Thank you Paceline mods

[Kirk007]

For letting the gun thread run. It was a reasonable discussion of a very difficult issue, and education as well.

And thank you for locking it. Gotta get some actual work done today!

[phcollard]

Yes. It was a very interesting discussion. I learned a lot. And I haven't been insulted :banana:

Thanks!

[mistermo]

Yes. It was a very interesting discussion. I learned a lot.

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion."

-Thomas Jefferson

[Chance]

Yes. It was a very interesting discussion. I learned a lot. And I haven't been insulted :banana:

Thanks!

+1

Nice to see everyone stay cool and civil.

[changes2008]

Strange, not sure how I overlooked that discussion. How long ago was that thread started?

[eddief]

someone's gotta be a genius to compose such a subtle question to the forum...and have it stay open without undue trashing.

[Louis]

someone's gotta be a genius to compose such a subtle question to the forum...

So, genius, what did you decide to do with it?

(or does the gun not even exist, and the whole thing just a ploy to get the conversation started again after the first one was locked? :p )

[Ray]

So, genius, what did you decide to do with it?

(or does the gun not even exist, and the whole thing just a ploy to get the conversation started again after the first one was locked? :p )

There was one locked and I THINK one also completely deleted. A condolence thread I think - I wrote something in it one morning, came back late that afternoon or evening, and it was completely gone, along with the various replies - mine were no longer part of my history. It had seemed very civil and I wondered what went so horribly wrong in that thread in the several hours I was away from it? Nevertheless, I think everything got aired pretty well in this last one. I thought everything got pretty well aired in the first several pages which is when I bowed out of it, but I checked back and it never got too nasty. But I didn't see any new information after the first pages...

-Ray

[Bruce K]

To my knowledge, no one deleted anything.

We have been having some technical issues with the hosting server so all I can think of is that maybe something happened during one of the attempted fixes.

We try to leave everything, even when we have to lock a thread, unless there is something really offensive.

BK

[1centaur]

One reason the gun thread lasted is that there's lots of objective data and the alternatives are fairly well defined. With politics, neither truly applies so emotions wear away the edges of any discussion. Also, people who are attuned to the pro gun argument at an intellectual level tend to be more like mechanical engineers than college radicals; they are satisfied with their facts more than with their emotional place in the ethosphere. So when anti-gun people come at them with facts and alternatives, or even with "guns are bad" emotion, their satisfaction comes from the rationality of their position rather than the emotion of their refutation. That dynamic makes for good arguments (I have had them myself in my private life) and I hope leads to constructive advancement of regulations - Washington's mindset and how things play to voters is a bigger obstacle than the issues on this topic.

[eddief]

and I am not smart enough to compose a posting that would manuever as that one did. Glock will probably sold to local gun shop on consignment sometime next week.

So, genius, what did you decide to do with it?

(or does the gun not even exist, and the whole thing just a ploy to get the conversation started again after the first one was locked? :p )

[firerescuefin]

To my knowledge, no one deleted anything.

We have been having some technical issues with the hosting server so all I can think of is that maybe something happened during one of the attempted fixes.

We try to leave everything, even when we have to lock a thread, unless there is something really offensive.

BK

It was locked...then disappeared. It had become the typical tire fire. It won't be missed.

[William]

It was locked...then disappeared. It had become the typical tire fire. It won't be missed.

Yes, it started with the best of intentions but after a couple of pages turned acidic very quickly. It was locked and after some contemplation I soft deleted it....meaning it's still here but not visible. The ending tone of that thread was not one I felt was good to leave locked but still visible.

The next thread on the topic was much more cordial and constructive.






William

[Ray]

Yes, it started with the best of intentions but after a couple of pages turned acidic very quickly. It was locked and after some contemplation I soft deleted it....meaning it's still here but not visible. The ending tone of that thread was not one I felt was good to leave locked but still visible.

The next thread on the topic was much more cordial and constructive.

So it was effectively deleted...

It started off pretty well I thought. When I left I thought it was OK. Must have turned sour pretty fast.

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . Must have turned sour pretty fast.

-Ray

. . . they definitely do that. There are also times when we as mods go ahead and lock based on our past experience with certain subjects or members or combos thereof. We know it is gonna blow up pretty fast with grinding and swinging axes . . . :crap:

BBD

[Dave B]

I was a part of that thread and while I am not terribly sure I made it sour, my sincerest apologies if I spoke poorly on the subject.

I have had some interesting conversations with my students this week. Some promising young minds for sure.

[Chance]

One reason the gun thread lasted is that there's lots of objective data and the alternatives are fairly well defined. With politics, neither truly applies so emotions wear away the edges of any discussion. Also, people who are attuned to the pro gun argument at an intellectual level tend to be more like mechanical engineers than college radicals; they are satisfied with their facts more than with their emotional place in the ethosphere. So when anti-gun people come at them with facts and alternatives, or even with "guns are bad" emotion, their satisfaction comes from the rationality of their position rather than the emotion of their refutation. That dynamic makes for good arguments (I have had them myself in my private life) and I hope leads to constructive advancement of regulations - Washington's mindset and how things play to voters is a bigger obstacle than the issues on this topic.

Have a slightly different take on what set that thread apart from typical political ones ……

For whatever reason, it seems to me (based only on personal observation) that this forum is comprised of many more liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning members in relation to the general public. And with the inherent tendency of liberal minds being more expressive by nature than conservatives (who tend to be more reserved by definition), it makes having a civil political discussion in this setting nearly impossible.

The issue of gun ownership was interesting to follow because it had more members crossing the typical political party line in both directions. Was personally surprised to see so many liberals (and or those who usually affiliate with the Democratic party) state they owned guns, and likewise also conservatives (who lean towards Republican party) who wanted or were open to tighter controls. In my opinion it was respect and desire to not offend others who are typically in their camp on most other issues that helped keep it civil.


The first two threads closed were probably the result of raw emotions getting out of hand. The more time passes the easier it will be to discuss new ideas logically and constructively.

[Elefantino]

<snip>it seems to me (based only on personal observation) that this forum is comprised of many more liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning members in relation to the general public. <snip>
Wonder if that also could be said of cyclists in general? Based on personal observation, that's the case here.

[Louis]

And with the inherent tendency of liberal minds being more expressive by nature than conservatives (who tend to be more reserved by definition)

C, you just haven't spent enough time on the right forums. ;)

Many folks at both ends of the spectrum have strong feelings about this and that and have no problems at all sharing their opinions, no matter how well founded they happen to be.

L

[Chance]

Wonder if that also could be said of cyclists in general? Based on personal observation, that's the case here.

That could certainly be one explanation. Another could be that liberal minds tend to be more expressive on average and therefore more likely to seek and or participate in forums in the first place.

If conservatives are more reserved in expressing themselves as many studies have suggested, it's possible they either don't participate as much, or are less vocal about expressing their political views. Hence making it seem there are fewer of them here. Maybe they just remain in the background to a greater percentage. Who knows?

[eddief]

Have never heard of a study that would suggest conservatives are less expressive. Can you point to one?

That could certainly be one explanation. Another could be that liberal minds tend to be more expressive on average and therefore more likely to seek and or participate in forums in the first place.

If conservatives are more reserved in expressing themselves as many studies have suggested, it's possible they either don't participate as much, or are less vocal about expressing their political views. Hence making it seem there are fewer of them here. Maybe they just remain in the background to a greater percentage. Who knows?

[Tony T]

There was one locked and I THINK one also completely deleted. A condolence thread I think

I think the OP just changed the Topic.
Was this it: http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=121086

Opps, sorry, just read the "soft delete" response, so this isn't it

(BTW, I was disappointed by today's NRA response. They didn't offer anything in regard to better background checks or any control for AR's. They should have offered something to balance their position. Couldn't believe that he wouldn't take any questions during the press conference. Bad move on their part, IMO)

http://assets.amuniversal.com/bf4a1b602a1e013005cb001dd8b71c47

[DukeHorn]

I'm going to object about conservatives being "less expressive" than liberals, which is not my personal experience working in D.C.

We're on a forum where most people own premium bikes so it's already a self-selecting population with regard to education, career success and financial status. I doubt we have that many shrinking violets. Draw your own conclusions what that means.

Or you can look at Nate Silver's chart noting inverse ownership of guns in conjunction with educational attainment.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

[firerescuefin]

(BTW, I was disappointed by today's NRA response. They didn't offer anything in regard to better background checks or any control for AR's. They should have offered something to balance their position. Bad move on their part, IMO)

Agreed...Shook my head the entire time....Myopic/Stubborn doesn't even begin to cover it. I doubt the majority of their constituency (of which I am one) agreed with that stance (by itself).

I thought Rick Reilly wrote a pretty good article the other day (ESPN) that kind of echos those sentiments.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8759364/sports-reaction-newtown

[vav]

+ 1. Both your comment and the link. Thanks for posting
Vincent

Agreed...Shook my head the entire time....Myopic/Stubborn doesn't even begin to cover it. I doubt the majority of their constituency (of which I am one) agreed with that stance (by itself).

I thought Rick Reilly wrote a pretty good article the other day (ESPN) that kind of echos those sentiments.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8759364/sports-reaction-newtown

[akelman]

Agreed...Shook my head the entire time....Myopic/Stubborn doesn't even begin to cover it. I doubt the majority of their constituency (of which I am one) agreed with that stance (by itself).

I thought Rick Reilly wrote a pretty good article the other day (ESPN) that kind of echos those sentiments.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8759364/sports-reaction-newtown

I don't remember whether I saw it here or elsewhere, but a significant majority of NRA members favor more restrictive gun laws than those currently on the books. I'll see if I can find the link.

That said, Mr. LaPierre was just speaking to his base*: 2nd Amendment absolutists, a growing community of survivalists**, and, most important, gun manufacturers. It's really crucial to remember that gun makers have enjoyed record profits in recent years. Which is why I remain incredibly pessimistic about real change.

* As distinct from his organization's entire membership or the nation at large.

** I refuse to call them "preppers," as that terms conjures up images of people stocking up on pink button-down oxford shirts from Land's End and white turtlenecks from LL Bean.

[christian]

** I refuse to call them "preppers," as that terms conjures up images of people stocking up on pink button-down oxford shirts from Land's End and white turtlenecks from LL Bean.
Um, I don't know from what liberal publication you get your information, but we'd be stocking up on OCBDs from Kamakura and Brooks, tweed sport coats from O'Connells, Greenfield MTM suits and Shaggy Dog sweaters from J. Press, and Alden shoes. We'd get one pair of 10" MHS from LLB, I guess. And a metric sh*t ton of guns, of course! :)

[christian]

PS: You'll have to pry these tassel loafers from my cold dead hands. Well, feet.

[akelman]

Um, I don't know from what liberal publication you get your information, but we'd be stocking up on OCBDs from Kamakura and Brooks, tweed sport coats from O'Connells, Greenfield MTM suits and Shaggy Dog sweaters from J. Press, and Alden shoes. We'd get one pair of 10" MHS from LLB, I guess. And a metric sh*t ton of guns, of course! :)

I went straight to the source (http://www.amazon.com/Official-Preppy-Handbook-Lisa-Birnbach/dp/0894801406), pal, so back off! I mean, I'm nothing if not a demon for research in primary documents.

[akelman]

PS: You'll have to pry these tassel loafers from my cold dead hands. Well, feet.

I'm not touching your feet. Who do you take me for? Rex Ryan?

[christian]

Who do you take me for? Rex Ryan?To be fair, at this point we'd take almost anyone for Rex Ryan. How much do you know about football? How are your media skills?

[akelman]

Given what one gets paid to do that kind of work, I'll be happy to learn on the job. It seems like that was Ryan's plan, right?

[Ray]

Yo, Christian and Akelman,

You guys are making me laugh WAAAAY too hard for a thread that's in any way related to guns. You boyz have gotta stop that.

And can I interest you in a well worn Andy Reid? Maybe we'd even throw in an oft-injured QB...

-Ray

[Tony T]

I thought Rick Reilly wrote a pretty good article (http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8759364/sports-reaction-newtown) the other day (ESPN) that kind of echos those sentiments.

Good piece. Thanks for the link.

[witcombusa]

(BTW, I was disappointed by today's NRA response. They didn't offer anything in regard to better background checks or any control for AR's. They should have offered something to balance their position. Couldn't believe that he wouldn't take any questions during the press conference. Bad move on their part, IMO)



Agreed...Shook my head the entire time....Myopic/Stubborn doesn't even begin to cover it. I doubt the majority of their constituency (of which I am one) agreed with that stance (by itself).





Myself, I have no problem with any of what was said. Works for me.

The 2 protesters that popped up only embarrssed themselves and whatever perspective they might representing.

[DukeHorn]

Ahhh yes. The constituency that cries bloody murder with increased government costs are now fine with increasing local government costs by adding armed guards to schools if it allows them to avoid background checks at gun shows. Brilliant!!

[Tony T]

Myself, I have no problem with any of what was said. Works for me.

The NRA only demonstrated that they will not negotiate. Too bad. Laws will now be enacted without them at the table.

The only embarrassment was that "Even while the N.R.A. was offering to help schools better protect themselves, it proved unable to guard its own media event from protesters." (Reporters had to show media credentials to get in)

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/E/y/4/NRA-Membership-Card.jpg

[Kirk007]

Is the irony lost that the NRA response to protecting ourselves under the 2nd Amendment from government tyranny is to call for an armed government response; a military like force looking over our most impressionable citizens at our some of our most treasured institutions? Round and round we go ever upwards in escalation and gun manufacturers profits (and as I recall there were armed security guards at Colombine, and let's not forget Ft. hood - how did that work out for 'ya Wayne?).

I'm not sure but I think when he was talking about bad guys with guns he was looking in the mirror.

[93legendti]

Is the irony lost that the NRA response to protecting ourselves under the 2nd Amendment from government tyranny is to call for an armed government response; a military like force looking over our most impressionable citizens at our some of our most treasured institutions? Round and round we go ever upwards in escalation and gun manufacturers profits (and as I recall there were armed security guards at Colombine, and let's not forget Ft. hood - how did that work out for 'ya Wayne?).

I'm not sure but I think when he was talking about bad guys with guns he was looking in the mirror.

Ft. Hood happened because US soldiers aren't allowed to carry weapons on base. Idiotic. That's why he was stopped by an off duty officer who was in the area.
Your bias is showing.
Let's be factual.

How did Chicago's 28 year gun ban work? Chicago is murder capital of the world, 2012.
Uk?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html
I'm off to the range.

[Tony T]

What about Columbine?
Columbine High School had an armed “community resource officer” on duty.
Did the NRA forget about this when they gave their "meaningful contribution" today?

Anyway, there is no easy fix. The NRA should be part of the solution, but after listening to today's press conference, I don't believe that they are willing to be.

[akelman]

Sadly, once a good thread goes bad, there's nothing to be done other than to take it behind the barn and put it out of its misery. Someone please do the humane thing here!

[Chance]

Is the irony lost that the NRA response to protecting ourselves under the 2nd Amendment from government tyranny is to call for an armed government response; a military like force looking over our most impressionable citizens at our some of our most treasured institutions? Round and round we go ever upwards in escalation and gun manufacturers profits (and as I recall there were armed security guards at Colombine, and let's not forget Ft. hood - how did that work out for 'ya Wayne?).

I'm not sure but I think when he was talking about bad guys with guns he was looking in the mirror.

How so?

He was trying to articulate (although quite poorly in my opinion – they need a better spokesman) that guns themselves are not considered evil by most Americans when in the hands of the “good guys”. He mentioned secret service protecting the President, soldiers protecting the USA, and police officers everywhere protecting us all. He pleaded with us to extend that logic into meaning that guns themselves are not evil, but that evil people are the culprits. Logically it makes sense. Emotionally it doesn’t. Take your pick.

Did not agree with some of what he said, but would not consider him a bad person just because he happens to represent an opposing view. If we lower our standards to that level, half of the population will think Obama is evil and the other half that Boehner is an idiot. There is too much of that already and it gets us nowhere.

The only thing for certain is that contempt for the other side’s views will undoubtedly escalate the conflict. So in that light you are not helping matters. Personal attacks from the left will only make the NRA stronger in my opinion.

[Kirk007]

I'm off to the range.

Hope it was fun. I went for a ride. Had a coyote trot across my path in the woods; full winter coat; beautiful animal - wrong environment, but not a threat to a guy on a bike. Saw a harbor seal pup, a protected species, on the beach. They've been rarer this year - some random virus is suspected of depressing their numbers. It was a nice ride.

Over the years I've come to conclude that You and I, we live, physically and mentally, in very different worlds I believe. As someone in the last thread remarked, this isn't Israel (at least not yet). I don't see and feel the threats, and the need for an armed presence on every corner - the reality you alluded to favorably in the other thread. I hope we never get to that place; if we do, then a significant part of our freedom will have already been lost.

And for record, as I'm sure you are aware, I've never proposed a total gun ban; and I'm not volunteering to turn in mine (although I would like to ban types and certain persons from having them).

[Kirk007]

How so?

The only thing for certain is that contempt for the other side’s views will undoubtedly escalate the conflict. So in that light you are not helping matters. Personal attacks from the left will only make the NRA stronger in my opinion.

Yes I'm sure you are right, and it was a low blow. But, he is the leader of the organization that has been the muscle behind the evisceration of gun laws; the blocking of the Brady bill, the power behind stand your ground laws. At some point, as the saying goes, "the buck stops here." Neither the NRA nor its director is free from responsibility for the state of things. Maybe he's not a "bad guy", but he is not someone who I would consider blameless. There's got to be accountability for each of our acts; and his acts have been powerfully effective in allowing conditions to continue where we see the events of today, last week, the past ten years, play out.

[witcombusa]

Yes I'm sure you are right, and it was a low blow. But, he is the leader of the organization that has been the muscle behind the evisceration of gun laws; the blocking of the Brady bill, the power behind stand your ground laws. At some point, as the saying goes, "the buck stops here." Neither the NRA nor its director is free from responsibility for the state of things. Maybe he's not a "bad guy", but he is not someone who I would consider blameless. There's got to be accountability for each of our acts; and his acts have been powerfully effective in allowing conditions to continue where we see the events of today, last week, the past ten years, play out.

Perspectives vary

[Ray]

Over the years I've come to conclude that You and I, we live, physically and mentally, in very different worlds I believe. As someone in the last thread remarked, this isn't Israel (at least not yet). I don't see and feel the threats, and the need for an armed presence on every corner - the reality you alluded to favorably in the other thread. I hope we never get to that place; if we do, then a significant part of our freedom will have already been lost.

I think this is at the heart of the polarization at the micro level on the forum and at the wider level in our nation. It's not that those on one side are fundamentally right or the other wrong - it's that we want to live in fundamentally different worlds. The gun debate is the larger debate in microcosm. Some of the pro-gun people (for lack of a better term) believe they're safer, feel safer and more secure in a world with more guns for self protection. While many of the anti-gun people feel safer in a world with fewer guns and less of the risks that guns themselves represent. Some feel its absolute insanity NOT to have teachers and administrators with access to guns to protect student. While others of us are terrified of the implications of having MORE guns around our children, at school or otherwise. Some feel safer with a gun in the house - I'd feel less safe with weapons at home. There are facts and figures that can be used to support either viewpoint, but it really has nothing to do with facts and figures - it's about what makes each of us feel safer, freer, and more secure. These are just very different world views and very different definitions of things like "freedom" and "liberty", values we all share but which mean very different things to some of us than others. And these differences are difficult if not impossible to reconcile within a tightly integrated society. And these differences apply similarly to issues like self-reliance vs safety nets, enterprise and regulation, choice vs restrictions, church vs state, etc, etc, etc.

While these differences, and the strong feelings behind them, aren't new, we seem to have lost the ability to agree to disagree but to compromise so that we reach accommodations we can all live with, understanding we're not going to get our way on everything, but we're not gonna have to cave to the other side on everything either. I think there are relatively obvious compromises we could reach on things like guns, budgets, safety nets, foreign policy, even abortion which is one of the toughest issues. But we seem to have lost the ability or desire to compromise. And that inability is reflected in our elected representatives.

I find it sad and a little frightening. There's nowhere else in the world I'd rather live, but there are some societies I'd rather live in if they could be transplanted here. Which they obviously can't. So we're just gonna have t remember how to coexist with other people who want to live in fundamentally different kinda of worlds.

-Ray

[akelman]

That's an excellent comment, Ray. Really, really good stuff. Thanks.

[akelman]

Actually, I want to add a friendly amendment: I think the vast majority of people on this forum and in this country are ready to compromise on most issues, even hot-button issues. It's just that the fringes, the true believers on either side of major debates, are both intractable and ready to commit hundreds of millions of dollars to maintaining the status quo. I'm actually not sure this is a new phenomenon, but it certainly feels like it sometimes.

[palincss]

I know several pre-school teachers. The idea that they should be armed while taking care of young children is risible and undeserving of serious consideration.

As for compromise, it's clear there's only one side in this discussion that is absolutely uncompromising.

[Louis]

The idea that they should be armed while taking care of young children is risible and undeserving of serious consideration.

Not to the NRA nor to the gun industry - to them that means more members and more profits. "A chicken in every pot, and a gun in every pocket."

[Chance]

I know several pre-school teachers. The idea that they should be armed while taking care of young children is risible and undeserving of serious consideration.

As for compromise, it's clear there's only one side in this discussion that is absolutely uncompromising.

In fairness to the guy, don't recall him saying that pre-school teachers should be armed. It sounded more like he suggested armed security guards. Maybe a principal figure could double if qualified and willing to take on the responsibility. It's a safe bet many wouldn't.

As stated in a previous thread, Texas already has at least one school district that allows teachers to pack if licensed to do so. Probably not preschool. Hopefully not anyway.

Did hear on the local news this evening that school districts in my area already have almost one armed guard per school. Tried to do the math in my head as they read the list and it seemed like it ran around .5 to .7 guards per school depending on school district. Didn't quite hear all the details but it interested me enough that it deserves further investigation when time allows.

[Louis]

In fairness to the guy, don't recall him saying that pre-school teachers should be armed.

Maybe LaPierre did not say that, but plenty of others, including several politicians, have.

[dave thompson]

I've been a Life Member of the NRA for almost 40 years. What LaPierre said today is my 'tipping point'. What he stated and what he implied isn't logical, rational, productive or correct. We, the nation, don't need rehetoric of that nature, from either side. We need to have calm and rational dialog seeking reasonable solutions to this problem. It won't be easy and it certainly won't please everyone. This issue is bigger than 'we' are.

[Kirk007]

I think this is at the heart of the polarization at the micro level on the forum and at the wider level in our nation. It's not that those on one side are fundamentally right or the other wrong - it's that we want to live in fundamentally different worlds. The gun debate is the larger debate in microcosm. Some of the pro-gun people (for lack of a better term) believe they're safer, feel safer and more secure in a world with more guns for self protection. While many of the anti-gun people feel safer in a world with fewer guns and less of the risks that guns themselves represent. Some feel its absolute insanity NOT to have teachers and administrators with access to guns to protect student. While others of us are terrified of the implications of having MORE guns around our children, at school or otherwise. Some feel safer with a gun in the house - I'd feel less safe with weapons at home. There are facts and figures that can be used to support either viewpoint, but it really has nothing to do with facts and figures - it's about what makes each of us feel safer, freer, and more secure. These are just very different world views and very different definitions of things like "freedom" and "liberty", values we all share but which mean very different things to some of us than others. And these differences are difficult if not impossible to reconcile within a tightly integrated society. And these differences apply similarly to issues like self-reliance vs safety nets, enterprise and regulation, choice vs restrictions, church vs state, etc, etc, etc.

While these differences, and the strong feelings behind them, aren't new, we seem to have lost the ability to agree to disagree but to compromise so that we reach accommodations we can all live with, understanding we're not going to get our way on everything, but we're not gonna have to cave to the other side on everything either. I think there are relatively obvious compromises we could reach on things like guns, budgets, safety nets, foreign policy, even abortion which is one of the toughest issues. But we seem to have lost the ability or desire to compromise. And that inability is reflected in our elected representatives.

I find it sad and a little frightening. There's nowhere else in the world I'd rather live, but there are some societies I'd rather live in if they could be transplanted here. Which they obviously can't. So we're just gonna have t remember how to coexist with other people who want to live in fundamentally different kinda of worlds.

-Ray

well said Ray.

[palincss]

In fairness to the guy, don't recall him saying that pre-school teachers should be armed. It sounded more like he suggested armed security guards. Maybe a principal figure could double if qualified and willing to take on the responsibility. It's a safe bet many wouldn't.


That suggestion came from the Governor of Virginia.

[oldpotatoe]

Yes I'm sure you are right, and it was a low blow. But, he is the leader of the organization that has been the muscle behind the evisceration of gun laws; the blocking of the Brady bill, the power behind stand your ground laws. At some point, as the saying goes, "the buck stops here." Neither the NRA nor its director is free from responsibility for the state of things. Maybe he's not a "bad guy", but he is not someone who I would consider blameless. There's got to be accountability for each of our acts; and his acts have been powerfully effective in allowing conditions to continue where we see the events of today, last week, the past ten years, play out.

The NRA and the gun manufacturers are 'brilliant'. They do whatever they can to ensure this country is awash in guns, 9 guns for every 10 people, more guns than TVs, 300,000,000 guns...the place gets dangerous, people get killed with guns, most by law abiding citizens up to the point of squeezing the trigger and their response? MORE GUNS...

AND wrap themselves in the Constitution in spite of the fact that the 2nd amendment has been misrepresented. brilliant.

[bart998]

I didn't hear Wayne LaPierre's speech, and don't support armed teachers on campus. Teachers already have a job and we don't need untrained/armed people running around in a crisis. I do think we need an armed/trained guard at every school... police officer level at high schools, which is already the case in many areas.

Ray, I disagree with most of what you said. I'm probably one of those contentious people you're wringing your hands over... :eek:

[witcombusa]

The NRA and the gun manufacturers are 'brilliant'. They do whatever they can to ensure this country is awash in guns, 9 guns for every 10 people, more guns than TVs, 300,000,000 guns...the place gets dangerous, people get killed with guns, most by law abiding citizens up to the point of squeezing the trigger and their response? MORE GUNS...

AND wrap themselves in the Constitution in spite of the fact that the 2nd amendment has been misrepresented. brilliant.


People buy guns. Blame them (blame me).

If they didn't want them the manufactures wouldn't make them and the NRA wouldn't represent (some of) them. You can "blame" whoever you want of course.

[oldpotatoe]

People buy guns. Blame them (blame me).

If they didn't want them the manufactures wouldn't make them and the NRA wouldn't represent (some of) them. You can "blame" whoever you want of course.

I 'blame' the NRA and the gun manufactures(and the million $ lobby of both). I don't blame you for anything. You are a tool for them, they really like you.

When somebody comes in with a Campagnolo Record group that they bought online for the same $ as I can at wholesale, I don't blame the buyer...I blame the manufacturer for allowing it to happen.

It shouldn't be about just money, power, control, influence. I think the NRA and gun manufacturers need to take the 'reasonable man' approach. Isn't going to happen, of course, Waynes little 'speech', which is the official position of the NRA, showed that...more guns!!! Its dangerous out there! The black helos are comin'! Be prepared!!

What a mess and the citizenry of the US let it happen. Reason, that's all I'd like to see. A middle ground. But even if reasonable gun restrictions happened tomorrow, it would take years, decades for this gun culture to change in any meaningful way. NOT saying to ban all weapons(isn't going to happen) but some reason.

Meantime, those same 'don't tread on me', suspicious of government types want to have the Feds, pay for this little army of armed guards at all schools and of course, 'volunteers' from the NRA membership. Maybe they can use the neighborhood watch guy that killed the black kid with the skittles..can't remember his name.

Those volunteers showing up with their AR-15s modified to full auto would make ME feel more secure.....

I'm out..... this is rediculous that we are faced with this.

[e-RICHIE]

I 'blame' the NRA and the gun manufactures(and the million $ lobby of both). I don't blame you for anything. You are a tool for them, they really like you.


[X] Agreeing ^ with Peter atmo.

[verticaldoug]

93 people die each day from motor vehicles. The bulk of these are accidents although there are suicides, vehicular manslaughters, etc.

People are required to have insurance, register your automobile each year, bring the car in for servicing, have a valid license which needs to renewed periodically.

85 people die each day from guns. 2 are accidents, 50 are suicides and the rest are homicides. We have some work to do ....

[Tony T]

93 people die each day from motor vehicles. The bulk of these are accidents although there are suicides, vehicular manslaughters, etc.

85 people die each day from guns. 2 are accidents, 50 are suicides and the rest are homicides. We have some work to do ....

Your comment implies that there is discussion to ban all guns.
You know the discussion is to ban semi-automatic weapons.

There will be changes this time. The NRA's refusal to participate in meaningful gun reform will prove to be a mistake. Their power in no longer what it used to be. Future elections (including their own) will prove this to be true.


http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/z/4/NRA-Tipping-Point.jpg

[zennmotion]

What infuriates me on the gun issue is the NRA/gun lobby's ability to completely shut down any data-based discussion of policy and legislation. Leaving the country divided in an endless loop of emotion-based animus. Civil discussion based on facts and reason is not in the gun lobby's interest, coded invective wins points, supported by the occasional unverified anecdote when grandpa saved christmas by blowing away a bad guy breaking into the garage. It is illegal for the ATF to provide public access to data regarding gun sales and related violence and criminal activity. It is illegal for the CDC to provide their data on gun-related violence to the public. This is due to successful lobbying to include riders in congressional appropriations that forbid the release of gun related data by these federal agencies. Anything that is available has gone through a tortured backdoor process to find a loophole in the amendment riders, even aggregate data and statistics are very sparse. It's clear that people feel they need to talk about this, but who knows how long it will remain in the public's short attention span. If you are someone looking for a deeper understanding of gun violence, there are few sources of information to counterbalance the NRA's signal noise. But I've started reading from the link for the Violence Policy Center below, a small and underfunded think tank. I'm not sure yet how I'll get involved but I feel it necessary to do more than emote online, there's a debt to be paid to the victims, and it's way too close to home.
http://www.vpc.org/studyndx.htm

[e-RICHIE]

Growing Pains (http://www.richardsachs.com/site/2012/12/22/growing-pains/)






.

[Kirk007]

There will be changes this time. The NRA's refusal to participate in meaningful gun reform will prove to be a mistake. Their power in no longer what it used to be. Future elections (including their own) will prove this to be true.


http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/W/z/4/NRA-Tipping-Point.jpg

I hope so. For as long as I can remember, the NRA's standard response has been guns don't kill people, people do. As Chance pointed out earlier, it is a logical line that folks buy into. But it assumes responsible reasonable people are out there and will do right by society when they have a gun in their hand. Last night, CBS news interviewed a firefighter in California about the NRA stance and his response was that if every responsible homeowner has a gun then criminals would be less likely to invade.

But the problem by now should be obvious: we haven't, can't, won't fix people. Of course we need to do better. Of course this is part of the problem. But when you are already deep in a hole the first thing to do is stop digging. Put down the damn shovel (in this case at a minimum certain types of guns and ammo).

The reason a sole fixation on fixing people won't work is because Even reasonable "responsible" people can have bad days (or years). A very reasonable person today may turn into the next monster tomorrow for reasons unforseen. We all think that we are reasonable and responsible, and its the other loons out there that we have to worry about. But guess what - those "loons" think they are reasonable responsible people too. Some of us want an armed guard on every corner to feel safe; others wouldn't travel to those streets out of fear of the armed guards with the hair trigger. As a kid in my small Pennsylvania town we were all deathly afraid of one of the local police officers -Officer Jones. He grew up there; not that much older than use and we remembered the crap he did before he got a badge and a gun. He was crazy aggressive; how we got the job is beyond me. Almost weekly we have videos of boys in blue overreacting to someone's conduct and going off, using excessive and unnecessary force. And they are trained to keep cool in stressful situations! I for one would not feel one bit safer with an increase in armed "security" particularly the private contractor or volunteer type. I know there are others like me. The question then, and the delight of the NRA and manufacturers is then there is yet another possible customer base: folks arming themselves as protection against the security. As Peter points out, it is a brilliant business strategy.

[Tony T]

I'm not against the NRA's suggestion to have security guards in all schools. However, even the NRA would agree that a pistol is no match against an AR-15. Isn't this one of their arguments for the legality of assault rifles? That the "good guys" should not have less firepower than the "bad guys" (even the NRA would agree that it's not practicable for an armed guard to walk around an elementary school with an AR-15).

There is no one-fix solution to this problem, however, the ban of semi-automatic weapons (for individual citizens) is the 1st step.

[Ray]

Ray, I disagree with most of what you said. I'm probably one of those contentious people you're wringing your hands over... :eek:
Which part? That we want to live in fundamentally different worlds? Or that we're getting worse and worse at figuring out how to compromise?

-Ray

[zennmotion]

How so?

The only thing for certain is that contempt for the other side’s views will undoubtedly escalate the conflict. So in that light you are not helping matters. Personal attacks from the left will only make the NRA stronger in my opinion.

Escalate the conflict? Interesting choice of language often chosen by the gun advocates, evoking fear based violent fantasies. It's words- debate, not a war. And the NRA has never been stronger than it was last Tuesday. What did you hear about gun control or gun violence during the past election cycle? Crickets. How have gun control policies been weakened since, say, the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007? I live in VA, and I can tell you at the state level, again it's been crickets after a brief period of media attention. Let's be clear and distinguish contempt for people from contempt for views. The current cacaphony (sic) from the right is hardly nuanced. I grew up with plenty of hunters and sport shooters, I don't want (nor do I think it possible) to take away all the guns. But I hold the views of enthusiasts of military style weapons in contempt. And escalation of the issue in public discourse is way overdue, the more we talk about it, the harder it is for the NRA and the gun lobby to remain in the smoked filled rooms where policy is made.

[palincss]

There is no one-fix solution to this problem, however, the ban of semi-automatic weapons (for individual citizens) is the 1st step.

The fact that a firearm is an autoloader doesn't necessarily mean it's a good tool for a mass murderer. There are many places in this country where a semi-automatic shotgun loaded with deer slugs is the ideal hunting weapon.

[palincss]

And the NRA has never been stronger than it was last Tuesday.


Not when you've got life-long hunters who are NRA Life Members saying their current position is absurd and does not represent their beliefs.

[akelman]

Not when you've got life-long hunters who are NRA Life Members saying their current position is absurd and does not represent their beliefs.

And not when the New York Post (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/new-york-post-daily-news-blast-nra-speech?ref=fpblg), among the most conservative papers in the United States, is calling Wayne LaPierre a "gun nut" and his speech a "bizarre rant." Still, I wish I saw the path to meaningful legislation.

[William]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this point of view, but I'm posting the link to outline a differing opinion.

I didn’t want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. I’ve been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. I’ve heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and I’ve spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I don’t mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I can’t stand).
Today’s blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything I’ve heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work.
A little background for those of you who don’t know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV.
I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppresors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face.
I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns.
I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. I’ve worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and I’d make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events.
I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45 in one August alone. I’ve got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. I’ve won matches, and I’ve been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace.
I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level, and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. I’ve argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry.
Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that I’ve heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.....

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/





William

[oldpotatoe]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this point of view, but I'm posting the link to outline a differing opinion.






William

Another position that in essence states, there are bunches and bunches of guns in the US, can't do anything about that. So these guns are going to get into the hands of bad guys, can't do anything about that either..ARM the teachers..meet violence with superior violence and the guy will cower, give up or kill himself.

Instead of just saying that we can't do anything about the large number of guns and that bad guys get guns...MORE guns..awesome.

Like we have a disease, treat the disease but don't get clean water to eradicate the disease. Put a bandaide on your thumb when you smack it with a hammer..don't get better with the hammer or don't use a hammer.

absurd. I also dislike anybody who are 'non gun folk' portrayed as uneducated, emotional nit-wits.

[Louis]

So these guns are going to get into the hands of bad guys, can't do anything about that either..ARM the teachers..meet violence with superior violence and the guy will cower, give up or kill himself.

Instead of just saying that we can't do anything about the large number of guns and that bad guys get guns...MORE guns..awesome.

Well, if you don't think arming the teachers will work, we can always arm the students too - there's safety in numbers. I personally would draw the line at pre-kinders packing, but down to kindergarden would probably be fine. (Unless they take monthly NRA-sponsored gun education classess - in that case, anyone ought to be free to carry, openly or concealed, regardless of age.)

Too bad the folks in that church in PA yesterday weren't armed - they too could have defended themselves.

[palincss]

I do hope that's sarcasm.

[Louis]

I do hope that's sarcasm.

It is, but the fact that you can't be sure must mean something about how far-out and head-spinningly nuts this whole discussion has become.

[Llewellyn]

I do think we need an armed/trained guard at every school...
:

Please tell me you're not serious :eek:

[Louis]

Please tell me you're not serious :eek:

Lots of them already have them. It's not clear that they make a whole lot of difference. (e.g. Columbine had one - he shot four times at the shooters and missed each time)

In my opinion, in order for any school to be even 75% safe (no such thing as 100% safe) you'd need to turn it into something like a prison.*

There's talk out there that the mass-killers go to places where guns are specifically not allowed, but I haven't seen numbers from an objective source. I'm sure some will come out eventually. Right now only the pro-gun folks are providing data on this.

*Edit: yes, I have been in one - went a few times to visit a buddy of mine from work who was accused of multiple homicide.

[rustychisel]

three very quick points,

thanks for letting the topic and debate run, it's good. And thanks that it's mostly without acrimony.

Second, those of us not from there simply cannot understand the obsession with guns. Cannot.

Third: the advocation of armed guards at schools etc. Based on the theory of big is better, better armed is more protected, etc. I believe there was a period in America's recent past when this was essentially rule of force, and eventually was supplanted... aftar all, they named it the 'wild west' for a reason.

[Tony T]

NYTimes:

N.R.A. Call to Guard Schools Is Criticized as Too Simplistic (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/us/mixed-reaction-to-call-for-armed-guards-in-schools.html?hp)

But even those who said they might support some increased police presence on campuses as part of a broader safety strategy pointed out that the group’s proposal was far too simplistic.

Craig Steckler, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, called the rifle association’s proposal unrealistic and probably unwise. Putting at least one officer in each of the nation’s schools could mean hiring as many as 100,000 people, he said, expanding the ranks of state and local officers by one-quarter. Qualified applicants, he said, are already scarce.

“I have been saying for years that schools should have personnel, whether it is a janitor or a principal, who are armed,” said John DeLoca, a father of a teenager and two other grown children who owns the Seneca Sporting Range in Ridgewood, Queens, and is a licensed gun dealer and an N.R.A. certified firearms instructor. “We have fire extinguishers all over the place and hopefully we never have to use them. In the same way, we need trained armed personnel at schools.”

A Bleak Procession of Funerals for Shooting Victims Ends in Newtown (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/nyregion/newtown-mourns-last-of-its-children-killed-in-massacre.html?hp)
“It does not make sense,” Monsignor Weiss said, adding that the children did not die in vain. “If these 20 cannot change the world, then no one can,” he said.

The shootings have resonated around the world, and have set off an intense national discussion on gun control, mental health and other issues.

[Kirk007]

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this point of view, but I'm posting the link to outline a differing opinion.






William

As Ray said earlier: different worlds. I can't imagine what this guy's life must be like, walking around each day, packing and worrying about a bad guy behind every bush that he may need to defend himself from. This must be the world as he percieves it and his call for more guns portends a world even worse. Really, this is freedom? This is what so many Americans have died for in multiple wars over the past century: the right to walk around in fear, with your gun at the ready, jeez, that sucks.

In 54 years, living in the rural east, urban mountain states, urban West Coast and rural West Coast I have never, not once, felt the need to have a gun to be secure. I hope to never have to live in that state. Guess I'll stick to the monster killer's effeminate liberal elite urban centers where the gun culture has been wiped out - seems much safer here without that culture that this guy romanticizes.

Yesterday two folks were killed near Seattle by a falling tree branch. Somewhere someone might have been killed by lightening. Life is random and uncertain. What is the real life chance of being harmed by random gun violence - it must be low. We are all going to die; it isn't something I spend much time thinking about. I hope only to live each day fully, try to accomplish something good for the world and enjoy the time here on earth. I refuse to spend my days worrying about the low probability of some bad guy with a gun going rambo on me; I refuse to further encumber my life by trying to remember to grab my Glock and a few extra clips every time I head out the door; it's all I can do to remember the smartphone and my wallet!

[palincss]

As Ray said earlier: different worlds. I can't imagine what this guy's life must be like, walking around each day, packing and worrying about a bad guy behind every bush that he may need to defend himself from. This must be the world as he percieves it and his call for more guns portends a world even worse. Really, this is freedom?


Some might well call it paranoia, and wonder: since paranoia is a form of mental illness, shouldn't that disqualify a person for firearms ownership?

[Ti Designs]

Yes, it started with the best of intentions but after a couple of pages turned acidic very quickly. It was locked and after some contemplation I soft deleted it....meaning it's still here but not visible. The ending tone of that thread was not one I felt was good to leave locked but still visible.

There was one question I wanted to answer. It wasn't about guns. I doubt if anyone remembers what that question was...

[Peter B]

<snip>

In 54 years, living in the rural east, urban mountain states, urban West Coast and rural West Coast I have never, not once, felt the need to have a gun to be secure. I hope to never have to live in that state. Guess I'll stick to the monster killer's effeminate liberal elite urban centers where the gun culture has been wiped out - seems much safer here without that culture that this guy romanticizes.



I've only ever resided in the west. But I've wandered all over the west, both urban and rural, cities, creeks, canyons, lakes, mountains, Alaskan bush, big moose/grizzly territory, bars, roadhouses, camps, Canada, very rural BC, big trees to no trees, France; Paris and Brest and all in between, Belgium, New Zealand, fjords, planes, Italy, locals for kayaking, lunch & beer, Croatia--strangers in a strange land, land mines, climbers, urban, rural, sheep, sheep, lost out at night, but so generous and trusting of me. And never with a gun. And never have I wanted for one. And never have I felt unsafe for lack of one.
But rather, I have met some amazing, curious, generous, trusting and trustworthy people who have taken me in, welcomed me, fed me, housed me, taught me, cared for me, befriended and joined with me. I've fortunately experienced a very different slice of humanity and the world than the NRA fearful.

[Ray]

I can't imagine what this guy's life must be like, walking around each day, packing and worrying about a bad guy behind every bush that he may need to defend himself from. This must be the world as he percieves it and his call for more guns portends a world even worse. Really, this is freedom? This is what so many Americans have died for in multiple wars over the past century: the right to walk around in fear, with your gun at the ready, jeez, that sucks.

In 54 years, living in the rural east, urban mountain states, urban West Coast and rural West Coast I have never, not once, felt the need to have a gun to be secure. I hope to never have to live in that state. Guess I'll stick to the monster killer's effeminate liberal elite urban centers where the gun culture has been wiped out - seems much safer here without that culture that this guy romanticizes.


Yeah, that about says it. I suppose I could be killed by a gun, but I don't think the very small odds of that go DOWN if I'm carrying one - I think they go up if anything - if some bad guy with a gun MIGHT shoot me, he'd be more likely to if he saw I had a gun and was a threat to him. Unless I got the jump on him, but if he's out looking for trouble (being the bad guy) and I'm not (being the good guy), he's more likely to get the jump on me and more likely to shoot me if I'm then going for a gun. And the idea of carrying a lethal weapon with me all the time "just in case" sounds like a thoroughly horrible existence. Sounds like a terrible price to pay for some level of "security" that would make me feel less secure. I've never felt the need either and I feel sorry for those who feel safer with a gun.

Why not just walk around with body armor and flack jackets all the time, and a combat helmet. That would be the life. But we'd be safer no? Required attire for all kindergarten students going forward.

It's one thing to have the freedom to carry, but when you're freedom impinges on mine, we have a problem Houston. Bad guys have always had guns. I'm more worried about all of the "good guy" vigilantes out there that the NRA is pushing. The bad guys are usually shooting at a particular target, and so far not me. But all of those good guys carrying, on the lookout for bad guys, is more likely to result in some hellacious crossfire that scares me more and is more likely to hit me. More guns make me feel less secure, not more.

I'm not under the illusion that any laws we could ever pass would have stopped that madman last week. He was a severely sick and demented and determined young man. Bad things are gonna happen and we won't and shouldn't make our schools into armed fortresses to prevent the rare occurrence. But on balance, more guns haven't made us safer than the other developed nations. And more guns yet aren't gonna.

-Ray

[rugbysecondrow]

As Ray said earlier: different worlds. I can't imagine what this guy's life must be like, walking around each day, packing and worrying about a bad guy behind every bush that he may need to defend himself from. This must be the world as he percieves it and his call for more guns portends a world even worse. Really, this is freedom? This is what so many Americans have died for in multiple wars over the past century: the right to walk around in fear, with your gun at the ready, jeez, that sucks.

In 54 years, living in the rural east, urban mountain states, urban West Coast and rural West Coast I have never, not once, felt the need to have a gun to be secure. I hope to never have to live in that state. Guess I'll stick to the monster killer's effeminate liberal elite urban centers where the gun culture has been wiped out - seems much safer here without that culture that this guy romanticizes.

Yesterday two folks were killed near Seattle by a falling tree branch. Somewhere someone might have been killed by lightening. Life is random and uncertain. What is the real life chance of being harmed by random gun violence - it must be low. We are all going to die; it isn't something I spend much time thinking about. I hope only to live each day fully, try to accomplish something good for the world and enjoy the time here on earth. I refuse to spend my days worrying about the low probability of some bad guy with a gun going rambo on me; I refuse to further encumber my life by trying to remember to grab my Glock and a few extra clips every time I head out the door; it's all I can do to remember the smartphone and my wallet!

This is pretty much how I feel as well. Life is too short to be scared, living in fear all the time. I find it interesting that many of the same people living in fear, toting guns at all times also claim to believe in God. It seems to me that a solid belief in God ought to provide more peace, confidence and understanding in life and what you can and can't control. Somehow this is lost on some folks.

[witcombusa]

This is pretty much how I feel as well. Life is too short to be scared, living in fear all the time. I find it interesting that many of the same people living in fear, toting guns at all times also claim to believe in God. It seems to me that a solid belief in God ought to provide more peace, confidence and understanding in life and what you can and can't control. Somehow this is lost on some folks.

Now religion?(Seriously?) This is really getting fun now...


For me it has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with self sufficiency. It's not any different than why I have a generator. You rely on the power company to supply you with electricity. If they can't you throw up you arms and light a few candles. I turn on the generator. I'd rather not need to use it but sadly it has had hundreds of hours of run time in the last decade alone.
Law Enforcement is not responsible to protect me personally so I am willing to take on that as well. Hope I never need to, but I'd rather simply be prepared.

Those that are satisfied with society's "services" will continue to rely on them.
I'm not.

[Ray]

This is pretty much how I feel as well. Life is too short to be scared, living in fear all the time. I find it interesting that many of the same people living in fear, toting guns at all times also claim to believe in God. It seems to me that a solid belief in God ought to provide more peace, confidence and understanding in life and what you can and can't control. Somehow this is lost on some folks.

Whoooo-eeeeee. That's another topic for another day and, I'm absolutely confident that the moderators would agree, another place. I'd have plenty of my own theories on this group of issues, but I'm not gonna go there, here...

-Ray

[zennmotion]

Now religion?(Seriously?) This is really getting fun now...


For me it has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with self sufficiency. It's not any different than why I have a generator. You rely on the power company to supply you with electricity. If they can't you throw up you arms and light a few candles. I turn on the generator. I'd rather not need to use it but sadly it has had hundreds of hours of run time in the last decade alone.
Law Enforcement is not responsible to protect me personally so I am willing to take on that as well. Hope I never need to, but I'd rather simply be prepared.

Those that are satisfied with society's "services" will continue to rely on them.
I'm not.

I think it's fair enough to mention a religious worldview if one of the major arguments of the gun lobby is the need to change society- "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Self- sufficiency? For a guy living a comfortable modern lifestyle on the East Coast of the US? Specious. So, you're prepared to douse your own house fire, maintain your own road, educate yourself and your kids in a homeschooled vacuum, provide your own medical care? Let's get real, you like guns and somehow they make you feel safer in your house in the woods, it's how you grew up, it's how you look at life, whatever, I get it, I really do. Of course it's based on fear, what else would it be? But you're missing the central issue of proliferation of military style weapons, no way you can argue that more is more better for your self-sufficient home security hero fantasy world.
BTW, I hope you're not one of those guys with a hard wired generator, those are major hazards to the people trying to restore your power. Seriously, unplug it from the box, a good friend of mine, a lineman for NYSEG in NY was months in the hospital from running into an unexpected live cable from someone's generator.

[Climb01742]

I've only ever resided in the west. But I've wandered all over the west, both urban and rural, cities, creeks, canyons, lakes, mountains, Alaskan bush, big moose/grizzly territory, bars, roadhouses, camps, Canada, very rural BC, big trees to no trees, France; Paris and Brest and all in between, Belgium, New Zealand, fjords, planes, Italy, locals for kayaking, lunch & beer, Croatia--strangers in a strange land, land mines, climbers, urban, rural, sheep, sheep, lost out at night, but so generous and trusting of me. And never with a gun. And never have I wanted for one. And never have I felt unsafe for lack of one.
But rather, I have met some amazing, curious, generous, trusting and trustworthy people who have taken me in, welcomed me, fed me, housed me, taught me, cared for me, befriended and joined with me. I've fortunately experienced a very different slice of humanity and the world than the NRA fearful.

this is close to my experience as well. humanity has far, far more often impressed me than made me fearful.

[Tony T]

For me it has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with self sufficiency. It's not any different than why I have a generator.

I admire that you're able to only eat what you hunt, and don't rely on the meat industry (can't do that in NYC).
Who knows what goes into your food before it makes it to the supermarket.

But do you really need a 30 round magazine to take down a dear?

[Kirk007]

I've only ever resided in the west. But I've wandered all over the west, both urban and rural, cities, creeks, canyons, lakes, mountains, Alaskan bush, big moose/grizzly territory, bars, roadhouses, camps, Canada, very rural BC, big trees to no trees, France; Paris and Brest and all in between, Belgium, New Zealand, fjords, planes, Italy, locals for kayaking, lunch & beer, Croatia--strangers in a strange land, land mines, climbers, urban, rural, sheep, sheep, lost out at night, but so generous and trusting of me. And never with a gun. And never have I wanted for one. And never have I felt unsafe for lack of one.
But rather, I have met some amazing, curious, generous, trusting and trustworthy people who have taken me in, welcomed me, fed me, housed me, taught me, cared for me, befriended and joined with me. I've fortunately experienced a very different slice of humanity and the world than the NRA fearful.

well said; and what great experiences!

[rugbysecondrow]

this is close to my experience as well. humanity has far, far more often impressed me than made me fearful.

Exactly. Fortunately my experience as well.

[Black Dog]

Now religion?(Seriously?) This is really getting fun now...


For me it has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with self sufficiency. It's not any different than why I have a generator. You rely on the power company to supply you with electricity. If they can't you throw up you arms and light a few candles. I turn on the generator. I'd rather not need to use it but sadly it has had hundreds of hours of run time in the last decade alone.
Law Enforcement is not responsible to protect me personally so I am willing to take on that as well. Hope I never need to, but I'd rather simply be prepared.

Those that are satisfied with society's "services" will continue to rely on them.
I'm not.

We are all reliant on societies services in a big way. Until you dig your own ore and coal, forge your own steel, weave your own clothes, hew you own wood, draw your own water, pump and refine your own crude oil and.....

Everything we accomplish in on the shoulders of society. All the infrastructure and education was waiting for us when we came out of the womb. No one is self made or self reliant from scratch. We all depend on each other and enjoy the legacy of the labours of those that came before us. This reality certainly conflicts with the self made man fantasy/myth and the unlimited individual freedoms myth.

Until a person can be dropped into the wilderness naked and survive for the duration they are reliant on others.

No offence meant here, I try to be as self reliant as is practical but it is hubris to think that I am an island. We get far more from working together than we do from working alone.

[witcombusa]

We are all reliant on societies services in a big way. Until you dig your own ore and coal, forge your own steel, weave your own clothes, hew you own wood, draw your own water, pump and refine your own crude oil and.....

Everything we accomplish in on the shoulders of society. All the infrastructure and education was waiting for us when we came out of the womb. No one is self made or self reliant from scratch. We all depend on each other and enjoy the legacy of the labours of those that came before us. This reality certainly conflicts with the self made man fantasy/myth and the unlimited individual freedoms myth.

Until a person can be dropped into the wilderness naked and survive for the duration they are reliant on others.

No offence meant here, I try to be as self reliant as is practical but it is hubris to think that I am an island. We get far more from working together than we do from working alone.


I think you all missed the point. I am making no claim to living without "society". I am saying that there are some rather large gaps that you either choose to fill in or not.

[jblande]

while watching meet the press this morning, i thought to myself that a society without holes would be one in which every door has an armed guard and every person a concealed weapon.

[Tony T]

N.R.A. Leaders Defiant in Television Interview (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/n-r-a-leaders-defiant-in-television-appearances/?src=twrhp)

Leaders of the National Rifle Association said Sunday that they would fight any new gun restrictions introduced in Congress, and they made clear that they were not interested in working with President Obama to help develop a broad response to the Connecticut school massacre.

During an appearance on the NBC News program “Meet the Press,” Wayne LaPierre, the vice president of the powerful gun lobby, was openly dismissive of a task force established by Mr. Obama and led by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. that is examining ways to reduce gun violence.

On the question of whether a limit on high-capacity ammunition would reduce the likelihood of mass shootings like the one in Connecticut, Mr. LaPierre said in a testy exchange with David Gregory, the host of “Meet the Press,” that “I don’t think it will.”


http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/609/93833255-nra.jpg

[akelman]

Wayne LaPierre doesn't represent the entirety of the NRA, an organization of 4 million+ members. That said, I wonder how many people will cancel their memberships in the coming weeks, like George H.W. Bush did (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/11/us/letter-of-resignation-sent-by-bush-to-rifle-association.html?pagewanted=print&src=pm) years ago.

Also, this (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470) is a very interesting link for those us who prefer data-drive discussions of public policy. It turns out there's a reason that there's been precious little high-quality research conducted on the issue of gun violence in this country.

[palincss]

Now religion?(Seriously?) This is really getting fun now...


For me it has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with self sufficiency. It's not any different than why I have a generator. You rely on the power company to supply you with electricity. If they can't you throw up you arms and light a few candles. I turn on the generator. I'd rather not need to use it but sadly it has had hundreds of hours of run time in the last decade alone.
Law Enforcement is not responsible to protect me personally so I am willing to take on that as well. Hope I never need to, but I'd rather simply be prepared.

Those that are satisfied with society's "services" will continue to rely on them.
I'm not.

Do you use black powder flintlocks, with home made black powder and flints you knapp yourself?

[palincss]

I admire that you're able to only eat what you hunt, and don't rely on the meat industry (can't do that in NYC).
Who knows what goes into your food before it makes it to the supermarket.

But do you really need a 30 round magazine to take down a dear?

Tony, you don't even need a 30 round magazine to take down a deer.

[Louis]

But do you really need a 30 round magazine to take down a dear?

Apparently yes, if it's your mother.

[Black Dog]

I think you all missed the point. I am making no claim to living without "society". I am saying that there are some rather large gaps that you either choose to fill in or not.

Fair enough and I agree that in the USA that is the case. Do you feel safe where you live? I am curious, I am not baiting you. The perception of risk is very interesting stuff.

[verticaldoug]

Tony, you don't even need a 30 round magazine to take down a deer.

New York State limits 6 shell max for a gun other than a pistol shorter than 9 inches for deer hunting.

When I was younger and hunted duck in Minnesota, I believe we had a 3 shell limit and had to plug anything with 5 or 6 shots.

There are a lot of regulations for hunting- Can't bait, salt lick, shoot in water, radio tagged , motor vehicle etc.

If everyone carries a firearm, stuff like this will happen more often. People 'get scared' have the ability to shoot, and claim self defense. People will die needlessly. It is obvious, this is the society which you eventually get in the NRA world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Vang

[verticaldoug]

The great thing about the U.S. Constitution and the founding fathers is they realize the world was not static. They put in place the ability to alter the constitution if the people will it. The ultimate authority is 'the people'. Many of the founding fathers were slave owners. Fortunately, with the rules they put in place, in 1864 the 13th amendment to abolish slavery was proposed and eventually passed. If someone had the guts, they could propose a 28th amendment to change the 2nd amendment. We did it with the experiment called prohibition. 18th amendment started it, the 21st amendment ended it.

[Tony T]

apparently yes, if it's your mother.

w t f ? ? ?

edit: Oh, the murderer's mother.

.

[mister]

^ that's still a * * *

and also wrong
she shot his mother with a .22 according to what i read

[choke]

I'm more worried about all of the "good guy" vigilantes out there that the NRA is pushing. The bad guys are usually shooting at a particular target, and so far not me. But all of those good guys carrying, on the lookout for bad guys, is more likely to result in some hellacious crossfire that scares me more and is more likely to hit me. More guns make me feel less secure, not more. If everyone carries a firearm, stuff like this will happen more often. People 'get scared' have the ability to shoot, and claim self defense. People will die needlessly. Many people feel this way but the data says otherwise. (I'm not picking on you two, you just happened to be near the end of the thread, and I've seen this same view espoused by several people here.) This is from an opinion piece (Sep 2012) but the link to the stats is in the article....or here (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm) if you want to bypass the OpEd. Frankly, Texas’ concealed handgun law scares some folks. They may believe that we have too many guns on the street as it is and don’t need more people running around armed.

In their worst nightmare, they imagine 10 people in a crowd pulling weapons from under their coats and firing away at a threat, real or imagined.

Reality, of course, is nothing like that. Texas licensed people to carry concealed handguns 17 years ago, and that hasn’t happened. Which is not to say it couldn’t, just that it hasn’t.

Taken as a group, CHL holders are among the most law-abiding and responsible people you could hope to meet. The statistics bear that out.

The number of license holders has increased by about five-fold since the law went into effect, yet the number of criminal convictions among this class has remained miniscule.

In fact, the “worst” year was the first year of statistics, 1996, when CHL holders made up 0.4565 percent of all criminal convictions, or less than half of 1 percent. In 2011, despite the aforementioned dramatic increase in license holders, their percentage among all criminal convictees was 0.1884 percent. (In raw numbers, there were 153 CHL holders convicted in 1996, compared to 120 in 2011.)http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/texas-should-shoot-down-a-bad-virginia-law-on-handguns.html/

[merlincustom1]

Many people feel this way but the data says otherwise. (I'm not picking on you two, you just happened to be near the end of the thread, and I've seen this same view espoused by several people here.) This is from an opinion piece (Sep 2012) but the link to the stats is in the article....or here (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm) if you want to bypass the OpEd. http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2012/09/texas-should-shoot-down-a-bad-virginia-law-on-handguns.html/

I get what the data says. Try selling that to Travon Martin's family. George Zimmerman carrying in a stand your ground state was a wicked combination that will only happen more frequently in the future.

[firerescuefin]

I get what the data says. Try selling that to Travon Martin's family. George Zimmerman carrying in a stand your ground state was a wicked combination that will only happen more frequently in the future.

Haters hate Data...add me to the ccw folks not making the world a more dangerous place crowd. Doesn't GZ still have his day in court coming up. Last I checked aren't you innocent until proven guilty....and no, I'm not pro assault weapon...and I just canceled my NRA membership...so save the Overblown subjective/emotionally charged character assassination for another member.

[merlincustom1]

Haters hate Data...add me to the ccw folks not making the world a more dangerous place crowd. Doesn't GZ still have his day in court coming up. Last I checked aren't you innocent until proven guilty....and no, I'm not pro assault weapon...and I just canceled my NRA membership...so save the Overblown subjective/emotionally charged character assassination for another member.

Dude, chill. I'm no "hater." That term has no meaning. I didn't say that Zimmerman is guilty of anything; I think the DA overcharged in that case. The point is that Zimmerman's gun in his waistband, his irrational fear of a black kid in a hoodie armed with candy, his disobeyance of a directive from the 911 operator to stand down, and Florida's stand your ground law combined to result in tragedy. District Attorneys and police are against stand your ground laws. This case proves why, and there will be others. So save your rhetoric for another member.

[akelman]

Again, let me point people here (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470). Given what that link says, I suspect there's very little good data on either side of this debate, or at least very little good data that's fresh and relevant. In other words, while there are a bunch of studies that have been paid for or conducted by interested parties, studies saying that more guns mean more safety, or, conversely, that more guns mean more danger, there may be no recent and dispassionate social science.

[firerescuefin]

..

[Peter B]

Here's my Christmas wish to fellow forumites, our families, friends, loved ones, and extending a warm feeling towards those we fear, may they find their own heart and though that, the hearts of others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4JXhq7gd9g

[merlincustom1]

Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Carry Holders:

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf

[Louis]

Speaking of Christmas, I wonder how many guns (or at least Daisy air rifles) there will be Tuesday morning under the Christmas trees? Oh the irony.

[Kirk007]

And how many bad guys have concealed carriers shot; hence coming to the heroic rescue of themselves or their fellow citizens?

A clever person can always use data and statistics cleverly. But some things cannot be explained away as mere coincidence, and percentages etc. tend to sanitize the impact of what we are talking about. We are talking about our fellow citizens being gunned down and this only happens by a shooter with a gun in their hand.

Random mass murders by weapons in Americans were not part of my youth; nor my fathers nor grandfathers. The assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns in use by John Q Public were not part of my youth nor my fathers nor my grandfathers. But since my 24th birthday in 1982, there have been 66 mass murders by gun in the good ole U.S.A., defined as at least 4 dead, according to Mother Jones list: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

During this same time the number of guns in America has increased even though the percent of households with guns has decreased. This article has some interesting numbers: (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/guns-in-america-statistics/60071/), including that America, 5% of the world's population owns 50% of the worlds guns.

Comparing death in injury by guns in America to other high income countries is a depressing exercise: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html (A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US.)

Weapons like the Bushmaster are fairly recent in origin as well - post Vietnam. One particle about the gun remarks how its popularity skyrocketed after 9/11/2001 (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/bushmaster_ar15_sandy_hook_adam_lanza.php). And the technology available in hand guns is similarly advanced over what was available 30 -40 years ago.

So, consider history of random mass murders in American pre and post Vietnam. Consider the total number of deaths by guns. Consider what weapons were or were not available during those two time periods.

Gun advocates will twist this and say, yes look at how many of these guns are owned by responsible gun owners! These incidents are very low when compared to the number of bushmaster like weapons owned. Small consolation to the parents at Sandy Hook and the other impacted by these events.

That old homespun wisdom seems applicable here: "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch." But more sinister here is the fact that we don't know where the bad apples are; good apples frequently become bad apples, and when they do, an innocent is usually the one who suffers. Time to have better much better regulation over the apples, and the folks who can buy them. That won't solve the problem of apples already out there in storage or the apple that seemed to be or was good and due to whatever has gone bad, but it is at least a start.

[cfox]

That old homespun wisdom seems applicable here: "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch." But more sinister here is the fact that we don't know where the bad apples are; good apples frequently become bad apples, and when they do, an innocent is usually the one who suffers. Time to have better much better regulation over the apples, and the folks who can buy them. That won't solve the problem of apples already out there in storage or the apple that seemed to be or was good and due to whatever has gone bad, but it is at least a start.
Another terrific, well thought out post by Kirk007 on this subject. This last paragraph is what sticks with me. Someone assuring me that they are one of the "good guys" isn't enough for me by a long shot. Every bad guy is a good guy until they commit a crime. Some guy just shot/killed 4 people in Penn., I don't think he had a prior record. If we are going to insist on having guns in this country, the process to get one MUST become more restrictive. To tie this into a recent thread; it's some places it's more difficult to adopt a dog than it is to buy an assault rifle. That is not hyperbole, and it is a sad statement.

[Climb01742]

And how many bad guys have concealed carriers shot; hence coming to the heroic rescue of themselves or their fellow citizens?

A clever person can always use data and statistics cleverly. But some things cannot be explained away as mere coincidence, and percentages etc. tend to sanitize the impact of what we are talking about. We are talking about our fellow citizens being gunned down and this only happens by a shooter with a gun in their hand.

Random mass murders by weapons in Americans were not part of my youth; nor my fathers nor grandfathers. The assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns in use by John Q Public were not part of my youth nor my fathers nor my grandfathers. But since my 24th birthday in 1982, there have been 66 mass murders by gun in the good ole U.S.A., defined as at least 4 dead, according to Mother Jones list: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

During this same time the number of guns in America has increased even though the percent of households with guns has decreased. This article has some interesting numbers: (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/guns-in-america-statistics/60071/), including that America, 5% of the world's population owns 50% of the worlds guns.

Comparing death in injury by guns in America to other high income countries is a depressing exercise: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html (A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US.)

Weapons like the Bushmaster are fairly recent in origin as well - post Vietnam. One particle about the gun remarks how its popularity skyrocketed after 9/11/2001 (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/bushmaster_ar15_sandy_hook_adam_lanza.php). And the technology available in hand guns is similarly advanced over what was available 30 -40 years ago.

So, consider history of random mass murders in American pre and post Vietnam. Consider the total number of deaths by guns. Consider what weapons were or were not available during those two time periods.

Gun advocates will twist this and say, yes look at how many of these guns are owned by responsible gun owners! These incidents are very low when compared to the number of bushmaster like weapons owned. Small consolation to the parents at Sandy Hook and the other impacted by these events.

That old homespun wisdom seems applicable here: "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch." But more sinister here is the fact that we don't know where the bad apples are; good apples frequently become bad apples, and when they do, an innocent is usually the one who suffers. Time to have better much better regulation over the apples, and the folks who can buy them. That won't solve the problem of apples already out there in storage or the apple that seemed to be or was good and due to whatever has gone bad, but it is at least a start.

kirk007, thank you for taking the time and braincells to add a great deal of thoughtful perspective to this thread. i wonder how much of the differing POVs on this subject aren't reflective of the data but reflective of deeper, personal worldviews. we all see the world through personal prisms. we tell ourselves we are seeing the world as it really is, but more and more i believe we see our versions of the world. you and i seem to share a prism. others in this thread have different prisms. which doesn't make anyone right or wrong. but it has, with the years, made me try to be less adamant about my opinions. i'd like to think that i see 'reality' but as long as i am using my own eyes and my own mind, i'm just seeing my chosen, preferred version of reality. i hope the vision of the world we seem to share is close to 'reality'. because some other visions expressed in this debate kinda bum me out. thanks again, kirk007, for being part of this thread.

[verticaldoug]

Even if you carry a concealed weapon, I'd expect you to support a limit to the high capacity magazines. My Chai Vang post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chai_Vang
shows one man with a 20 shot Saiga rifle killing 6 and injuring 2 hunters in a group of 15. With a smaller magazine, chances are lives would have been spared. Now many guys have this notion that a lone hero with a handgun will take down the gunman. . . maybe, but your chances will improve if the madman can't shoot at you 20 to 100 times.

[jr59]

And how many bad guys have concealed carriers shot; hence coming to the heroic rescue of themselves or their fellow citizens?

A clever person can always use data and statistics cleverly. But some things cannot be explained away as mere coincidence, and percentages etc. tend to sanitize the impact of what we are talking about. We are talking about our fellow citizens being gunned down and this only happens by a shooter with a gun in their hand.

Random mass murders by weapons in Americans were not part of my youth; nor my fathers nor grandfathers. The assault weapons and semi-automatic handguns in use by John Q Public were not part of my youth nor my fathers nor my grandfathers. But since my 24th birthday in 1982, there have been 66 mass murders by gun in the good ole U.S.A., defined as at least 4 dead, according to Mother Jones list: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

During this same time the number of guns in America has increased even though the percent of households with guns has decreased. This article has some interesting numbers: (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/guns-in-america-statistics/60071/), including that America, 5% of the world's population owns 50% of the worlds guns.

Comparing death in injury by guns in America to other high income countries is a depressing exercise: http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html (A study of firearm deaths in high income countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom (England and Wales), United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), United Kingdom (Scotland), and the United States) was conducted with data from the World Health Organization assembled by the WHO from the official national statistics of each individual country from 2003 (Richardson and Hemenway, 2011). The total population for the United States for 2003 was 290.8 million while the combined population for the other 22 countries was 563.5 million. There were 29,771 firearm deaths in the US and 7,653 firearm deaths in the 22 other countries. Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US.)

Weapons like the Bushmaster are fairly recent in origin as well - post Vietnam. One particle about the gun remarks how its popularity skyrocketed after 9/11/2001 (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/bushmaster_ar15_sandy_hook_adam_lanza.php). And the technology available in hand guns is similarly advanced over what was available 30 -40 years ago.

So, consider history of random mass murders in American pre and post Vietnam. Consider the total number of deaths by guns. Consider what weapons were or were not available during those two time periods.

Gun advocates will twist this and say, yes look at how many of these guns are owned by responsible gun owners! These incidents are very low when compared to the number of bushmaster like weapons owned. Small consolation to the parents at Sandy Hook and the other impacted by these events.

That old homespun wisdom seems applicable here: "one bad apple spoils the whole bunch." But more sinister here is the fact that we don't know where the bad apples are; good apples frequently become bad apples, and when they do, an innocent is usually the one who suffers. Time to have better much better regulation over the apples, and the folks who can buy them. That won't solve the problem of apples already out there in storage or the apple that seemed to be or was good and due to whatever has gone bad, but it is at least a start.

Wow, just wow.

You can surely use facts or what some would call facts as you wish to make your point.

I wonder how many deaths were not counted in the UK that are or were IRA related. Also Mexico has the strictest of gun laws, seems to be really working there as well. Hmmm... funny how that works when someone wants to use the facts.

The simple truth is, depending on how old you are, that yes mass murder has happened in your grandfather age. How quickly we forget the days of the Thompson machine gun.

People want to say lets go back a ban assault weapons, you know, like we had. OK, I'll play along for a bit!

Colombine happened while that was in effect.
And VT was done with hand guns.

Those laws sure did protect those guys.

Funny thing that you never see this type of thing at a hunting lodge, or a gun show, nor a court house or an airport. I wonder why? They may be crazy but they are not stupid! The term deterrent comes to mind.

When you ban weapons from law abiding people, only the bad guys will have weapons. Then what? Will we be afraid to walk our own streets? Go to school? A movie? But wait, you say the police will handle things. REALLY? They do such a good job now, I'm sure they will. :butt:


My vote, and a LOT of my money will go to whoever votes this foolishness now. And againist whoever supports it. And I don't like the NRA. But I am think of sending them a good size check as well.

Sorry if you feel safe in this world, I don't! And I will do what ever it takes to defend me and mine!

So flame away with your contrived facts and figures.
When push comes to shove. Guns do not kill people,
people kill people!

[verticaldoug]

Wow, just wow.
People want to say lets go back a ban assault weapons, you know, like we had. OK, I'll play along for a bit!

Colombine happened while that was in effect.
And VT was done with hand guns.

Funny thing that you never see this type of thing at a hunting lodge, or a gun show, nor a court house or an airport. I wonder why? They may be crazy but they are not stupid! The term deterrent comes to mind.

WhenMy vote, and a LOT of my money will go to whoever votes this foolishness now. And againist whoever supports it. And I don't like the NRA. But I am think of sending them a good size check as well.

Sorry if you feel safe in this world, I don't! And I will do what ever it takes to defend me and mine!

So flame away with your contrived facts and figures.
When push comes to shove. Guns do not kill people,
people kill people!

Read the wiki in my post. Hunters against a tactical weapon. Hunters lose.
The inside joke in Mexico is the gangs are buying their guns in the U.S. to out gun the police.

[mister]

seems that mother jones article might not have covered all of the incidents, did they choose to only go back to '82 or something?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

[verticaldoug]

Firefighters Shot Dead At House Fire in Webster, Upstate New York
2012-12-24 15:50:15.932 GMT


Dec. 24 (Telegraph) -- Two firefighters have been shot dead
after they responded to an early morning house fire in America.
Two firefighters were shot when a gunman opened fire with an
assault rifle, according to American newspapers, with another two
injured.
They had been responding to an emergency call to a house
fire at around 5.45am this morning, in the town of Webster, in
upstate New York.
Early reports coming out of the area suggested the gunman
could still be on the loose, after what was originally described
as a “routine call-out”.
The police chief in a New York State town has confirmed that
four firefighters were shot, with an "active shooter" no longer
at the scene.
Chief Gerald Pickering said "one or more shooters" fired at
the firefighters on Monday morning.
The deaths come just days after the shooting of 26 people,
including school children aged just six, at Sandy Hook,
Connecticut.
Rob Boutillier, fire marshal in the town of Webster, told
reporters the authorities believe the firefighters were shot
shortly after getting out of their vehicles.
SWAT teams have evacuated homes in the area, as firefighters
were forced to wait until the area was secure before battling the
blaze. The fire is now believed to have engulfed three homes.
Injured firefighters were treated at the Strong Memorial
Hospital in Rochester, New York, officials confirmed.
The news will reignite the debate on gun control in the US,
after campaigners called for stricter laws to prevent mass
shootings such as the tragedy at Sandy Hook.
This week, the National Rifle Association have argued for
guns in every school in order to protect innocent children,
saying: “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good
guy with a gun”.
Democratic lawmakers in Congress have become more adamant
about the need for stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the
massacre at the Connecticut elementary school.
President Barack Obama has said he wants proposals on
reducing gun violence that he can take to Congress in January and
called on the NRA, the nation's most powerful gun-rights
organization, to join the effort.

-0- Dec/24/2012 15:50 GMT

[Tony T]

People want to say lets go back a ban assault weapons, you know, like we had. OK, I'll play along for a bit!

Colombine happened while that was in effect.
And VT was done with hand guns.

Those laws sure did protect those guys.

So flame away with your contrived facts and figures.
When push comes to shove. Guns do not kill people,
people kill people!

While the AWB was in effect during the tragedy at Columbine, as you know, the AWB did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons'. An argument can be made that the old AWB did not go far enough, and clearly, something needs to be done regarding the gun-show loopholes.

Also, a Sheriff’s Deputy was assigned to the school as a uniformed guard. As a "good guy" did not prevent that tragedy, what do you suggest be done?

According to the NRA, anything but guns kill people:

http://hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/nydn-nra.jpeg

And the NY Daily News is not a liberal paper!

[jr59]

Never known or heard of a gun shooting somebody.

While I have heard of people using guns to shoot people.

As far as I know, a gun can not move on it's own.

As far as the firemen being shot, do you really think more laws would have prevented this?

As I have said, it didn't stop the IRA in the UK, and very strict gun laws in mexico are sure working well.

But those fact always seem to be overlooked!

One more thing. I'm out on this.
If you want to risk your safety and the safety to more gun laws that NO bad guy will pay one bit of attention to; Go right ahead.

I'll not do it!

And with that, I'm out of this circle jerk! have fun pretending these laws will help with your safety.

[jblande]

....
And with that, I'm out of this circle jerk!...

the comparison between your remarks and those of Kirk007 is instructive.

[akelman]

the comparison between your remarks and those of Kirk007 is instructive.

Agreed. As I keep saying, the overwhelming majority of forumites, and apparently Americans writ large, are eager to compromise on this issue. But there are going to be extremists, and some of them are going to loud.

[Tony T]

As far as the firemen being shot, do you really think more laws would have prevented this?

You seem to think not, but there is little information as of now regarding these (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/nyregion/2-firefighters-killed-in-western-new-york.html?hp) murders.

Maybe the murderer was mentally unstable and he bought his guns at a gun show that did not do a proper background check.

If this were the case, would you support legislation to ban sales at gun shows?

[cfox]

My in-laws live across the street from a man I call Tweeter. I call him Tweeter because he refers to the female reproductive part as a "tweeter." Tweeter drives around the neighborhood on a John Deere lawn tractor wearing jeans, suspenders, no shirt, and occasionally, shoes. Oh, and he has a mini igloo cooler filled with beer bungie-corded to his tractor. Tweeter likes him some guns. Like 30 or so. He's only ever voted on one issue, that issue being "who's gonna come and take my guns." Tweeter recently told my mother in law that he thinks assault rifles are ridiculous and no private citizen needs or should have one. This heartened me to no end. You see, despite JR59 and his well armed bunker of lead and protection, there is hope in this. If Tweeter, gun-nuttiest person I've ever met, feels this way, there is hope.

[Kirk007]

Climb, I think you are right on, and it seems to be that those with our "prism" all like Pegorettis; I don't get those other guys ; )

Jr - I'm just putting together raw data - numbers. You can draw whatever conclusions you want, as you will and as will I, nothing more or less to it than that.

But between writing that post and now, we have the 4 firefighters gunned down in New York. And out here, 600 people were in a nightclub last night in Bellevue Washington celebrating the Seahawks victory over the 49ers. Argument breaks out at 1 am. Man pulls gun, another man is now dead. What a country - go to a very popular bar, in the pseudo suburbs no less; this is not some seedy joint in the wrong part of town - to celebrate your team and end up dead a few hours later because of an alcohol induced spat and because another patron was packing. How did he get the gun in the club? Concealed weapons permit perhaps? Why did he have it? Why did he feel the need to pull it out, in a bar, as a disagreement heightened? What would have happened in the absence of guns? A fist fight perhaps? It will never end, never, with the approach you advocate. Most everyone starts out as a good guy until they go bad and kill somebody.

I'm sorry your world is such a dangerous place. I really am. Must suck to go around feeling at risk, thinking you may have to kill someone at any place and time in order to be safe.

[William]

For letting the gun thread run. It was a reasonable discussion of a very difficult issue, and education as well.

And thank you for locking it. Gotta get some actual work done today!

Time out! Keep Kirk's original post in mind.

I will open this back up when everyone has cooled off a bit.




Have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year everyone!







William