rocket propelled grenade launcher? It looks cool when the rocket flies through the air and makes a big explosion on impact. If I own 5000 acres and want to blow up junked cars, I should have the right to do with with such a weapon, right?

[witcombusa]

What objection would you have to a law that mandates, for instance, a maximum magazine capacity of 5 cartridges? For plinking, you can keep spare magazines, and for hunting, if you can't bring down an animal with 5 shots, you need to get out of the woods. The argument against would be what, re-loading convenience?


So do you need a car with say 400 horsepower? You could get to work and back with say 100hp. Assuming you don't "lose you license" with speeding tickets and reckless driving, why shouldn't you be able to own it? You certinely could kill yourself and other driving it you know....

[bart998]

.

[Tony T]

Not if MY behavior does not break any laws.

Again, why should I NOT be allowed to posess 30 or 40 round magazines if I wanted too. I will not be doing any illegal acts with them.

The problem is the people that will. Lets deal with that. How many people have died in the US in car accidents since last Friday? Let's ban cars....

You know that you cannot just do something just because you want to. The law now allows the sale and ownership of assault-type weapons. I have the right to ask my elected representatives to change that law (and you have the right to ask them not to). That's how it works in the USA.

No one here is looking for a ban on all weapons

Instead of a ridiculous automobile comparison, why not explain why you need a semi-automatic weapon with a 40 round clip?

[William]

I've always gotten a kick out of those guys at my work (and anyone for that matter) who own semi automatic weapons with high volume mag clips response when asked "what they need it for" they're only defense is "It's my right."

Absolutely no "need" for those guns period. The law (which was written 2 centuries ago) is past due for a re-write. IMO

Again, people on the fringes. Most of the folks who own the 300 million guns (or so) in this country are law abiding citizens with handguns, rifles, and shotguns that are not the "AR/high volume clips" people. Even of "those people" , the majority again are law abiding citizens.

I believe in the right to bear arms. I believe that I need to be able to take care of myself and my family. I wholly support and often work with Law Enforcement, but they are responders most of the time. I'm willing to talk about AR style guns and high capacity clips and their availability to the general public. I'm not willing to talk about outright bans or limitations to single shot guns. A six round revolver, single shot hunting rifle, <eight round clips, pump action shotgun, or double barrel shotguns are as far as I feel the average citizen needs to go imo.







William

[witcombusa]

The operative word in your statement is "accident". Slaughtering children was no accident. A motor vehicle has a benign purpose. A semi-automatic weapon does not.

Why should I not be allowed to possess a rocket propelled grenade launcher? It looks cool when the rocket flies through the air and makes a big explosion on impact. If I own 5000 acres and want to blow up junked cars, I should have the right to do with with such a weapon, right?


Is it an "accident" when they are drunk, texting or simply not paying attention? Not in my mind it's not.


Absolutely!

Pretty sure they do this at some of the "Shoots" they hold on private land in Texas. Quad 50BMGs, tanks, mortars, etc.

[christian]

Not if MY behavior does not break any laws.

Again, why should I NOT be allowed to posess 30 or 40 round magazines if I wanted too. I will not be doing any illegal acts with them.
Because the negative externalities of people being allowed to own large-capacity magazines is that some owners thereof can use them to more efficiently shoot first-graders. That is, the overall cost to society is greater than the benefit to individuals. Same reason you're generally not allowed to own a Nile Crocodile.

Based on your response, and since you clipped that question from your quotation of my post, I take it you're ok with people owning Sarin gas and nuclear weapons, then? I mean, you wouldn't do anything bad with Sarin gas, so generally, it should be allowable? If not, why not? I'm not being contentious, I want to understand where you draw the line.

For me, some one wanting to own a Sako L691 6.5x55 seems reasonable, even if a Sako L691 could very efficiently be used to kill someone. The added benefit of a 30-cartridge magazine on a HK41 strikes me as over the line between personal benefit (you can hunt deer or shoot targets with either) vs. negative societal externality.

What's the additional benefit of a 30-cartridge magazine on an HK41, to the average "sporting" user, over a 5-cartridge magazine?

[54ny77]

200+ years ago, the right to bear a long steel pipe filled with gunpowder that may or may not plunk a Brit in the head with a 1/2" steel ball was a lot more legitimate than today's cry for the right of Discovery Channel to film Sons of Guns as they make a suppressed 50 caliber rifle. It's a pretty big intellectual leap, but a lot of people make it and cling to it.

Besides, the Republic is firmly entrenched: you absolutely will not win a fight against today's law enforcement or military. Maybe 200+ years ago that was the case (well, obviously it was).

[sg8357]

[QUOTE=SamIAm;1259132
But if you are going to change gun laws, do it the right way and modify the constitution, then I will be on board, otherwise its just another attempt to circumvent the constitution.[/QUOTE]

Nobody is talking about banning flint locks, you can still have your militia weapons.
As strict constitutionalist, I say you can have any weapon available
in 1788. A load of grape from a 12 pound Napoleon is just the thing for black helicopters. :)

[cfox]

Not if MY behavior does not break any laws.

Again, why should I NOT be allowed to posess 30 or 40 round magazines if I wanted too. I will not be doing any illegal acts with them.

The problem is the people that will. Lets deal with that. How many people have died in the US in car accidents since last Friday? Let's ban cars....
So because you say you won't do anything bad...that's a reason? Why aren't private citizens allowed to own fully armed tanks or nuclear bombs? Really, if I had a nuke, I promise I wouldn't hurt anyone with it. I'd be really careful, I promise. I have a clean record.

You shouldn't own a 30 round semi-auto rifle because its stupid. Why? because there is no justification for a private citizen to need a weapon of such destructive force. In the wrong hands, it can create destruction at at a far faster rate than conventional private firearms. And despite gun owners best intentions, these guns do end up in the wrong hands.

[Tony T]

Sorry, I completely disagree. This is the old "in those days the guns were only muskets" argument. The 2nd Amendment was written in case the people had to fight their own government again. A musket put you in parity with the military in those days. While a low capacity gun is sufficient for most sporting/home defense uses, it is fairly useless as the 2nd amendment was intended.

The Founding Fathers were fearful as to what a future national government might do domestically with a powerful military, so their idea was that the people should all be armed. That is the meat of the 2nd amendment.

An assault rifle is no match against the full power of the US Army.

So, as I said, there is absolutely no reason for an individual to own an semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity clip.

[azrider]

I'm not willing to talk about outright bans or limitations to single shot guns. A six round revolver, single shot hunting rifle, <eight round clips, pump action shotgun, or double barrel shotguns are as far as I feel the average citizen needs to go imo.

I agree with you 100%. I own a pump action shotgun and have considered for a while to purchase a handgun. But there needs to be stricter laws, rules, and regulations with regard to these military grade weapons.

[eddief]

they are gorgeous and this website would suggest being put to a fine peaceful use:

http://ukvarminting.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2789&st=20

Because the negative externalities of people being allowed to own large-capacity magazines is that some owners thereof can use them to more efficiently shoot first-graders. That is, the overall cost to society is greater than the benefit to individuals. Same reason you're generally not allowed to own a Nile Crocodile.

Based on your response, and since you clipped that question from your quotation of my post, I take it you're ok with people owning Sarin gas and nuclear weapons, then? I mean, you wouldn't do anything bad with Sarin gas, so generally, it should be allowable? If not, why not? I'm not being contentious, I want to understand where you draw the line.

For me, some one wanting to own a Sako L691 6.5x55 seems reasonable, even if a Sako L691 could very efficiently be used to kill someone. The added benefit of a 30-cartridge magazine on a HK41 strikes me as over the line between personal benefit (you can hunt deer or shoot targets with either) vs. negative societal externality.

What's the additional benefit of a 30-cartridge magazine on an HK41, to the average "sporting" user, over a 5-cartridge magazine?

[Elefantino]

Too often many 'gun owner's rights' individuals see ANY gun regulation as the first step to gun bans, a police state confiscating guns, the very tyranny that the 2nd amendment was really written for.
It's the classic slippery slope, used by all political persuasions.

Take away my assault weapons, and next you'll want to take away my handguns
Ban late-term abortions, and next you'll ban all abortions
Allow gays to marry, and next you'll allow marriage between species
Raise taxes on the rich, and next you'll raise them on me
Allow the Palestinians statehood, and Israel will be pushed into the sea
Allow drilling in ANWR, and next you'll want to drill in my back yard


I'd list the camel's nose arguments for allowing blacks to go free, for women to vote and for requiring all girls to have HPV vaccines, but you get the idea.

[Ken Robb]

Too many "experts" on weapons writing and talking about "clips" when they mean "magazines".

[christian]

So do you need a car with say 400 horsepower? You could get to work and back with say 100hp. Assuming you don't "lose you license" with speeding tickets and reckless driving, why shouldn't you be able to own it? You certinely could kill yourself and other driving it you know....In an attempt to further the conversation, I'll address this. If 400 hp cars were shown to kill drivers and innocent fellow road users at a substantially higher rate than 100 hp cars, I would have no objection to banning them.

Incidentally, even if I'm not really for banning guns, I might be for significant liability insurance premiums for gun owners, based on actuarial criteria and guns owned. Imagine that - cars with 400 hp are already substantially more expensive to insure than 100 hp cars.

Do we agree that gun owners should be forced to have strict liability insurance before purchasing a gun? And that the premium for a 22-year old with a G3 should be higher than a 60-year old with a muzzleloader?

[BumbleBeeDave]

Are there any of these situations where owners of Campy and Shimano would be able to co-habitate? Now THAT's scary . . .

BBD

[cfox]

The country couldn't afford a standing army at the time the Constitution was written, so it was relying on its citizens to provide its defense. That's what the 2nd amendment was written for. The Founding Fathers were brilliant in that they wrote the Constitution to be able to change with the times (hint: times have changed). Read a book sometime.

[Tony T]

Too many "experts" on weapons writing and talking about "clips" when they mean "magazines".

And yet, not one expert has given a reason why they need a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity "clip".

[witcombusa]

You shouldn't own a 30 round semi-auto rifle because its stupid. Why? because there is no justification for a private citizen to need a weapon of such destructive force. In the wrong hands, it can create destruction at at a far faster rate than conventional private firearms. And despite gun owners best intentions, these guns do end up in the wrong hands.


Actually you are misinformed about this.

A 5 shot auto loader shotgun, let's say your dad's old Browning 5, with 5 rounds of 00 buck (9 pellets of .30cal) can put out 45, .30cal projectles in a few seconds.

[cfox]

And yet, not one expert has given a reason why they need a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity "clip".

come on Tony, it's for "PROTECTION!!". I've never understood this protection thing...protection from whom? Do people think there are marauding bands of gunmen NOT invading suburbia because they fear a homeowner has a gun? Unless you sleep with it under your pillow, a gun responsibly locked up isn't going to do you much good at 2 am when the bad guys show up. Life is a crapshoot, and, reality check, your house is less safe with a gun inside.

[firerescuefin]

come on Tony, it's for "PROTECTION!!". I've never understood this protection thing...protection from whom? Do people think there are marauding bands of gunmen NOT invading suburbia because they fear a homeowner has a gun? Unless you sleep with it under your pillow, a gun responsibly locked up isn't going to do you much good at 2 am when the bad guys show up. Life is a crapshoot, and, reality check, your house is less safe with a gun inside.

Maybe your house. I'm no AR/assault weapon fan....but your opinion is ignorant/myopic at best.

[azrider]

Actually you are misinformed about this.

A 5 shot auto loader shotgun, let's say your dad's old Browning 5, with 5 rounds of 00 buck (9 pellets of .30cal) can put out 45, .30cal projectles in a few seconds.

The gunman in the Connecticut shooting blasted his way into the elementary school and then sprayed the children with bullets, first from a distance and then at close range, hitting some of them as many as 11 times, as he fired a semiautomatic rifle loaded with ammunition designed for maximum damage, officials said Saturday. -Washington Post Article

Can those .30cal projectiles you speak of do as much damage as the bullets from the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle that was used in CT?

It was also the weapon of choice in the 2002 Washington-area sniper shootings, which left 10 dead and three wounded in a series of attacks that terrorized the capital region.

"The gun, weapon analysts say, has a reputation for easy handling and deadly accuracy." -WP

You're running out of arguments......

[Tony T]

come on Tony, it's for "PROTECTION!!". I've never understood this protection thing...protection from whom? Do people think there are marauding bands of gunmen NOT invading suburbia because they fear a homeowner has a gun? Unless you sleep with it under your pillow, a gun responsibly locked up isn't going to do you much good at 2 am when the bad guys show up. Life is a crapshoot, and, reality check, your house is less safe with a gun inside.

You know, I accept the augment that a handgun is needed for the protection of one's home. (and I see the counter argument that it can be less safe with a gun inside). It's the assault (type) rifles that I have not seen one valid argument for. I'm willing to discuss this, so please someone explain to me why you see the need.

[Aaron O]

I'm hoping I can get top dollar in the grey market for mine :eek:

[Tony T]

The gunman in the Connecticut shooting blasted his way into the elementary school.....

The first responders were quickly on the scene. The CT State Police are of the opinion that the murderer put the handgun to his head when he heard that they arrived, possibly saving more innocent lives (hundreds of rounds were found in clips at the scene).

[verticaldoug]

Actually you are misinformed about this.

A 5 shot auto loader shotgun, let's say your dad's old Browning 5, with 5 rounds of 00 buck (9 pellets of .30cal) can put out 45, .30cal projectles in a few seconds.

Yes, it has pellets, but at 15 yards, the spread is like 5 inches and at 25 yards, 12 inches? So number of individual targets is still probably smaller than a 30 shot magazine on a AR-15. The police liked the shotgun with buckshot for a reason. Pure intimidation. And if you get hit, you don't get up.

[oldman]

You know, I accept the augment that a handgun is needed for the protection of one's home. (and I see the counter argument that it can be less safe with a gun inside). It's the assault (type) rifles that I have not seen one valid argument for. I'm willing to discuss this, so please someone explain to me why you see the need.

No one? Zombie apocalypse. (oh, right, that's just the movies)

Pretty well resigned that AR type weapons will be banned. Ok with that, just leave my other weapons alone. See no reason for private citizens to own AR type weapons.

[Aaron O]

I really don't have a problem with anyone owning assault rifles as hobbyists/collectors (with a suitable background check and, perhaps, a periodic re-examination of that person's status), my issue is that we need to ensure adequate storage. Whether that is at the firing range, a secure locker, etc.

I really think we should be encouraging responsible behavior via stricter liability standards.

[texbike]

Nobody is talking about banning flint locks, you can still have your militia weapons.
As strict constitutionalist, I say you can have any weapon available
in 1788. A load of grape from a 12 pound Napoleon is just the thing for black helicopters. :)


This is funny!!! :)

Texbike

[William]

Too many "experts" on weapons writing and talking about "clips" when they mean "magazines".

Slang term, but I know exactly what they mean.:)




William

[texbike]

We have a very damaged culture here and it's only getting worse. And the guns are not the reason why...

This is it. WHY are we focusing on the tools used to commit the atrocities instead of the actual causes? With the number of guns in circulation in the U.S., we will NEVER be able to reduce the number of them to effectively impact crimes committed with firearms.

We should be looking at WHY these people are committing the crimes in the first place. Our culture glorifies violence and especially violence committed with firearms. We are bombarded with images of violence on a daily basis through TV, movies, video games, etc. It's only natural that a certain percentage of our population is going to emulate what they see and commit the atrocities that have occurred over the last several years.

IMO, we should be working to reduce the number of violent images and the culture of violence that our youth is exposed to instead of worrying as much about the hardware used....

Texbike

[Kirk007]

Contrast this: Roughly 3000 folks perished on 9/11 to terrorists. We all know the response. Wars in two countries. Restrictions on our personal freedoms - intrusive bodily searches at airports. Billions upon billions of dollars spent to get the people with the guns.

With this: According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms. This year alone we are over 8,000. In other words, we suffer around 3 9/11s every year and do nothing about it. Where is the outrage? Where is the response? It took the death of children for us to even step out of the corner we've been cringing in, our politicos intimidated or bought off by the NRA, to even say that ok we can "have a discussion." Oh the courage.

Yes, I agree with Whitcomb and others - we have a complex culture/people problem. Which is exactly why there should be reasonable gun control. We cannot solve the people problem easily, particularly when the very same constituency that advocates so strongly for unfettered access to gun laws simultaneously campaigns to starve the beast of government; limiting social services that are available to the very people who need them most.

We can all argue until the cows come home, using logic, strawmen, misreadings of the Constitution - is it strict construction or a living document - and not a single word spoken can refute this one fact: that kid could not have committed the massacre that he did without the high powered weapons that he was able to access, and that performed exactly as the manufacturer intended them to: to kill people.

This is such a clear case of but for causation. But for the guns in his hands, some, maybe all of those kids would be alive. If he brings a knife, some folks get harmed but 28 do not die. Same day last week a madman in China did exactly this. NO deaths. If he brings guns with limited capacity, well, he may well have still killed a lot of kids. So we can argue over extent of harm, but I will never, ever be convinced by any argument that these rampages would be equally deadly even if the shooters did not have access to these types of weapons.

To those who argue that there is an unfettered right to possess whatever weapon you choose, I would ask this: Is your conviction so strong that you could look one of those Connecticut parents in the eye or any other person who haans lost a loved one to a gun, particularly an assault weapon, in America and tell them, I'm sorry for your loss but I am entitled. As am American, I am entitled to possess a weapon of mass destruction in order to defend myself agains the tyranny of our government. I for one would like to hear those voices - the voices of Americans who have paid the price for other Americans' "right" to carry an assault weapon.

Our founding fathers fought for freedom for all. The 2nd Amendment was unquestionably designed to help ensure that freedom. But times have changed and those that use the 2nd Amendment as the rationale for unfettered possession of assault weapons and related ilk are turning the concept of freedom on its head. Freedom to own these weapons compromises the freedom of every American. Freedom includes being to live without unreasonable fear of being gunned down by someone who is having a bad day let alone a madman. It should not require personal enactment of the quid pro quo arms race of the cold war.

[William]

This is it. WHY are we focusing on the tools used to commit the atrocities instead of the actual causes? With the number of guns in circulation in the U.S., we will NEVER be able to reduce the number of them to effectively impact crimes committed with firearms.

We should be looking at WHY these people are committing the crimes in the first place. Our culture glorifies violence and especially violence committed with firearms. We are bombarded with images of violence on a daily basis through TV, movies, video games, etc. It's only natural that a certain percentage of our population is going to emulate what they see and commit the atrocities that we've seen over the last several years.

IMO, we should be working to reduce the number of violent images that our youth is exposed to instead of worrying as much about the hardware used....

Texbike

Just like constant advertising, look at any night of television on network or cable tv. How many shows and movies have to do with using firearms/crimes/violence? It's one of the reasons we got rid of cable and don't watch much television at all.





William

[Kirk007]

IMO, we should be working to reduce the number of violent images and the culture of violence that our youth is exposed to instead of worrying as much about the hardware used....

Texbike

So we can put limits on the 1st Amendment but not the 2nd. Not disagreeing re the impact of all the factors texbike lists, just sayin' if we're talking about the Constitution ....

[Tony T]

This is it. WHY are we focusing on the tools used to commit the atrocities instead of the actual causes?

Maybe here, but there is now a renewed discussion on the state of treatment of people with mental health issues.

I don't think that anyone thinks that banning assault rifles and large capacity clips will solve the problem. This is just one step to try to fix a problem.

Less than 20 children aged 6-7 would have been murdered if the murderer did not have access to the weapon he had. That fact is indisputable, and that fact alone is enough to ban the weapon. Again, if anyone could give me a reason why an individual citizen needs this weapon, I'm listening.

I'm still weeping at the thought of senseless loss of those children.

[palincss]

Assault rifle is a made up term.


Yes, it's the English translation of the name given to the first of the breed, the Sturmgewehr 44, literally literally "storm (or assault) rifle (model of 19)44"). Do you think that makes it any the less useful or true?

[palincss]

I think there is a fundamental question of whether one can ethically dispose of a handgun in this country in any way other than destroying it


Of course there is. The last firearm I owned, I sold to a commissioned officer in the United States Army.

[texbike]

So we can put limits on the 1st Amendment but not the 2nd. Not disagreeing re the impact of all the factors texbike lists, just sayin' if we're talking about the Constitution ....

I'm not referring to an action against the 1st amendment. I'm talking about working as parents, peers, and citizens to communicate to our children and those around us that violence is wrong and not to be glorified. I'm talking about putting consumer pressure on the networks and production studios to not produce or distribute violent content.

Violence has always been a part of our country - it's a part of our heritage and who we are (for better or worse). However, the amount of violent content has increased exponentially over the last 50 years as TV and other media have proliferated. If we want to reduce the amount of violence, we need to exert peer pressure on those around us (including those creating and distributing violent content) to realize that violence is NOT glamorous or acceptable.

Texbike

[Jeff N.]

gunsamerica.com As long as the buyer sends you a check and a signed copy of a federal firearms license, you can send it to the address on the FFL legally. Gunshops usuall want about 20% of the selling cost for commission on consigned pieces, which is a ripoff:eek:

[Jeff N.]

There are gun shows in most large towns where you can sell guns, but it is just like selling bikes. The vest pocket dealers and real dealers want to pay low and sell high. You can transport a gun in most states without a permit by locking it unloaded, away from ammunition, in either a container or your glove box. Taking it to a gun shop for either an outright sale or consignment is probably the best way to sell it safely. www.gunbroker.com is a good place to get a feel for pricing. You have to have a federal firearms license to ship a gun so even if you list and sell, you'll still need to find someone with the license, like a gun shop, to ship it for you.
Not true. As long as you have a current signed copy of someone's FFL, you can send the gun to the address on that FFL for any legitimate purpose (repair, sale, etc.) without being an FFL holder yourself, so long as you are a legitimate firearms owner.

[William]

To those who argue that there is an unfettered right to possess whatever weapon you choose, I would ask this: Is your conviction so strong that you could look one of those Connecticut parents in the eye or any other person who haans lost a loved one to a gun, particularly an assault weapon, in America and tell them, I'm sorry for your loss but I am entitled. As am American, I am entitled to possess a weapon of mass destruction in order to defend myself agains the tyranny of our government. I for one would like to hear those voices - the voices of Americans who have paid the price for other Americans' "right" to carry an assault weapon.

I don't feel that the average person has a right to carry a "weapon of mass destruction" as in high capacity military/LE style weapons, but I do feel that we as people have the right to self protection. My heart broke when I heard what was happening and my stomach still gets upset when I think about it. But, it's incidents like this that make my conviction stronger for the right to be able to protect myself.




William

[DukeHorn]

Why do we need to change the Constitution if most folks are not asking for a gun ban?

This is where it gets strange. 74% of NRA members polled state that they'd support a background check on gun purchasers. 87% (I think) of the general populace state that they'd support a background check.

Yet, we can't get that legislation off the ground due to the gun lobby.

Look, very few people are arguing for an outright ban on firearms. The battle is over where the line should be drawn (.50 caliber machine guns, cop killer bullets, large capacity magazines, automatic weapons, semi-automatic). What the NRA is afraid is that once it gives some ground, it'll have to give up all the ground. The slippery slope argument arises as well on the abortion debate.

I'm sure the vast majority of Americans think that there's some middle ground on these debates that would satisfy the populace as a whole (let's say: background checks, registration, no automatic weapons, no large capacity magazines for firearms and no abortions past the first trimester except for health of the mother), but we can't even talk about the "reasonable" areas to draw the lines due to the invested heavies on the right and the left.

[54ny77]

where is the vast majority of those 47k+ murders taking place and who are the vast majority of victims? in other words, how much of the FBI-reported ~15k murder and nonnegligent manslaughter stats for 2011 is criminal-on-criminal violence? how much is the result of otherwise law abiding citizens protecting themselves from violent crime? how much is from general dumbass accidental shooting?

broad statistics can get waved around to suit any agenda.

Contrast this: Roughly 3000 folks perished on 9/11 to terrorists. We all know the response. Wars in two countries. Restrictions on our personal freedoms - intrusive bodily searches at airports. Billions upon billions of dollars spent to get the people with the guns.

With this: According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms. This year alone we are over 8,000. In other words, we suffer around 3 9/11s every year and do nothing about it. Where is the outrage? Where is the response? It took the death of children for us to even step out of the corner we've been cringing in, our politicos intimidated or bought off by the NRA, to even say that ok we can "have a discussion." Oh the courage.

[palincss]

And though I think it's a separate topic, and substantially less germane to reducing firearm-related deaths, I am mystified by American fascination with "tactical" weapons. I know the HK41 semi-automatic version of the H&K G3 is a popular rifle in the states. I can understand what purposes it serves for police and paramilitary units, but hunting whitetail with a G3? No, I don't think so. Pretty much any standard .308 would be preferable.

I share that mystification, and agree with your conclusion. Clearly, hunting whitetail is not what these weapons are about. The cartridges are typically varmint rounds, but again the design of the M16 or the AK47 (the only two of the breed I have any personal hands-on experience with) do not lend themselves to the classic varmint hunting use case (long distance, scope sighted, etc.).

I've only ever talked to one owner of a M16-type weapon. This was back in 1999; we'd had Eric Raymond over to the local Linux Users' Group and after the meeting he proposed the "Geeks With Guns" meet the following day at the NRA range in Fairfax for some target practice. I showed up with a couple of air pistols, and there was a nice assortment of handguns in the group.

As we're shooting, I notice the woman on the firing line to my left. About 5' tall, 98 lb stick insect build, with an M16 (OK, an AR-15 or some other civilian model, but after Vietnam they're all M16 derivatives to me). Anyone familiar with this weapon knows there's virtually no recoil - you could put the butt plate on your head and blast away and it wouldn't hurt you (try that with an M1 and it'd put you on your ass in a heartbeat). It's one of the huge advantages of the design.

So there she is, blasting away, and at every discharge, she staggers back and almost falls down. Clearly, the gun's far too powerful for her ability to handle it. I ask her why she owns the weapon and she tells me it's for Y2K survival.

Now Y2K survival was a big deal for me, too, but it was accomplished with software upgrades, not military hardware. If you know anything about federal government use-or-lose leave carryover, you'll appreciate that it was a big deal to have almost 3 weeks of annual leave carried over. It was a huge effort.

I understand the M16 design is now a popular class for target shooting, and this does make sense, it being the basis for the standard military rifle. It was much the same back in the day with the Springfield, the M1 and the M14. But I doubt most of the owners are actually engaging in formal target competition where using one of the homologated class is important.

So what is it, really? One other person told me he was "getting ready for the zombie apocalypse," but can that actually be serious? Or was it just a joke?

I, like Ken Robb, was an officer in the Ordnance Corps. We learned all about weapons, it was our business. It was fun, but it was serious business, and treated very seriously. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't think preparation for the zombie apocalypse is something we should take seriously and treat with respect.

[cfox]

Contrast this: Roughly 3000 folks perished on 9/11 to terrorists. We all know the response. Wars in two countries. Restrictions on our personal freedoms - intrusive bodily searches at airports. Billions upon billions of dollars spent to get the people with the guns.

With this: According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms. This year alone we are over 8,000. In other words, we suffer around 3 9/11s every year and do nothing about it. Where is the outrage? Where is the response? It took the death of children for us to even step out of the corner we've been cringing in, our politicos intimidated or bought off by the NRA, to even say that ok we can "have a discussion." Oh the courage.

Yes, I agree with Whitcomb and others - we have a complex culture/people problem. Which is exactly why there should be reasonable gun control. We cannot solve the people problem easily, particularly when the very same constituency that advocates so strongly for unfettered access to gun laws simultaneously campaigns to starve the beast of government; limiting social services that are available to the very people who need them most.

We can all argue until the cows come home, using logic, strawmen, misreadings of the Constitution - is it strict construction or a living document - and not a single word spoken can refute this one fact: that kid could not have committed the massacre that he did without the high powered weapons that he was able to access, and that performed exactly as the manufacturer intended them to: to kill people.

This is such a clear case of but for causation. But for the guns in his hands, some, maybe all of those kids would be alive. If he brings a knife, some folks get harmed but 28 do not die. Same day last week a madman in China did exactly this. NO deaths. If he brings guns with limited capacity, well, he may well have still killed a lot of kids. So we can argue over extent of harm, but I will never, ever be convinced by any argument that these rampages would be equally deadly even if the shooters did not have access to these types of weapons.

To those who argue that there is an unfettered right to possess whatever weapon you choose, I would ask this: Is your conviction so strong that you could look one of those Connecticut parents in the eye or any other person who haans lost a loved one to a gun, particularly an assault weapon, in America and tell them, I'm sorry for your loss but I am entitled. As am American, I am entitled to possess a weapon of mass destruction in order to defend myself agains the tyranny of our government. I for one would like to hear those voices - the voices of Americans who have paid the price for other Americans' "right" to carry an assault weapon.

Our founding fathers fought for freedom for all. The 2nd Amendment was unquestionably designed to help ensure that freedom. But times have changed and those that use the 2nd Amendment as the rationale for unfettered possession of assault weapons and related ilk are turning the concept of freedom on its head. Freedom to own these weapons compromises the freedom of every American. Freedom includes being to live without unreasonable fear of being gunned down by someone who is having a bad day let alone a madman. It should not require personal enactment of the quid pro quo arms race of the cold war.

brilliant. everyone read this twice.

[palincss]

Another good point, and true of the founder's intent, but with troublesome implications in the modern world. The point wasn't about hunting at all - it was about a defending against government run amok, which those folks had just finished fighting against in gaining independence and had a healthy disregard for. But in those days the best armed military you could ever expect to face was shooting muskets, with maybe an occasional canon tossed in for good measure. And any small militia could easily match that firepower and have a reasonable chance of a fair fight with relatively limited collateral damage. Today, there's no real hope of keeping pace with the US Military, if its the US government you fear. They've got drones, nukes, all kinds of fully automatic weapons. So if the US military really wants to put the smack-down on an individual or armed group, game over. We obviously don't want to allow any US citizen to be able to arm themselves well enough to take on the US military right? So then where to draw the line?


I don't think anyone's seriously suggesting the 2nd amendment permits civilians to own machine guns, RPGs or nuclear weapons. Given that, I think the "slippery slope" argument is simply nonsense.

[palincss]

"constructive steps"?

Haven't heard one yet. Eveyone is looking to "fix" the problem but refuse to see the real issue. It's the people that are broken.


There are broken people, sure. There will always be broken people. There's validity to the argument that broken people will be a lot less dangerous if they're less well armed.

[Kirk007]

I don't feel that the average person has a right to carry a "weapon of mass destruction" as in high capacity military/LE style weapons, but I do feel that we as people have the right to self protection. My heart broke when I heard what was happening and my stomach still gets upset when I think about it. But, it's incidents like this that make my conviction stronger for the right to be able to protect myself.




William

No disagreement from me (and I know from your posts how seriously you take training, respectful/appropriate ownership etc.) My uncle was a Philadelphia detective in the 40s and 50s and my dad was a cop for awhile (my Irish heritage); I grew up hunting, and I'm not anti-gun but I do believe in limits.

[DukeHorn]

The Terminator signed this legislation in 2005 re: .50 caliber weapons and it did cause some controversy

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/national/04guns.html?_r=0

[johnmdesigner]

My father passed away 3 years ago. I went back to clean out the house. He was an avid gun collector but mostly bolt action 5 shot rifles.
When I was stripping his bed I found a loaded .32 S&W automatic under his pillow.
I really couldn't imagine how sleeping with this steel lump under his head could be comfortable or make him feel secure.
It was designed to kill people. The barrel was so short that when I took it out for a test firing I had to be about 8-10 feet away to hope to even hit the target (and I am a good shot). 5 ft would have been more reasonable.
I lived in this Midwestern town in my youth. The police department was **** then and not much better now. It's proximity to the Interstate makes it a prime location for the drug trade.
But I ask you - someone enters your house - you have to be 5 ft away to even hit them in broad daylight with this thing - what's the point?
A .410 single shot would have done more damage not to mention the sound would scare the **** out of any intruder.
Long story short- I sold the long guns to a local shop but took the sledgehammer to the S&W. It was beautifully designed and felt good in the hand but like nuclear weapons has no place in our modern society.
PS: A distant cousin of mine is a gunsmith for the US army. He recently purchased a .50 sniper rifle. When I asked him why his reply was "because I can".

[Kirk007]

My father passed away 3 years ago. I went back to clean out the house. He was an avid gun collector but mostly bolt action 5 shot rifles.
When I was stripping his bed I found a loaded .32 S&W automatic under his pillow.
I really couldn't imagine how sleeping with this steel lump under his head could be comfortable or make him feel secure.


Guns and our aging population is a whole other story. My father in law has dementia. In the early stages he took to patrolling his house with his hunting rifle in hand and a pistol under the bed. His wife was scared as hell, and it was a real struggle to get the guns, then the knives, out of the house. He was furious, and clever - we found weapons hidden in unlikely places (saving grace was he couldn't remember where he hid them). He was a farmer's son; a World War II vet who survived the Battle of the Bulge. He had been around and used guns all of his life. The last gun we found hidden away was a Nazi officer"s handgun that he had brought home. It was loaded.

[palincss]

I am in no way for modification to gun laws. There is evil in this world and man cannot contain it.

But if you are going to change gun laws, do it the right way and modify the constitution, then I will be on board, otherwise its just another attempt to circumvent the constitution.

Do you believe the constitution permits you to own rocket propelled grenades, mortars, howitzers or tactical nuclear weapons? If not, what's the basis for differentiation?

Is it whether you as an individual can carry the piece? I can see where that would rule out the howitzer, but that would still leave the mortar and the RPG in. And do hand grenades count?

[firerescuefin]

It was beautifully designed and felt good in the hand but like nuclear weapons has no place in our modern society.

PS: A distant cousin of mine is a gunsmith for the US army. He recently purchased a .50 sniper rifle. When I asked him why his reply was "because I can".

Exaggerate much (comparing a handgun used for personal defense to a nuke)

Don't see a lot of arguments on here for 50cal sniper rifles....I have been trained on a myriad of weapon systems. I am deadly accurate with my handguns far outside of 5-10 ft.

There are people from both sides that have made excellent points. As many have alluded to. No one really wants to address the core issues.

[93legendti]

Yes, it's the English translation of the name given to the first of the breed, the Sturmgewehr 44, literally literally "storm (or assault) rifle (model of 19)44"). Do you think that makes it any the less useful or true?

I think it's neither useful, nor true...other than for proponents of gun control. My friends in the military don't call their M-4 flat tops and Tavors "assault rifles"- whether they are standing guard or on an operation. And their rifles have an auto switch-even if they never use it.

[witcombusa]

Can those .30cal projectiles you speak of do as much damage as the bullets from the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle that was used in CT?

"The gun, weapon analysts say, has a reputation for easy handling and deadly accuracy." -WP

You're running out of arguments......

Actually, inside of 20 yards, it would do more damage.

.223 or 5.56cal is a relatively weak round by rife standards. Many in the military fought it's acseptence over the .308Win/7.62 NATO round. One of the reasons was because many entering the service in the 60's had never shot a rifle before and couldn't handle the recoil of the .308 round. (they also could hit the side of a barn)

Who's arguing? I'm attempting to inform.

[palincss]

Lanza's mom wasn't "doing any illegal acts" with hers.......

And the car analogy is pretty weak in my opinion. A car or transportation in general is necessary. A semi automatic machine gun is absolutely not necessary.

Machine guns are fully automatic, not semi auto.

[SamIAm]

Do you believe the constitution permits you to own rocket propelled grenades, mortars, howitzers or tactical nuclear weapons? If not, what's the basis for differentiation?

Is it whether you as an individual can carry the piece? I can see where that would rule out the howitzer, but that would still leave the mortar and the RPG in. And do hand grenades count?

Great points! I stand corrected.

[phcollard]

brilliant. everyone read this twice.

It is indeed. Thanks for writing this.

Seen from the outside this really looks like a cultural thing you know. And it's been so many generations that it looks like it's embedded in your DNA now. Sure the American culture is all about freedom, sure your Constitution allows you to own an gun. And I am sure everyone who replied to this thread is a very nice guy, no exception.

But I fail to understand why there are still so many people in favors of guns after what happened. Don't flame me down though, I told you I'm sure it's a cultural thing and I wasn't born in a freedom-to-own-a-gun culture, nor do I live in one now. But I read you and I try to understand. I think a ban program wouldn't be accepted because it touches the very root of your culture: freedom.

But why would you want to own a gun designed to hunt people, why would you want to own military class weapons. This can only be bad. What's the good in that? I cannot accept the self defense thing. Sure you will tell me it's your life against the other's. But if the other wasn't so well armed from the start that wouldn't happen. It's just escalation. Just like the cold war, we had to have more nuclear weapons because the Russians had more, and so on. I need an assault rifle because the guy in front of me may have one. And you know I almost puked when I heard this NRA guy saying "if the teacher had a gun she probably could have saved many lives this day". How dare you, really. This is so inappropriate and totally lacking respect for the victims. They have a large part of responsibility and now they want us to believe they are the solution? Vomit here.

I wish I was better in written English to express my feelings. As I said earlier I sincerely wish you all the best, and I have faith that you will find a solution to stop the horror.

[Tony T]

And do hand grenades count?

Can someone please explain to me why a semi-automatic assault-type rifles for individual citizens have an attachment available for a grenade launcher?

[93legendti]

The truth is we should make gun classes and psych tests mandatory for gun purchase. I own several guns. I have no problem with that.

The other truth is we don't protect our kids in schools. I went 9 rounds with my kids' private pre-school about their desire to leave the doors wide open during school, so as to facilitate a "warm atmosphere". The local security advisor to the Jewish Federation submitted a damning report to them-they didn't care. I offered to buy a safety card entry system-they didn't care. Thank G-d the school is out of business.

IF we really wanted to protect our kids, we would hire suitable ex-military (who can't find jobs and otherwise) to protect our kids. One armed guard per school would go a long ways. Criminals and crazies like sitting ducks, not shoot outs. My kids' school has an armed guard and elaborate safety precautions. Thank G-d. Daniel Laufer choose a movie theatre in a gun free zone. The known presence of armed guards deters. That's why politicians and stars use armed guards.
A few years ago I was at an event for Israel (during the 2nd Lebanon War). I saw the guard for the Israeli Envoy's bodyguard with a thick bulge under his jacket and I approached him (slowly) and told him I could see his gun. He told me that "we want people to know I am armed." I think the Israelis know a bit about security.
Think of all the redundancies we have in schools for protecting our kids from fire: extinguishers, alarms, sprinklers, emergency exits, fire retardant wall materials, fire doors. What do we have for protecting kids against a kidnapper, gunman or other crazy? Nothing.

[MattTuck]

Presented without comment. Needless to say, the OP should find a healthy market for his weapon.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-18/gun-sales-soar-aftermath-newtown-killings

[William]

The truth is we should make gun classes and psych tests mandatory for gun purchase. I own several guns. I have no problem with that.

The other truth is we don't protect our kids in schools. I went 9 rounds with my kids' private pre-school about their desire to leave the doors wide open during school, so as to facilitate a "warm atmosphere". The local security advisor to the Jewish Federation submitted a damning report to them-they didn't care. I offered to buy a safety card entry system-they didn't care. Thank G-d the school is out of business.

IF we really wanted to protect our kids, we would hire suitable ex-military (who can't find jobs and otherwise) to protect our kids. One armed guard per school would go a long ways. Criminals and crazies like sitting ducks, not shoot outs. My kids' school has an armed guard and elaborate safety precautions. Thank G-d. Daniel Laufer choose a movie theatre in a gun free zone. The known presence of armed guards deters. That's why politicians and stars use armed guards.
A few years ago I was at an event for Israel (during the 2nd Lebanon War). I saw the guard for the Israeli Envoy's bodyguard with a thick bulge under his jacket and I approached him (slowly) and told him I could see his gun. He told me that "we want people to know I am armed." I think the Israelis know a bit about security.
Think of all the redundancies we have in schools for protecting our kids from fire: extinguishers, alarms, sprinklers, emergency exits, fire retardant wall materials, fire doors. What do we have for protecting kids against a kidnapper, gunman or other crazy? Nothing.

The High School where my son attends has a Police Officer on the grounds. It's a very good school with no history of violence yet they had made the choice to take this step a while back.







William

[palincss]

.223 or 5.56cal is a relatively weak round by rife standards. Many in the military fought it's acseptence over the .308Win/7.62 NATO round. One of the reasons was because many entering the service in the 60's had never shot a rifle before and couldn't handle the recoil of the .308 round. (they also could hit the side of a barn)


Some other advantages that make the 5.56 useful to the military:

- less recoil means more controllability on fully automatic fire without a lot of weight that makes carry difficult (M14 on full auto was useless; the BAR was great on full auto, but weighed a hell of a lot)
- volume of fire is very important in combat, hence the desirability of controllable high rates of fire
- smaller, lighter round means individual soldier can carry more ammunition, and transport trucks can similarly carry more ammunition
- military would prefer to wound rather than kill, because wounding the enemy ties up a long logistical chain of hospitals, etc., whereas they can just walk away and leave their dead
- analysis of modern combat shows most actions are at fairly close range, typically no more than 300 meters, and the much greater range of the WWI type rifle cartridge provides no real benefit
- smaller, lighter round lets you make a smaller, lighter weapon that is much handier in close quarters than something the size of the M1 or M14

How much of that means anything for civilian use? Not much.

[phcollard]

The High School where my son attends has a Police Officer on the grounds. It's a very good school with no history of violence yet they have made the choice to take this step.

Really? Jesus Christ. So that's a common thing in the USA? That's new to me... And I don't know what to think. I'm just flabbergasted.

[johnmdesigner]

Exaggerate much (comparing a handgun used for personal defense to a nuke)

Don't see a lot of arguments on here for 50cal sniper rifles....I have been trained on a myriad of weapon systems. I am deadly accurate with my handguns far outside of 5-10 ft.

There are people from both sides that have made excellent points. As many have alluded to. No one really wants to address the core issues.

If you feel the need for personal protection does that mean that you are not satisfied with the protection provided by local law enforcement?
Have you ever complained to your representatives about it or do you just continue to pay your taxes without demanding adequate services?

[christian]

Violence has always been a part of our country - it's a part of our heritage and who we are (for better or worse). However, the amount of violent content has increased exponentially over the last 50 years as TV and other media have proliferated.Thanks to the export engine that is Hollywood, much of the world is watching the same shows. You're not seeing nearly the same incidence of handgun violence in other industrialized western countries. I'm inclined to believe it's probably less about the TV and more about the guns.

[palincss]

Can someone please explain to me why a semi-automatic assault-type rifles for individual citizens have an attachment available for a grenade launcher?

I can explain to you why a military rifle would have an available attachment for a grenade launcher. A grenade launcher can be damned handy in combat. I can explain to you why that military rifle might have a full auto selector switch, or a flash suppressor, or a provision to attach a bayonet. I can explain why someone in the National Guard or the Army Reserve would want to train with the same weapon they would be expected to use if called up.

I can't imagine the usefulness of those things for civilians.

[christian]

Some other advantages that make the 5.56 useful to the military:

- less recoil means more controllability on fully automatic fire without a lot of weight that makes carry difficult (M14 on full auto was useless; the BAR was great on full auto, but weighed a hell of a lot)
- volume of fire is very important in combat, hence the desirability of controllable high rates of fire
- smaller, lighter round means individual soldier can carry more ammunition, and transport trucks can similarly carry more ammunition
- military would prefer to wound rather than kill, because wounding the enemy ties up a long logistical chain of hospitals, etc., whereas they can just walk away and leave their dead
- analysis of modern combat shows most actions are at fairly close range, typically no more than 300 meters, and the much greater range of the WWI type rifle cartridge provides no real benefit
- smaller, lighter round lets you make a smaller, lighter weapon that is much handier in close quarters than something the size of the M1 or M14

How much of that means anything for civilian use? Not much.
The ballistics makes it worse for deer but the increased carry capacity makes it more effective for a group of people in malls? Sorry, is that in bad taste?

[akelman]

So that's a common thing in the USA?

It's becoming more and more common, yes. You'd think, based on the arguments offered by 2nd Amendment absolutists, that with more than 100 million guns in circulation, people would feel safer. And yet, the more guns that are out there, the less safe we seem to feel.

[Rueda Tropical]

Again, if anyone could give me a reason why an individual citizen needs this weapon, I'm listening.

Any idiot can arm himself like a Middle Eastern militia. Guys with anger management problems, mental problems, with you name it problems - can walk around armed with a deadly weapon.

In the local news recently we have had a guy get shot by another patron for complaining about his pizza taking to long (claimed stand your ground), a guy who killed a (black) teen because his radio was annoyingly loud (claimed stand your ground), and the list could go on for pages. These were not mentally ill people, just a-holes with guns.

With freedom comes responsibility. Where arms are concerned we have lots of the one but none of the other. Thats half the problem. The other half (when it comes to wanton mass shootings rather then the everyday murders by family and close acquaintances with guns around, accidental shootings, suicides by gun, etc., ) is the sorry state of mental health services.

[BumbleBeeDave]

"To those who argue that there is an unfettered right to possess whatever weapon you choose, I would ask this: Is your conviction so strong that you could look one of those Connecticut parents in the eye or any other person who haans lost a loved one to a gun, particularly an assault weapon, in America and tell them, I'm sorry for your loss but I am entitled. As am American, I am entitled to possess a weapon of mass destruction in order to defend myself agains the tyranny of our government. I for one would like to hear those voices - the voices of Americans who have paid the price for other Americans' "right" to carry an assault weapon."

After this event, I don't see any othe assumption for me personally to make except that those who are in favor of retaining the right for private citizens to own fully automatic or semi-auto military style weapons have made the value judgement, at least in their own minds, that it's worth it for innocents to die so they can still have what they want, regardless of whatever reason they've publicly given for wanting to own.

Even 5-10 year old child innocents. They've decided their right to own whatever kind of gun they want is worth those other people dying for. Even little kids.

BBD

[christian]

After this event, I don't see any othe assumption for me personally to make except that those who are in favor of retaining the right for private citizens to own fully automatic or semi-auto military style weapons have made the value judgement, at least in their own minds, that it's worth it for innocents to die so they can still have what they want, regardless of whatever reason they've publicly given for wanting to own.

Even 5-10 year old child innocents. They've decided their right to own whatever kind of gun they want is worth those other people dying for. Even little kids.
This is the obvious and only rational inference. But it's not just those who own guns who have decided it is worth the lives of first graders. It's all of us. Every American.

[Climb01742]

i think you could argue that america's greatest strength is not individual liberty, but a collective will toward a 'more perfect union'. it's why our constitution begins not with 'I" but with 'We'...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

have we become so selfish, so singularly focused on our own individual 'rights' that we won't give something up for the greater good of our nation? does me really trump we?

[johnmdesigner]

i think you could argue that america's greatest strength is not individual liberty, but a collective will toward a 'more perfect union'. it's why our constitution begins not with 'I" but with 'We'...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

have we become so selfish, so singularly focused on our own individual 'rights' that we won't give something up for the greater good of our nation? does me really trump we?

Sadly yes.

[93legendti]

The High School where my son attends has a Police Officer on the grounds. It's a very good school with no history of violence yet they had made the choice to take this step a while back.







William

I think that's a great idea.

[Kirk007]

The truth is we should make gun classes and psych tests mandatory for gun purchase. I own several guns. I have no problem with that.

The other truth is we don't protect our kids in schools. I went 9 rounds with my kids' private pre-school about their desire to leave the doors wide open during school, so as to facilitate a "warm atmosphere". The local security advisor to the Jewish Federation submitted a damning report to them-they didn't care. I offered to buy a safety card entry system-they didn't care. Thank G-d the school is out of business.

IF we really wanted to protect our kids, we would hire suitable ex-military (who can't find jobs and otherwise) to protect our kids. One armed guard per school would go a long ways. Criminals and crazies like sitting ducks, not shoot outs. My kids' school has an armed guard and elaborate safety precautions. Thank G-d. Daniel Laufer choose a movie theatre in a gun free zone. The known presence of armed guards deters. That's why politicians and stars use armed guards.
A few years ago I was at an event for Israel (during the 2nd Lebanon War). I saw the guard for the Israeli Envoy's bodyguard with a thick bulge under his jacket and I approached him (slowly) and told him I could see his gun. He told me that "we want people to know I am armed." I think the Israelis know a bit about security.
Think of all the redundancies we have in schools for protecting our kids from fire: extinguishers, alarms, sprinklers, emergency exits, fire retardant wall materials, fire doors. What do we have for protecting kids against a kidnapper, gunman or other crazy? Nothing.

I find myself reluctantly agreeing with Adam on the school security issue (proving that miracles exist and that we can all get along here at the Forum ; ) ).

That said, it makes me profoundly sad that America is at a state where schools, and everything they should represent, should be so burdened; that even our youngest most innocent children should be told, by the very presence of security, that evil lurks outside the walls, threatening their safety in even the most fundamental of our institutions. School should be wonder, joy, fun and excitement, learned discourse with words and logic (and the occasional oh sh*t I didn't do my homework moment).

I fundamentally dislike walled and gated communities. I understand them, but to me they smell of fear. It wrenches my gut to now visit our Nation's capital and seeing our public institutions those magnificent structures that I visited as a kid with busloads of my classmates, now barricaded with concrete barriers, and hummers parked along the parkway near the Pentagon, with our soldiers manning machine guns as we drive along.

It is, no doubt, a complex and dangerous world, and likely to get worse before it gets better. I wish I had answers and viable strategies, but I don't. I think there are common sense first steps but I think they are in the nature of triage only. My heart just tells me that the course we are on leads only to more tragedy. I pray the deaths of those children are not in vain; that we take our collective knowledge and passion and ability as a nation and correct our course.

[Vientomas]

have we become so selfish, so singularly focused on our own individual 'rights' that we won't give something up for the greater good of our nation? does me really trump we?

Yes, especially if you are a special interest group with a lobbyist.

[SamIAm]

"To those who argue that there is an unfettered right to possess whatever weapon you choose, I would ask this: Is your conviction so strong that you could look one of those Connecticut parents in the eye or any other person who haans lost a loved one to a gun, particularly an assault weapon, in America and tell them, I'm sorry for your loss but I am entitled. As am American, I am entitled to possess a weapon of mass destruction in order to defend myself agains the tyranny of our government. I for one would like to hear those voices - the voices of Americans who have paid the price for other Americans' "right" to carry an assault weapon."

After this event, I don't see any othe assumption for me personally to make except that those who are in favor of retaining the right for private citizens to own fully automatic or semi-auto military style weapons have made the value judgement, at least in their own minds, that it's worth it for innocents to die so they can still have what they want, regardless of whatever reason they've publicly given for wanting to own.

Even 5-10 year old child innocents. They've decided their right to own whatever kind of gun they want is worth those other people dying for. Even little kids.

BBD

What have women decided is more important when they abort innocent fetus? Have they made a similar value judgment about lifestyle?

[palincss]

The ballistics makes it worse for deer but the increased carry capacity makes it more effective for a group of people in malls? Sorry, is that in bad taste?

I think I was pretty clear: I was describing advantages to the military and also quite clearly said few of those advantages had any relevance to civilian use.

[Vientomas]

What have women decided is more important when they abort innocent fetus? Have they made a similar value judgment about lifestyle?

Iceberg dead ahead.

[54ny77]

http://saved.im/mtg4ntiwz3pq/bear-arms.jpg

[William]

It's becoming more and more common, yes. You'd think, based on the arguments offered by 2nd Amendment absolutists, that with more than 100 million guns in circulation, people would feel safer. And yet, the more guns that are out there, the less safe we seem to feel.

Because, criminals and mentally deranged individuals to not follow the laws. The vast majority of responsible gun owners follow the law and leave their guns locked up at home. The percentage of people who are licensed to carry is very small, and even then don't always carry. They may feel safer at home, but vulnerable when out in public.

I have the utmost respect for Law Enforcement. They have a hard job and get lots of flack from the general public. I have worked with many to improve their CQC skills with and against open hand, edged, and impact weapons. That said, they are primarily responders. Meaning they get the call and arrive sometimes during, but more often after the incident.






William

[oldpotatoe]

Actually, inside of 20 yards, it would do more damage.

.223 or 5.56cal is a relatively weak round by rife standards. Many in the military fought it's acseptence over the .308Win/7.62 NATO round. One of the reasons was because many entering the service in the 60's had never shot a rifle before and couldn't handle the recoil of the .308 round. (they also could hit the side of a barn)

Who's arguing? I'm attempting to inform.

Not true. The recoil thing is urban mis-legend. The US military had a 7.62 in the form of the very reliable and very effective(and heavy) M-14. Then came VietNam, fighting in the trees/jungle, close quarters PLUS longer unsupported missions where 5.56 was lighter and the troop could carry more rounds.

PLUS pretty sure the M-4..latest edition, is single and 3 shot burst. I think full auto is gone because the youngsters ran out of ammo too fast.

And no, it is a military/combat type weapon, and like an M60-not for the civilian market.

[Rueda Tropical]

That said, it makes me profoundly sad that America is at a state where schools, and everything they should represent, should be so burdened;

We can't afford teachers and now we have to hire additional cops to guard schools. There are lots more soft targets. In some 3rd world countries you will see armed guards with heavy automatic weapons in front of supermarkets, banks, auto repair shops, well to do neighborhoods, hotels, government buildings.... Is that where we are headed? Is that the kind of society we want?

How much would it cost to have proper vetting of gun owners and proper gun training a la Switzerland -which has almost universal gun ownership and almost no gun violence. Who pays for that? Do you add a taxes on guns and gun licensing to make sure gun owners are trained and responsible? Somehow I don't think that would go over big with certain segments of the population.

[akelman]

Because, criminals and mentally deranged individuals to not follow the laws. The vast majority of responsible gun owners follow the law and leave their guns locked up at home. The percentage of people who are licensed to carry is very small, and even then don't always carry. They may feel safer at home, but vulnerable when out in public.

I have the utmost respect for Law Enforcement. They have a hard job and get lots of flack from the general public. I have worked with many to improve their CQC skills with and against open hand, edged, and impact weapons. That said, they are primarily responders. Meaning they get the call and arrive sometimes during, but more often after the incident.






William

I'm confused, William, as to how this responds to my point. Are you saying that there should be more guns in the hands/holsters of responsible people out in public? And that if there were, you think those of us without guns would then feel safer?

[William]

"To those who argue that there is an unfettered right to possess whatever weapon you choose, I would ask this: Is your conviction so strong that you could look one of those Connecticut parents in the eye or any other person who haans lost a loved one to a gun, particularly an assault weapon, in America and tell them, I'm sorry for your loss but I am entitled. As am American, I am entitled to possess a weapon of mass destruction in order to defend myself agains the tyranny of our government. I for one would like to hear those voices - the voices of Americans who have paid the price for other Americans' "right" to carry an assault weapon."

After this event, I don't see any othe assumption for me personally to make except that those who are in favor of retaining the right for private citizens to own fully automatic or semi-auto military style weapons have made the value judgement, at least in their own minds, that it's worth it for innocents to die so they can still have what they want, regardless of whatever reason they've publicly given for wanting to own.

Even 5-10 year old child innocents. They've decided their right to own whatever kind of gun they want is worth those other people dying for. Even little kids.

BBD

I think the people you are pointing to aren't looking at in the way you describe. To them, a psycho came in a mowed down a bunch of children and people want them to lay down their arms? They would argue that is exactly why they need them. That is going to be a huge divide in thinking to bridge.




William

[akelman]

To be clear, William, I have no problem with responsible gun owners. And I think the vast majority of gun owners are just that: responsible. My point was simply that as the number of guns in circulation goes up, people seem to feel less and less safe. Anyway, now that the discussion is turning to reproductive rights, I'm out of here.

[William]

I'm confused, William, as to how this responds to my point. Are you saying that there should be more guns in the hands/holsters of responsible people out in public? And that if there were, you think those of us without guns would then feel safer?

You stated...

It's becoming more and more common, yes. You'd think, based on the arguments offered by 2nd Amendment absolutists, that with more than 100 million guns in circulation, people would feel safer. And yet, the more guns that are out there, the less safe we seem to feel.

I was just pointing out why people may not feel safe regardless of how many guns are out there.

If the stat is true that there are over 300 million guns in the U.S., then that mean there are a huge number of people out there not committing crimes compared to the ones that do. Yet it's the actions of the few that scare the rest of the people.






William

[jr59]

Because, criminals and mentally deranged individuals to not follow the laws. The vast majority of responsible gun owners follow the law and leave their guns locked up at home. The percentage of people who are licensed to carry is very small, and even then don't always carry. They may feel safer at home, but vulnerable when out in public.

I have the utmost respect for Law Enforcement. They have a hard job and get lots of flack from the general public. I have worked with many to improve their CQC skills with and against open hand, edged, and impact weapons. That said, they are primarily responders. Meaning they get the call and arrive sometimes during, but more often after the incident.






William

I think this is a major point.

More laws will not make bad guys and deranged people, follow said laws!

It didn't in the Sandy Hook case.

[William]

To be clear, William, I have no problem with responsible gun owners. And I think the vast majority of gun owners are just that: responsible. My point was simply that as the number of guns in circulation goes up, people seem to feel less and less safe. Anyway, now that the discussion is turning to reproductive rights, I'm out of here.


Understood. And I agree, I'm going to make dinner for my family. Terryayki meatballs coming up!!




William

[Rueda Tropical]

I think the people you are pointing to aren't looking at in the way you describe. To them, a psycho came in a mowed down a bunch of children and people want them to lay down their arms? They would argue that is exactly why they need them. That is going to be a huge divide in thinking to bridge.




William


The psychos mother was a gun enthusiast. Thats how the psycho got the guns. She got shot in the face with her own gun. Did owning guns make her safer? There is a difference between feeling safer and actually being safer.

In a study done in '98 of Records of fatal and nonfatal shootings in Memphis, TN, Seattle, WA, and Galveston, TX. It was found that for every time a household gun was used for self-defense, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides (by household members or friends) and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

Overall, guns kept in the home were 22 times more likely to be used in unintentional shootings, murder or assault, and suicide attempts than in an act of self-defense.

Another study in "93 found that people who keep guns in homes are almost 3 times more likely to be murdered. Guns in the home were associated with a 8-fold increase in risk of homicide at the hands of a family member or intimate acquaintance, but the study found no significant increase in the risk of being murdered by a stranger or intruder.

Policy should be guided by actual facts and data, not feelings and imagined benefits.

[Kirk007]

I think this is a major point.

More laws will not make bad guys and deranged people, follow said laws!

It didn't in the Sandy Hook case.

Oye which is exactly why we must make weapons of mass destruction unavailable as the first step.

Right now we're talking about a kid with mental problems. But reading the latest about the adolescent brain development and we learn that even in "normal" males this age there's a lot of rewiring going on and judgment/ability to perceive and comprehend long term consequences is way down the line and may not be fully developed until 25-26. How many times do we read about the stupid things kids do in high school and college. This is not a population that should have easy access to these weapons.

But we could just as easily be talking about a "normal" adult, male or female, caught in the throes of a personal crisis - ugly divorce perhaps? who loses it and walks into that school to gun down his wife or her husband and everyone around him or her. I would suggest that more of us than any one of us would care to admit has the ability, if the right buttons are pushed, to fly into a blind rage and lash out. We as a species have capacity for great violence. Add modern weapons into the mix and we get what we see every day in America.

[phcollard]

... That said, it makes me profoundly sad that America is at a state where schools, and everything they should represent, should be so burdened; that even our youngest most innocent children should be told, by the very presence of security, that evil lurks outside the walls, threatening their safety in even the most fundamental of our institutions. School should be wonder, joy, fun and excitement, learned discourse with words and logic (and the occasional oh sh*t I didn't do my homework moment).

I so agree with you. Poor kids, really. They are going to grow up in a world of fear, I cannot imagine what their heritage will be when they are gown up adults. They will just feel paranoia as being normal. That is so sad.

Is that new that security thing in front of school? The school I attended when I was a kid didn't even have doors. And I believe it's still like this today.

[Llewellyn]

I'm staggered that a thread about guns on a bike forum can generate about 10x more replies than the average cycling thread :eek:

[oldpotatoe]

I think the people you are pointing to aren't looking at in the way you describe. To them, a psycho came in a mowed down a bunch of children and people want them to lay down their arms? They would argue that is exactly why they need them. That is going to be a huge divide in thinking to bridge.




William

Sorry the Mom was killed. She was the part of this chain that 'should' have seen some attention. The kid should not have been exposed to firearms. The firearms should not have been accessible to him. I don't know how to do that but anything like this, a chain of events, can sometimes be broken.

[Mr. Squirrel]

I'm staggered that a thread about guns on a bike forum can generate about 10x more replies than the average cycling thread :eek:

dear mr. llllew, llllllewllyn, check out the new builder spotlight. there are some very yummy bikes and wheels there.

mr. squirrel

[witcombusa]

The High School where my son attends has a Police Officer on the grounds. It's a very good school with no history of violence yet they had made the choice to take this step a while back.



William

Really? Jesus Christ. So that's a common thing in the USA? That's new to me... And I don't know what to think. I'm just flabbergasted.


That's nothing new. Back in the 70's we had a full time cop @ our HS....they are there primarily to deter drug use/sales

[bironi]

I'm staggered that a thread about guns on a bike forum can generate about 10x more replies than the average cycling thread :eek:

It could be this is 10x+ more important than my saddle, bars, pedals, wheels, and 10X more forum members agree............................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ................................ You get my meaning

[SamIAm]

The psychos mother was a gun enthusiast. Thats how the psycho got the guns. She got shot in the face with her own gun. Did owning guns make her safer?

A psycho son in his mothers house shooting her in her sleep is a hell of a lot different than my alarm/dog alerting me to the potential presence of an intruder giving me the time to pull that weapon and have a chance.

Your remark is silly.

[witcombusa]

If you feel the need for personal protection does that mean that you are not satisfied with the protection provided by local law enforcement?
Have you ever complained to your representatives about it or do you just continue to pay your taxes without demanding adequate services?

The police are not responsible for your personal protection. PERIOD

Ask one sometime and see what he/she tells you...

Most response times are in the 10-15 minute range if you're lucky. A lot
can happen in 10 minutes....

[gdw]

"I'm staggered that a thread about guns on a bike forum can generate about 10x more replies than the average cycling thread "

and be more civil than the average Armstrong thread. Good job folks.

[Tony T]

Most response times are in the 10-15 minute range if you're lucky. A lot can happen in 10 minutes....

Especially with a semi-automatic AR with 30 round clips and hundreds of rounds of ammo.

Thankfully, Sandy Hook police responded quickly.

I see no reason for individuals to have access to these weapons (and not one valid reason has been presented here in 13 pages)

[nightfend]

Okay, what I'd like to know though is how we are going to get back all of the millions of guns that have already been sold? Seems like we already blew it in terms of any feasible gun control years ago. The genie was let out of the bottle long ago. I think we are pretty much stuck at this point. Best we can hope to do is limit the ability to find ammo.

Personally, I'd like to see everyone that owns a gun having to take a gun ownership test and also be licensed (much like you do with owning a car).

[Rueda Tropical]

A psycho son in his mothers house shooting her in her sleep is a hell of a lot different than my alarm/dog alerting me to the potential presence of an intruder giving me the time to pull that weapon and have a chance.

Your remark is silly.

It's not silly at all when you consider the studies that show you are more likely to get killed with a gun in the house then without. Whether she was asleep or awake makes no difference. It was not an intruder it was a family member that used her own gun to kill her.

The average gun owner is more likely to have someone in their home injured as a result of an accident with there own gun then by an intruder.

Look at how irresponsibly licensed drivers drive on your daily commute. You trust those same people to be responsible with deadly weapons?

[cfox]

Especially with a semi-automatic AR with 30 round clips and hundreds of rounds of ammo.

Thankfully, Sandy Hook police responded quickly.

I see no reason for individuals to have access to these weapons (and not one valid reason has been presented here in 13 pages)
the only reason floated is "it's my right!!!!" good for you (not you tony)...I hope this right is revoked. Why can't I own an M1 tank fully loaded with depleted uranium shells? I have a clean record, no history of mental illness. I just want to protect myself.

[christian]

I think I was pretty clear: I was describing advantages to the military and also quite clearly said few of those advantages had any relevance to civilian use.
Totally understood and agreed, Steve. I was making (perhaps inartfully) a follow-on comparison to say exactly that - these weapons, while good for their intended purpose, have exceptionally limited or no value to civilians.

[akelman]

exceptionally limited or no value to civilians

You have a better way to destroy a cantaloupe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l32arpcMjHM)? I mean, really quickly? Like if one rushes me or something? I bet you're going to suggest I use a knife. To which I say, we have new technologies for a reason, sir.

[Don49]

Interesting quiz on "Gun and Gun Control Facts Test". There was a lot I didn't know. See the answer sheet link at the end.

http://reasonedpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-and-gun-control-facts-test-how-much.html

[witcombusa]

Totally understood and agreed, Steve. I was making (perhaps inartfully) a follow-on comparison to say exactly that - these weapons, while good for their intended purpose, have exceptionally limited or no value to civilians.

So then you have no problem with the military shooting civilians :rolleyes:

[oldpotatoe]

So then you have no problem with the military shooting civilians :rolleyes:

That's brilliant.

Are you really that paranoid?

Have you ever been in the military?

I'm out

-Retired Member of the Military

[verticaldoug]

Agree or disagree....
13 pages and not yet locked. I'd say the incident is having both sides reflect on the issue. Otherwise, this thread would have been locked by about page 7.

It's a small step for the forum, a giant leap for mankind.

[verticaldoug]

That's brilliant.

Are you really that paranoid?

Have you ever been in the military?

I'm out

-Retired Member of the Military

In modern warfare, the military will send a drone. Your gun is pretty useless against that.

[54ny77]

this actually has been an educational thread. learned a few things in the process as well.

bravo.

[vjp]

My take on this conversation today is that a classroom of dead children is a very small price to pay for the "right to bear arms".

It amazes me that a 200 year old "right" can be so twisted out of all reasonable context that any price is fine to pay. God Bless America.

[akelman]

Agree or disagree....
13 pages and not yet locked. I'd say the incident is having both sides reflect on the issue. Otherwise, this thread would have been locked by about page 7.

It's a small step for the forum, a giant leap for mankind.

I'm willing to bet you that, other than a few true believers on either side of the issue, the vast majority of US citizens, not to mention members of this forum, could agree on some very basic policy prescriptions: maybe increased liability burdens for gun owners or, dare I say it, manufacturers; maybe increased licensing requirements for gun owners; maybe increased regulations on certain classes of weapons; maybe even increased funding for mental health programs. As someone noted upthread, the vast majority of NRA members favor some new regulatory mechanisms, and every NRA member I know favors a huge uptick in education around the use of firearms.

The issue, then, as others have stated, is the presence of a lobby that, in the past at least, has been unwilling to give an inch, and a lack of incentives for politicians of both parties to reach common ground. Which is why, even though this tragedy has made the entire nation heartsick, I fear little is going to change: same as it ever was.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/3_presidents_over_a_span_of_13_years.php)

[witcombusa]

Okay, what I'd like to know though is how we are going to get back all of the millions of guns that have already been sold? Seems like we already blew it in terms of any feasible gun control years ago. The genie was let out of the bottle long ago. I think we are pretty much stuck at this point. Best we can hope to do is limit the ability to find ammo.

Personally, I'd like to see everyone that owns a gun having to take a gun ownership test and also be licensed (much like you do with owning a car).

Folks with carry permits do just that.

Lets not compare it to owning a car please...I've seen how people drive!

[93legendti]

During the assault ban of 1995-2004 there were 15 school shootings. Now, why isn't there a call to strengthen security at schools?

Evil does lurk outside our homes and schools. Whether a shooter, a drunk driver or a kidnapper. It's a fact. Pretending otherwise does no one any good. My children know not to talk to strangers and not to approach strange cars who stop and ask them a question. They not to play in the street. They know not to answer the door when I am napping or showering, even thou our alarm is on.
Our duty is to protect our children, not pretend life is something it isn't or fail to prepare them for what lies ahead.

[akelman]

.

[rugbysecondrow]

I'm willing to bet you that, other than a few true believers on either side of the issue, the vast majority of US citizens, not to mention members of this forum, could agree on some very basic policy prescriptions: maybe increased liability burdens for gun owners or, dare I say it, manufacturers; maybe increased licensing requirements for gun owners; maybe increased regulations on certain classes of weapons; maybe even increased funding for mental health programs. As someone noted upthread, the vast majority of NRA members favor some new regulatory mechanisms, and every NRA member I know favors a huge uptick in education around the use of firearms.

The issue, then, as others have stated, is the presence of a lobby that, in the past at least, has been unwilling to give an inch, and a lack of incentives for politicians of both parties to reach common ground. Which is why, even though this tragedy has made the entire nation heartsick, I fear little is going to change: same as it ever was.

(http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/12/3_presidents_over_a_span_of_13_years.php)

I agree with most of what you wrote, with the exception of the bold. There are way to many lobbies which have a vested interest in not solving the problem. The same with abortion. Most Americans could come to some agreement, but the fringe folks define a whole movement. They fight to NOT resolve issues. They like being able to play that card at anytime and drum up fundraising support. In addition to basic self preservation of the people who are employed by each movement...why give in at all if you might lose your job as a result of it.

[akelman]

I agree with most of what you wrote, with the exception of the bold. There are way to many lobbies which have a vested interest in not solving the problem. The same with abortion. Most Americans could come to some agreement, but the fringe folks define a whole movement. They fight to NOT resolve issues. They like being able to play that card at anytime and drum up fundraising support. In addition to basic self preservation of the people who are employed by each movement...why give in at all if you might lose your job as a result of it.

I'm not sure how we're disagreeing. It seems to me that we're saying exactly the same thing.

[phcollard]

During the assault ban of 1995-2004 there were 15 school shootings. Now, why isn't there a call to strengthen security at schools?

Evil does lurk outside our homes and schools. Whether a shooter, a drunk driver or a kidnapper. It's a fact. Pretending otherwise does no one any good. My children know not to talk to strangers and not to approach strange cars who stop and ask them a question. They not to play in the street. They know not to answer the door when I am napping or showering, even thou our alarm is on.
Our duty is to protect our children, not pretend life is something it isn't or fail to prepare them for what lies ahead.

If you already have armed guards at the doors of your schools what do you propose to strenghten the security? :confused:

Which town do you live in if I may ask?

[johnmdesigner]

The police are not responsible for your personal protection. PERIOD

Ask one sometime and see what he/she tells you...

Most response times are in the 10-15 minute range if you're lucky. A lot
can happen in 10 minutes....

Wow. A remarkable response.
And you are still willing to send your tax money to support law enforcement?

[93legendti]

If you already have armed guards at the doors of your schools what do you propose to strenghten the security? :confused:

Which town do you live in if I may ask?

We don't. We need them.

My kids' school does because its a private school. That's the exception.

[johnmdesigner]

What have women decided is more important when they abort innocent fetus? Have they made a similar value judgment about lifestyle?

Holy cow!:eek:

[rugbysecondrow]

I'm not sure how we're disagreeing. It seems to me that we're saying exactly the same thing.

it seemed you were refering to "a" lobby verses a plethora of them. If not, then it was my misreading.

[akelman]

it seemed you were refering to "a" lobby verses a plethora of them. If not, then it was my misreading.

Oh, I see. Yeah, that was poorly put on my part. In this case, I was referring specifically to the so-called gun lobby. But you're right that there are many lobbies, and the legislators that they own, dedicated to making sure that nothing gets done in Washington.

[phcollard]

We don't. We need them.

My kids' school does because its a private school. That's the exception.

I am baffled and confused. I did not know, I did not ever imagine such a thing would exist one day. But maybe I live in another world. I wish one day there will be no more need for a guard in front of a school. I don't even realize yet what I just read. All the best Adam.

[merlincustom1]

During the assault ban of 1995-2004 there were 15 school shootings.

If you mean by this that the ban was ineffective, you should consider that the ban was on the manufacture of new weapons only. Moreover, the US Government did not buy back existing assault weapons, as was done when Australia banned them in the 90s with the repurchase of about 700,000 weapons. Australia had 11 mass shootings before the ban, and none since.

[93legendti]

I am baffled and confused. I did not know, I did not ever imagine such a thing would exist one day. But maybe I live in another world. I wish one day there will be no more need for a guard in front of a school. I don't even realize yet what I just read. All the best Adam.

I never said the guard was outside, nor did I say where the guard is. I will say there are hundreds of children at the school and none of the parents have a problem with the security, as they voluntarily send their children to a school where they have to pay tuition.

The parents support the increased security. That's all that matters.

[Elefantino]

The High School where my son attends has a Police Officer on the grounds. It's a very good school with no history of violence yet they had made the choice to take this step a while back.
Most high schools and many middle schools in Jacksonville have what are called "school resources officers," the district's police force. Have had for a long time.

AFA the rest of the country, people are suddenly shocked, shocked that violence is going on here. Therefore we have to do something. This was carried to its illogical extreme by Texas politicians, among others, including Rick "Oops" Perry, who suggests that teachers should be allowed to carry guns in schools.

These are people who we pay to run our country. Repeat: We. Pay. Them. We pay them to LOOK THE OTHER WAY while an assault weapons ban expires and these weapons with magazines or clips or whatever you call them are out there, available, killing people.

OK, I'll go one better. Let's arm kids. Mandatory weapons classes from Kindergarten. By sixth grade you should know how to field strip a Glock 19. Would you storm a school knowing that elementary school students are better armed than some banana republics?

Better yet, arm fetuses. Then they could fight back. Presto! No more abortions because what doctor is going to want to take that on?

We are nucking futs.

[93legendti]

If you mean by this that the ban was ineffective, you should consider that the ban was on the manufacture of new weapons only. Moreover, the US Government did not buy back existing assault weapons, as was done when Australia banned them in the 90s with the repurchase of about 700,000 weapons. Australia had 11 mass shootings before the ban, and none since.

But Australia's gun violence is up.

My point was there hasn't been any effort to secure schools...against fire, yes. Against gunmen, no.

[flydhest]

All right, we have done ok so far. We are approaching the end. Recall, the OP was about where to sell his gun.

[akelman]

OK, I'll go one better. Let's arm kids. Mandatory weapons classes from Kindergarten. By sixth grade you should know how to field strip a Glock 19. Would you storm a school knowing that elementary school students are better armed than some banana republics?

Better yet, arm fetuses. Then they could fight back. Presto! No more abortions because what doctor is going to want to take that on?

We are nucking futs.

Noted moron Megan McArdle, late of The Atlantic and currently of Newsweek/The Daily Beast, believes that we need to teach children to rush assailants (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html). No, I'm not kidding:

I'd also like us to encourage people to gang rush shooters, rather than following their instincts to hide; if we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once.

I typically resist "we're doomed as a species" formulations, but reading McArdle makes me wonder.

[choke]

Wow....quite the thread and I am also amazed that it has been so civil.

And yet, not one expert has given a reason why they need a semi-automatic weapon with a high capacity "clip". Does one need a Pegoretti? Super Record or Dura Ace? $2000 bicycle wheels? A Ferrari? A 5000 sq ft house? A Rolex? It's not about need, it's about want...and it's legal to own one in most states. Just because you don't see a 'need' doesn't mean that others don't want to own one. I think it's pretty easy to imagine the vast majority of people wondering why any of us 'need' to spend more than $500 on a bicycle.

The AR platform is probably the most popular rifle sold today. It's accurate, it's easily customized and it has low recoil.

Wow. A remarkable response.
And you are still willing to send your tax money to support law enforcement?The courts have ruled exactly that. The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

[rugbysecondrow]

But Australia's gun violence is up.

My point was there hasn't been any effort to secure schools...against fire, yes. Against gunmen, no.

In most instances, a gunman will thwart procedures in place to do damage. Precations can take place, lock down procedures, peremeter security, locked doors, visitor notification etc...all this is moderately effective as a deterant, but that is about it. Also, children go out to the play ground, walk to the buses, walk accross campus to music, art or PE class...they spend all sorts of time outside of the physical building.

In many instance, the gunman is an authorized student, somebody security wouldn't stop from attacking anyway...you let him/her into your bubble.

Really, the best we can hope for is not a secure school but a school which restricts access...two very different things. To that point, you are correct, schools are not secure, but you are incorrect when you say no effort has been made to make them more secure.

Lastly, lets not fool ourselves about resource officers or the armed guard at school. That is made to make you and the parents feel better, but the truth is that dozons of kids would be killed before that guard even had a chance to be effective. It is sad to say, but your kids are just as unsafe as mine or the others are public school.

So, your point about there being no effort to secure schools is incorrect

[Tony T]

All right, we have done ok so far. We are approaching the end.

Then let's all remember those who were taken too soon:

http://www.vibe.com/sites/vibe.com/files/photo_gallery_images/remembering-those-that-died.jpg

[Rueda Tropical]

Does one need a Pegoretti? Super Record or Dura Ace? $2000 bicycle wheels? A Ferrari? A 5000 sq ft house? A Rolex? It's not about need, it's about want...


When was the last time someone used a bicycle or luxury watch to massacre children? When what you want doesn't just effect you, but effects my family and neighbors and fellow citizens, things change.

[Kirk007]

During the assault ban of 1995-2004 there were 15 school shootings. Now, why isn't there a call to strengthen security at schools?

Evil does lurk outside our homes and schools. Whether a shooter, a drunk driver or a kidnapper. It's a fact. Pretending otherwise does no one any good. My children know not to talk to strangers and not to approach strange cars who stop and ask them a question. They not to play in the street. They know not to answer the door when I am napping or showering, even thou our alarm is on.
Our duty is to protect our children, not pretend life is something it isn't or fail to prepare them for what lies ahead.

But we choose each day, with the decisions we make or don't make, how to respond to that potential evil. There's a difference between not acknowledging reality, which is what I take from your use of the word pretending or responding with common sense and working at root causes or fatalistically resigning to fear by relying on everyone being armed to the teeth as a deterrent.

I agree that there are situations that could arise that require resort to protection with a gun. I do believe there is pure evil in the world. But I believe it is too easy for this to become the default response if a gun is always on ones person, not to mention the greatly increased risk of accidents (recently in our region a cop, off duty, left his loaded handgun under the seat of his car, ran into the convenience store and came back out only to find that one of his very young kids (I think a boy less than 5) had climbed out of his car seat, picked it up, pointed it at his even younger sister, and pulled the trigger. This result, with a trained professional law enforcement officer. And of course this is just one of the daily tragedies that we have become immune to in America.)

So, for instance, there are a lot of jackass hot head drivers in Seattle. Should I buy a gun to protect myself from the ass who takes offense at my driving and acts in a threatening manner or should I give myself a bit more time for getting to where I need to be, drive defensively rather than with hurried aggression, and exercise situational awareness and take heed of the aggressive acts of others before a confrontation arises. Do I respond to aggression by pulling out the glock and menacing it or by backing off and evading. Which course is likely to lead to more safe outcomes?

I think one starting point in this discussion as a nation is to ask, why do so many folks feel that they need to own guns? Putting aside use for hunting, and those who would hold to the "because I can or need to to defend myself against the tyranny of government (as others have pointed out - good luck with that drone), my take is because of the threat/fear of bodily harm to self or family. If this is so then we must ask why this is so, whether the fear justified is a gun really the answer or are there other changes in America that need to occur?

I can see where having a gun is a rational response to some threats. I have a shotgun in my house (historic hunting use) and would consider its use in the event of an intrusion. I grew up with guns in the house, and this is somewhat of an ingrained way of thinking. But I think the need for concealed carry, let alone semi-automatic weapons, is a hugely overblown reaction to everyday life, and its one that feeds on itself, increasing the real risk of harm rather than decreasing it. So I ask again, what is driving this fear in daily living in America? (And how else can you characterize the rush to buy guns in the past few decades, not to mention the uptick of gun sales in reaction to the election and re-election of a liberal minority POTUS other than a fear based reaction). I think a lot of it has to do with globalization and the changing face of America. Just like on Lost we fear 'the Others."

We (wife and I) moved to a very urban neighborhood two years ago. It used to be one of Seattle's "projects" but has since been redeveloped in a remarkable green project, with mixed income housing. Single family residents are sited right next to town homes and apartments for low income residents. Two senior living centers are part of the mix. We are surrounded by immigrants from Somali and Asia. We live right next to the mosque. My brother-in-law was outraged that we would buy a house in such an "unsafe" neighborhood; he insisted that we barracade the house with a solid surround fence, purchase a monitored alarm system; hell he would've mounted a .50 caliber machine gun on the back deck if he had his way. We did none of these things. We installed very high quality deadbolts. We have good lighting. We use common sense, and have two dogs that make a racket. And in fact, the crime rate here is less than in many other Seattle neighborhoods with much more homogenic qualities and "better" reputations. We have rather good neighbors here. Driving skills could use some improvement, but our neighbors are kind, friendly and work hard at being good neighbors. I enjoy living here, in a diverse community so unlike the rural town in Pennsylvania where I was raised. I see no need for further armament, and I have made a personal choice to refuse to live in fear of different.

Why is it that America, of all developed nations, has so miserably failed to create an environment where we feel secure from harm, relatively free of fear from deadly assault. Such a fundamental piece of the freedom that was surely envisioned by our founding fathers, a place where there truly is freedom to worship, to express, to pursue happiness, a place of liberty and justice - how can we have any of these things living in a state of fear? (of course the same question can be asked regarding our failure on other important issues - healthcare for children, education etc.). I think Climb nailed it; it is too much about I, not enough about we.

Oye, I'm easily distracted today!

[cfox]

Wow....quite the thread and I am also amazed that it has been so civil.

Does one need a Pegoretti? Super Record or Dura Ace? $2000 bicycle wheels? A Ferrari? A 5000 sq ft house? A Rolex? It's not about need, it's about want...and it's legal to own one in most states. Just because you don't see a 'need' doesn't mean that others don't want to own one. I think it's pretty easy to imagine the vast majority of people wondering why any of us 'need' to spend more than $500 on a bicycle.

The AR platform is probably the most popular rifle sold today. It's accurate, it's easily customized and it has low recoil.

The courts have ruled exactly that. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

I keep writing this and no one is answering; I want a fully armed tank with depleted uranium shells to protect myself. Why can't I?? Or maybe a nuke. Who are you to tell me what I want!! This is 'Murica!! Just cuz I want something I should be able to have it...that makes a ton of sense.

Seriously, any reasonable person above the age of four can make the distinction between wanting a fancy bike and wanting a gun that in the wrong hands can kill lots and lots of people quickly. And, yes, they do fall into the wrong hands. I don't care if people 'want' them...it's ridiculous

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . while reading this piece on CNN.com . . .

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/opinion/noguera-social-contract-breakdown/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

The author speaks of our "social contract" breaking down . . .

We live in a violent society with far too many guns, far too much anger and way too much alienation. The real problem is that the social contract is fraying. The bonds that should prevent individuals from harming one another have deteriorated.

If all we do to seek solutions to the threat of violence is enact increased security measures, we continue to ignore the real source of our security -- civic solidarity.

As we become more atomized as a society, as alienation grows, as the social bonds that give our lives meaning -- family, community and religion -- weaken and wane, we find ourselves at greater risk.

This is about way more than just guns. But we have to start somewhere to take a stand.

BBD

[Tony T]

Does one need a Pegoretti? Super Record or Dura Ace? $2000 bicycle wheels? A Ferrari? A 5000 sq ft house? A Rolex? It's not about need, it's about want...and it's legal to own one in most states. Just because you don't see a 'need' doesn't mean that others don't want to own one. I think it's pretty easy to imagine the vast majority of people wondering why any of us 'need' to spend more than $500 on a bicycle.

So, there is no 'need' to own a semi-automatic AR type rifle with a 30 round clip, and at least 26 reasons to enact a law to make it illegal.

[choke]

Then let's all remember those who were taken too soon:Amen.

When was the last time someone used a bicycle or luxury watch to massacre children? When what you want doesn't just effect you, but effects my family and neighbors and fellow citizens, things change.I don't discount your point of view....I was just trying to give Tony an answer to his question.

I keep writing this and no one is answering; I want a fully armed tank with depleted uranium shells to protect myself. Why can't I?? Or maybe a nuke. Who are you to tell me what I want!! This is 'Murica!! Just cuz I want something I should be able to have it...that makes a ton of sense.

Seriously, any reasonable person above the age of four can make the distinction between wanting a fancy bike and wanting a gun that in the wrong hands can kill lots and lots of people quickly. And, yes, they do fall into the wrong hands. I don't care if people 'want' them...it's ridiculousThe Govt has decided that some things are legal to own and others aren't. Currently that includes semi-automatic weapons which are capable of using high-capacity magazines. That may well change in the coming months. Conversely, in the early days of this country the Govt had no problem with citizens owning cannon or warships.

The key words are "wrong hands". Perhaps if we do more to prevent that we will lesson such incidents. We'll never stop them....there will always be bad people and they'll find a way. Recently a man in China injured 22 children with a knife. A firearm wasn't the cause of the greatest intentional loss of life in a school in the US....it was dynamite. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

[BumbleBeeDave]

Does one need a Pegoretti? Super Record or Dura Ace? $2000 bicycle wheels? A Ferrari? A 5000 sq ft house? A Rolex? It's not about need, it's about want...and it's legal to own one in most states. Just because you don't see a 'need' doesn't mean that others don't want to own one. I think it's pretty easy to imagine the vast majority of people wondering why any of us 'need' to spend more than $500 on a bicycle.

An argument can be made that a Ferrari can kill somebody if you run over them. But a pair of bike wheels? A fancy wristwatch? Puh-LEEEZ . . .

None of these items kill people, especially not 26 people in 10 minutes--and only that few because the local police showed up quick.

Need I say any more strongly I disagree with you? :no:

BBD

[93legendti]

In most instances, a gunman will thwart procedures in place to do damage. Precations can take place, lock down procedures, peremeter security, locked doors, visitor notification etc...all this is moderately effective as a deterant, but that is about it. Also, children go out to the play ground, walk to the buses, walk accross campus to music, art or PE class...they spend all sorts of time outside of the physical building.

In many instance, the gunman is an authorized student, somebody security wouldn't stop from attacking anyway...you let him/her into your bubble.

Really, the best we can hope for is not a secure school but a school which restricts access...two very different things. To that point, you are correct, schools are not secure, but you are incorrect when you say no effort has been made to make them more secure.

Lastly, lets not fool ourselves about resource officers or the armed guard at school. That is made to make you and the parents feel better, but the truth is that dozons of kids would be killed before that guard even had a chance to be effective. It is sad to say, but your kids are just as unsafe as mine or the others are public school.

So, your point about there being no effort to secure schools is incorrect

You haven't been to my kids' school, so I am surprised you would dismiss their procedures. I am very familiar with their procedures. As a paying parent, they're sufficient for me. The truth is that gunmen don't usually choose places where there are armed individuals. (Daniel Laufer went out of his way to seek a gun free movie theatre.) When they do, they usually are stopped before inflicting large casualties- like in Oregon a few weeks ago and San Antonio yesterday. Again, these gunmen don't look for shoot outs, they look for sitting ducks.

I've seen fire drills at public schools. I feel confident that most schools don't have terror drills. I feel secure with the drills at my kids' school.

I suppose you'd say that Israel's use of only one armed guard at entrances to closed and open air malls, bars, movie theaters, buses, restaurants, etc. wouldn't deter terrorists. You'd be wrong. The policy was instituted in 2002 during that terror phase and it stopped the attacks cold. Professionals know what to look for. I've had the pleasure of discussing these matters with Avi Dichter, Benny Gantz, Eli Marum, (as well as local policemen) and others you have never heard of.

[BumbleBeeDave]

So, there is no 'need' to own a semi-automatic AR type rifle with a 30 round clip, and at least 26 reasons to enact a law to make it illegal.

. . . aside from assuaging one's own paranoia and playing "GI Joe" . . .

BBD

[93legendti]

But we choose each day, with the decisions we make or don't make, how to respond to that potential evil. There's a difference between not acknowledging reality, which is what I take from your use of the word pretending or responding with common sense and working at root causes or fatalistically resigning to fear by relying on everyone being armed to the teeth as a deterrent.

I agree that there are situations that could arise that require resort to protection with a gun. I do believe there is pure evil in the world. But I believe it is too easy for this to become the default response if a gun is always on ones person, not to mention the greatly increased risk of accidents (recently in our region a cop, off duty, left his loaded handgun under the seat of his car, ran into the convenience store and came back out only to find that one of his very young kids (I think a boy less than 5) had climbed out of his car seat, picked it up, pointed it at his even younger sister, and pulled the trigger. This result, with a trained professional law enforcement officer. And of course this is just one of the daily tragedies that we have become immune to in America.)

So, for instance, there are a lot of jackass hot head drivers in Seattle. Should I buy a gun to protect myself from the ass who takes offense at my driving and acts in a threatening manner or should I give myself a bit more time for getting to where I need to be, drive defensively rather than with hurried aggression, and exercise situational awareness and take heed of the aggressive acts of others before a confrontation arises. Do I respond to aggression by pulling out the glock and menacing it or by backing off and evading. Which course is likely to lead to more safe outcomes?

I think one starting point in this discussion as a nation is to ask, why do so many folks feel that they need to own guns? Putting aside use for hunting, and those who would hold to the "because I can or need to to defend myself against the tyranny of government (as others have pointed out - good luck with that drone), my take is because of the threat/fear of bodily harm to self or family. If this is so then we must ask why this is so, whether the fear justified is a gun really the answer or are there other changes in America that need to occur?

I can see where having a gun is a rational response to some threats. I have a shotgun in my house (historic hunting use) and would consider its use in the event of an intrusion. I grew up with guns in the house, and this is somewhat of an ingrained way of thinking. But I think the need for concealed carry, let alone semi-automatic weapons, is a hugely overblown reaction to everyday life, and its one that feeds on itself, increasing the real risk of harm rather than decreasing it. So I ask again, what is driving this fear in daily living in America? (And how else can you characterize the rush to buy guns in the past few decades, not to mention the uptick of gun sales in reaction to the election and re-election of a liberal minority POTUS other than a fear based reaction). I think a lot of it has to do with globalization and the changing face of America. Just like on Lost we fear 'the Others."

We (wife and I) moved to a very urban neighborhood two years ago. It used to be one of Seattle's "projects" but has since been redeveloped in a remarkable green project, with mixed income housing. Single family residents are sited right next to town homes and apartments for low income residents. Two senior living centers are part of the mix. We are surrounded by immigrants from Somali and Asia. We live right next to the mosque. My brother-in-law was outraged that we would buy a house in such an "unsafe" neighborhood; he insisted that we barracade the house with a solid surround fence, purchase a monitored alarm system; hell he would've mounted a .50 caliber machine gun on the back deck if he had his way. We did none of these things. We installed very high quality deadbolts. We have good lighting. We use common sense, and have two dogs that make a racket. And in fact, the crime rate here is less than in many other Seattle neighborhoods with much more homogenic qualities and "better" reputations. We have rather good neighbors here. Driving skills could use some improvement, but our neighbors are kind, friendly and work hard at being good neighbors. I enjoy living here, in a diverse community so unlike the rural town in Pennsylvania where I was raised. I see no need for further armament, and I have made a personal choice to refuse to live in fear of different.

Why is it that America, of all developed nations, has so miserably failed to create an environment where we feel secure from harm, relatively free of fear from deadly assault. Such a fundamental piece of the freedom that was surely envisioned by our founding fathers, a place where there truly is freedom to worship, to express, to pursue happiness, a place of liberty and justice - how can we have any of these things living in a state of fear? (of course the same question can be asked regarding our failure on other important issues - healthcare for children, education etc.). I think Climb nailed it; it is too much about I, not enough about we.

Oye, I'm easily distracted today!
I could answer your last question, but you wouldn't like the answer. Canada has very high gun ownership but not the issues we have. I think we should look at other answers other than gun bans that don't work.

[verticaldoug]

During the assault ban of 1995-2004 there were 15 school shootings. Now, why isn't there a call to strengthen security at schools?

Evil does lurk outside our homes and schools. Whether a shooter, a drunk driver or a kidnapper. It's a fact. Pretending otherwise does no one any good. My children know not to talk to strangers and not to approach strange cars who stop and ask them a question. They not to play in the street. They know not to answer the door when I am napping or showering, even thou our alarm is on.
Our duty is to protect our children, not pretend life is something it isn't or fail to prepare them for what lies ahead.

1999 was Columbine. After that attack, law enforcement began drawing up new rules for school shootings. The police are immediately to find the active shooter and neutralize them (Immediate Action Rapid Deployment). It was one of the reasons the massacre at Columbine was so bad. The gunmen had too much time will law enforcement secured the area instead of targeting them.

There were also calls for gun control. Some weak measures were passed but the second amendment prevailed.

[Louis]

I think we should look at other answers other than gun bans that don't work.

Why not all of the above?

Why does the solution to a complex problem (take your pick) always have to be only one thing? Why can't it be addressed at multiple levels? How likely is it that the problem is caused by only one thing? Nil.

[choke]

An argument can be made that a Ferrari can kill somebody if you run over them. But a pair of bike wheels? A fancy wristwatch? Puh-LEEEZ . . .

None of these items kill people, especially not 26 people in 10 minutes--and only that few because the local police showed up quick.

Need I say any more strongly I disagree with you? :no:

BBDAgain, I'm not making a case to compare the firearm to those items....only to state that some people want to own them just as others want to own the other items. Currently it is deemed allowable to own those weapons. That is now obviously up for debate and may well change. As has come up more than once in the thread, the vast majority of those who do own them don't use them to kill people.


And I do agree with your earlier post about the social contract. That is where the problem originates IMO.

[Kirk007]

I could answer your last question, but you wouldn't like the answer.

But since there's freedom of speech I don't have to like it, no? Honestly, I'm interested in your take on that last question. These are critical issues; the capacity for insight and analysis is I think higher here than on most public forums and the internet. Sharing of views and exchanging thoughts is the only way through this morass.

[akelman]

I could answer your last question, but you wouldn't like the answer. Canada has very high gun ownership but not the issues we have. I think we should look at other answers other than gun bans that don't work.

Why beat around the bush? It's not like you to hold back.

[rugbysecondrow]

You haven't been to my kids' school, so I am surprised you would dismiss their procedures. I am very familiar with their procedures. As a paying parent, they're sufficient for me. The truth is that gunmen don't usually choose places where there are armed individuals. (Daniel Laufer went out of his way to seek a gun free movie theatre.) When they do, they usually are stopped before inflicting large casualties- like in Oregon a few weeks ago and San Antonio yesterday. Again, these gunmen don't look for shoot outs, they look for sitting ducks.

I've seen fire drills at public schools. I feel confident that most schools don't have terror drills. I feel secure with the drills at my kids' school.

I suppose you'd say that Israel's use of only one armed guard at entrances to closed and open air malls, bars, movie theaters, buses, restaurants, etc. wouldn't deter terrorists. You'd be wrong. The policy was instituted in 2002 during that terror phase and it stopped the attacks cold. Professionals know what to look for. I've had the pleasure of discussing these matters with Avi Dichter, Benny Gantz, Eli Marum, (as well as local policemen) and others you have never heard of.

A) what procedures did I dismiss at your kids school?

B) What you are talking about are deterant (same point I made) but a deterant ought not be confused with creating a secure environment. The deterant is only as strong as the belief one has that the deterant would thwart their goal. This also means that having secret guards wouldn't really be a deterant, would it?

C) Do gunman specifically choose targets without armed guards or is it more likely a coincidence because there are so few institutions with armed guards? Don't confuse correleation and causation.

D) And I suppose you think we need one armed guard at every public building in the US? FLASH NEWS STORY: We aren't in Isreal my man. Our threats are not the same. Our enemies aren't the same.

E) A conversation with an expert does not make you an expert. I met Walter Payton, doesn't mean I can do squat on the field.

[93legendti]

http://therightnewz.com/?p=16227

Harry Reid sure likes guns.

[Louis]

http://therightnewz.com/?p=16227

Harry Reid sure likes guns.

He's from Nevada and wants to be re-elected.

[Louis]

Make of it what you will.

The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

The N.R.A. is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

The N.R.A. is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, D.C., area on Friday, December 21.

Details will be released to the media at the appropriate time.

www.nra.org

[Tony T]

Looks like we're heading in the right direction:

"Responding to a national wave of revulsion over the 27 murders in Newtown, Conn., retail chain Dick's Sporting Goods Inc. on Tuesday suspended sales of semiautomatic rifles at its 480 stores, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc. deleted from its website a listing for one such rifle.

Private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP said Tuesday it would try to sell Freedom Group Inc., the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle that was used in last week's shootings."

"We have to get control of this," said Larry Stone, a member of Dick's board, in an interview Tuesday. Mr. Stone said he fully supported the decision to remove the semiautomatic guns from Dick's shelves. "I hope other people follow suit,"


...and this will not prevent anyone from owning a legal firearm for protection.

[akelman]

I've had the pleasure of discussing these matters with Avi Dichter, Benny Gantz, Eli Marum, (as well as local policemen) and others you have never heard of.

Did you serve in the IDF? If so, which unit, when, and for how long? If not, I'd be very grateful if you'd stop bolstering your claims of authority by referring to leading figures in the IDF and Shin Bet.

[Rueda Tropical]

I could answer your last question, but you wouldn't like the answer. Canada has very high gun ownership but not the issues we have. I think we should look at other answers other than gun bans that don't work.


So as a society the US is not capable of handling widespread gun ownership responsibly while Canada is. But we shouldn't do anything about controlling guns? Canada has much stricter gun controls (as a result of their own horrific school shootings) and there is no constitutional right for Canadians to own guns.

[akelman]

He's from Nevada and wants to be re-elected.

Wanted. He won reelection in 2010. This is his last term. Still, the broader point, that Democrats, especially Democrats in the Mountain West, have for years pandered to the gun lobby, is absolutely true.

[witcombusa]

Looks like we're heading in the right direction:

"Responding to a national wave of revulsion over the 27 murders in Newtown, Conn., retail chain Dick's Sporting Goods Inc. on Tuesday suspended sales of semiautomatic rifles at its 480 stores, while Wal-Mart Stores Inc. deleted from its website a listing for one such rifle.

Private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP said Tuesday it would try to sell Freedom Group Inc., the manufacturer of the Bushmaster rifle that was used in last week's shootings."

"We have to get control of this," said Larry Stone, a member of Dick's board, in an interview Tuesday. Mr. Stone said he fully supported the decision to remove the semiautomatic guns from Dick's shelves. "I hope other people follow suit,"


...and this will not prevent anyone from owning a legal firearm for protection.


Don't get all happy yet, this will all go back to buisness as usual in about a months time. It's called appeasing the public.

[JeffS]

I suppose the fact that I lost my gun ownership rights before I was old enough to vote makes me less sympathetic to the argument. If you want to be a Scalia dead-document literalist? Fine. You can have all the flintlocks you want.

When you spend as much effort as our country does trying to instill fear in your citizens, it's difficult to expect anything but a clinging to the guns mentality. Not surprisingly, the half of the country most supportive of guns is also the greater target of fear propaganda.

Either way, I can't imagine this is going anywhere. Gun advocates will not concede anything on any issue. If you said guns had to be sold gift-wrapped they would spend millions fighting you. You could stop selling guns entirely tomorrow and the existing stock would probably outlast the country. And no one is willing to risk their political career by proposing anything other than trivial changes.

[DHallerman]

As someone wrote on another message board:

When the Patriot Act was thumbing its nose at the First Amendment, we were told “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” And yet, when the Second Amendment is discussed, the Constitution is very much a suicide pact. The First Amendment is phrased as an absolute. We treat as conditional. The Second is phrased conditionally. We treat it as an absolute.

Absolute, as in "no law": Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Conditional, as in "for the purpose of having a militia, not for any damn reason you want": A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Rueda Tropical]

Gun advocates will not concede anything on any issue. If you said guns had to be sold gift-wrapped they would spend millions fighting you. You could stop selling guns entirely tomorrow and the existing stock would probably outlast the country. And no one is willing to risk their political career by proposing anything other than trivial changes.

Not so sure this time around. We are hearing from more then the usual suspects. I think there will be some sort of change.

[merlincustom1]

So then you have no problem with the military shooting civilians :rolleyes:

While the military shot its civilians during our fight for independence, giving rise to the second amendment right of a well regulated militia, does the same threat from the military hold true today? The question is rhetorical. Our government is much more subtle and insidious in keeping the populace under control. We're a republic with the rule of law to guide us. We have the bill of rights. We're a democracy. We have "one man, one vote." The fourth estate acts as a brake on a run away government. Those in power govern with the consent of the governed. These and other bromides keep us in check. The media manufacture consent. There's no need for the US Government to rule at the end of the spear. Tom Morello said during Occupy that he was surprised that no one was shooting bankers in the street. Since the populace is institutionally docile, the 200 year old argument in favor of gun ownership to support a militia seems quaint. It's well past time to re-examine the second amendment

[Rueda Tropical]

There's no need for the US Government to rule at the end of the spear. Tom Morello said during Occupy that he was surprised that no one was shooting bankers in the street.

Arms have zero impact on moving the government. Money and or solid voting blocs on the other hand are very effective.

[mister]

This is it. WHY are we focusing on the tools used to commit the atrocities instead of the actual causes? With the number of guns in circulation in the U.S., we will NEVER be able to reduce the number of them to effectively impact crimes committed with firearms.

We should be looking at WHY these people are committing the crimes in the first place. Our culture glorifies violence and especially violence committed with firearms. We are bombarded with images of violence on a daily basis through TV, movies, video games, etc. It's only natural that a certain percentage of our population is going to emulate what they see and commit the atrocities that have occurred over the last several years.

IMO, we should be working to reduce the number of violent images and the culture of violence that our youth is exposed to instead of worrying as much about the hardware used....

Texbike

pretty much this

is some kid that shoots his mom in the face while she's sleeping then goes on a shooting rampage at a school your average gun owner

what about someone that eats a bunch of pills and drink a bottle of whiskey and causes a bus full of school children to crash burn and die

should we ban vehicles, pharmaceutical drugs and alcohol also?

why not address the real problem? the kid had mental illness.
so address that. instead of throwing the sick out on the street to beg, suffer and die why not help them?
****. downtown is overrun with beggars that are too sick to get a job. they're crazy.
lets outlaw begging and loitering...

this seems like a pretty good article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

[Louis]

what about someone that eats a bunch of pills and drink a bottle of whiskey and causes a bus full of school children to crash burn and die

should we ban vehicles, pharmaceutical drugs and alcohol also?

1) We do have lots of laws and enforcement action to prevent drunk-driving. We have random traffic stops to try to discourage DUI. Are you proposing that we also have random traffic stops to try to discourage mass shootings? That might be a good idea. (Of course I'm joking - your analogy just doesn't work, but if you'd like to try that, then maybe we could.)

2) Nobody's proposing to ban all drinking or all pills. Nobody's proposing that we ban all guns.

[William]

this seems like a pretty good article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

I can't imagine how hard that situation is to deal with as a parent. Makes me tear up just thinking about it.





William