In reading about yesterday's events, I immediately wondered about those close to me. Hopefully none of my fellow BPL members were involved personally in yesterday's tragedy. My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of those who were; I have no words.

Newtown is a picture perfect "Norman Rockwell" New England small town. Have a look

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=41.413558,-73.308739&spn=0.000506,0.001321&t=h&z=20

I went to see Lincoln last night for the second time. The man was so gentle; I can see the scene of him getting down on the floor embracing Todd and then lifting him up piggy-back. But he was also so strong, so resolute. He refused to look away.

Have a look at little Newtown. Maybe making a little virtual visit will help start the process of really looking at what we are doing to ourselves.

So Scott how are things in beautiful Valdese, home of Joe Brown? I can hear Bill Curry "the mouth of the South" now. You a descendant of the Waldensians?

Hopefully, people will survive this as best they can. And other incidents like the one that just happened in Portland.

Are these just rare events that we shouldn't worry about?

Maybe don't do so much reporting on the TV?

At least we shouldn't make the killer famous which might encourage others to do the same, like don't use the person's name or show his picture?

It doesn't seem like gun regulations would help much. The person in Portland used an assault weapon, but not Newtown, so making these illegal wouldn't be very effective? Maybe making clips that hold more than 10 rounds? Maybe not allowing more than one shot per second or something?

On NPR they observed that most killers are young white males that are mentally disturbed, have a facination with guns, and like video games. I don't know where you go with that though...

These sort of tragedies really start a huge national brainstorm. Hopefully in the long run emotions give way to finding the real
problems and then effective answers.

Edited- kinda decided this isn't the place I want to debate.

Edited by oware on 12/16/2012 17:32:06 MST.

It's a tragedy, but all these events are linked by easy access to guns. A day or so ago, a similar incident happened in China. China is very strict on gun ownership. In the Chinese incident, the guy used a knife, and stabbed over 20 students. They are all expected to recover.
Mental illness, guns, ...........

Mike,

Do you enjoy being wrong? Because in 2010 6 of these incidents happened in China. 20 dead and 50 wounded. And they weren't linked to easy access to guns.

The gun is just the mode. You see knives, pipebombs, and whatever weapon the people can get their hands on.

I'm confused by the point you are trying to make Michael?

Can you provide links to your assertions?

Anyway, i don't want to comment on this anymore. Too many folks have lost loved ones.

Edited by MikefaeDundee on 12/15/2012 12:26:17 MST.

If this thread is going to go into an endless gun control debate could we wait? I don't mind those debates at all but it seems like poor taste at the moment. For all I know we may have members here connected to the tragedy in some way.

+1 with Luke.

I think our focus needs to be on the victims and their families.


- Charlotte Bacon, 02/22/06, female.
- Daniel Barden, 09/25/05, male.
- Rachel Davino, 07/17/83, female.
- Olivia Engel, 07/18/06, female.
- Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female.
- Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female.
- Dylan Hockley, 03/8/06, male.
- Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female.
- Madeleine F. Hsu, 07/10/06, female.
- Catherine V. Hubbard, 06/08/06, female.
- Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male.
- Jesse Lewis, 06/30/06, male.
- James Mattioli , 03/22/06, male.
- Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female.
- Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female.
- Emilie Parker, 0 5/12/06, female.
- Jack Pinto, 0 5/06/06, male.
- Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male.
- Caroline Previdi, 09/07/06, female.
- Jessica Rekos, 05/10/06, female.
- Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female.
- Lauren Russeau, 06/1982, female.
- Mary Sherlach, 02/11/56, female.
- Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female.
- Benjamin Wheeler, 09/12/06, male.
- Allison N. Wyatt, 07/03/06, female.

Maybe hike a mile in honor of each victim.

"Mental illness, guns, ..........."

The general attitude toward guns in this country is a mental illness.

+1 Tom.

Three hundred million plus guns (and rising) in this country: I'd say gun advocates have clearly won this fight, perhaps with the minor exception of getting non-neutered military weaponry into the hands of our friends and neighbors.

With numbers like this, what's there to debate?

We could stop sales and production tomorrow and still have enough weaponry to last us a hundred years.

So maybe the gun advocates are right, maybe what our country actually needs is everyone carrying a gun to be safe now, from K-12 teachers to college professors to movie theater employees, to the guy in the shoe department at JC Penny and your server at Jamba Juice in the mall food court. Soccer moms and bank tellers and the random kid sitting at Starbucks sipping a Frappuccino in front of his laptop...let's all start carrying to save ourselves.

One gun for every single man, woman, and child in this nation is clearly not enough; maybe we can double or triple it by the time my kids are grown.

On the local news, there was someone who had a gun at Clackamas Town Center in Portland. He said he drew his gun on the shooter, but he saw people in back that could have been shot accidentally so he fled instead. He said the shooter saw him and soon after killed himself, so maybe that worked having other people with guns around. This guy was a security person by profession and was trying to become a policeman.

I could imagine a case where the other person wouldn't be so careful.

Or people could think there was a shooter when there wasn't and accidentally shoot people themseleves.

That doesn't seem like a good solution to have everyone have a gun.

I want people with guns to be very well trained - like police.

Immediately address the issue of gun control through the introduction of legislation in Congress. http://wh.gov/RN6U

edit

Edited by book on 12/15/2012 21:03:53 MST.

Well, that didn't take long. Another sad catastrophe, another non-dialog quickly devolving into a gun control/gun availability 'debate'.

Sigh.

If only we could get past our pettiness and emotional responses and actually have an adult discussion on why these things might be happening. It goes far beyond guns. There is so much more involved in these shootings than guns - I'm not even convinced that gun control/gun availability is the major issue.

If we want to try figure it all out, we need to include health care and mental illness counseling/treatment availability, the prevalence of violent imagery in much of our media, the ever increasing hate speech/segmentation of society, and more.

To simplify such tragedies down to the sole issue of guns is lazy, inane and counterproductive, and IMO, is an injustice to those so callously murdered.

Douglas..."sigh"...there's always been crazy people, and murderers. Today, crazy people and murderers in the U.S. have access to military style weapons. You want to solve the larger problem of insanity and disaffected individuals; evil. Good luck. In Europe, there are just as many crazy people and disaffected individuals as in the U.S. Compare the mass murder numbers. Europe doesn't sell military assault weapons over the counter and at gun shows to the general public. We do.

The nra is the john birch society of our time.

It certainly does go far beyond guns Doug.

But to act as if guns have no place in this discussion when they are the tool that facilitates a single deranged person being able to inflict massive and otherwise disproportionate amounts of harm to others so quickly that no nobody has time to stop them...

To not be allowed to address and discuss the role that guns play in enabling this madness is an injustice to those so callously murdered.

Why do you anti gun nuts have to derail every thread that touches upon guns.

Again, look at china. Knives, axes, etc are being used to kill children there to.

My 4 and 6 year olds got a lot of extra hugs yesterday. They thought it funny that their dad was so sentimental. My thoughts are with those affected by this unimaginable tragedy.

Craig, I did not say, did not even imply, that guns have no place in the discussion. Of course the issue of gun control/gun availability has an important place in the discussion. Jason Alexander (yes, the actor) wrote a wonderful piece about the insanity of allowing pretty much anyone access to assault style weapons. It's a great, reasoned piece, I agree with it wholeheartedly.

But it's problematic, IMO, when the discussion never gets much beyond gun control/gun availability, which is most often the case, as this thread shows. There are deeper issues at play that need to be part of the discussion - just as much as guns, if not moreso.

An interesting tidbit from an article I read this morning: "There are countries with gun ownership rates nearly as high as our own and much less gun violence. ... There are also countries with many fewer guns than the United States, but with even higher homicide by firearm rates. They are all countries poorer and less equal than the United States. Social democracy might actually be a better deterrent to gun violence than gun control."

So, yes, the gun control/gun availability debate needs to happen (of course, it would be more beneficial if it happened without the usual vitriol and hyperbole from both sides), but, again IMO, it shouldn't dominate the discussion about these tragedies. There is so much more at play.

There was a teacher that was shot, she locked the door with the kids inside with her, the gunman tried to get in but the door was locked - that's a nice story that brings a tear to me.


"There are also countries with many fewer guns than the United States, but with even higher homicide by firearm rates. They are all countries poorer and less equal than the United States. Social democracy might actually be a better deterrent to gun violence than gun control."

That should also bring a reaction from Michael L : )

So, we need to raise taxes on the super-rich, increase programs to help people pull themselves up by their bootstraps like almost free college education,...

That maybe makes more sense than gun regulation, because if you make assault weapons illegal people can use handguns, limit number of rounds per magazine people will bring more magazines and practice changing,...


Maybe this super polarized political strategy to make everyone hate the other side works up people that are mentally unstable to begin with?

Im no longer surprised when I a tragedy strikes and within hours people come out of the woodwork making ridiculous claims about gun ownership/availability.

First, for those unfamiliar with Federal Firearms Licensing... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

Note the cost. Also understand that obtaining said license becomes more difficult as the scope and capabilities of the firearms in question increase. Your local gun dealer is also legally obligated to call the FBI NICS center and complete a background check everytime a sale being made. Records must be maintained forever, of all incoming and outgoing firearms. When you consider the red tape that "over the counter" gun sale becomes a bit more complex than one might assume.

Second, "Military assault weapons" are the business of the military... period. "Military assault weapons" cannot be possessed or sold by civilians. Firearms designed to look like military weapons do not have the same capabilities as military weapons. Fact is there are numerous hunting rifles that possess as much or more stopping power than many military knock offs and high capacity mags are available for some.

If the anti gunners are right about anything its the gun show loophole. Im not going to defend gun dealers who sell to people without going through the proper legal channels.

Its frustrating to hear people call for tighter gun laws when most of what they think should be made illegal already is. Before feeding the flames of the anti govt types maybe we should look at current laws and try to figure out why they havent worked.

Note also that murder is already illegal.

Why would someone intent on murder care about another lesser law?

or to put it another way....




Be it for bear or human, it's your choice.

Edited by wandering_bob on 12/16/2012 14:51:03 MST.

Since guns have been made the issue in this thread maybe we should take a page from Chris Rocks Bigger and Blacker, and call for more bullet control. A gun is useless without ammo, raise the price of bullets and people will think twice about using them.
However I think we are missing a major issue here, lack of respect. As a society I think we need to put more emphasis on respecting humans and human life and what a gift life is. We need to place more value in people and social interaction and less in material items.

Victoria Soto is one of the hero's of the Sandy Hook tragedy. She saved the lives of her students at the cost of her own.

@ Ike, my daughter got a lot of extra hugs and kisses on Friday as well!

Good post, Bob. Too bad those 20 under 10 years of age children weren't packing heat. What were their parents thinking?

what is the justification for the legality of 30 plus round clips, armour piercing hand gun rounds(cop killer ammunition), semi automatic assault rifles that can easily be converted to full automatic, Barrett Rifles, to mention a few that puzzle me. I am not talking here about banning guns in general, but I really would like to hear the rational for these things being legal.

>Too bad those 20 under 10 years of age children weren't packing heat. What were their parents thinking?<

From the another viewpoint, the school was responsible for providing protection for 100's of kids, while possessing absolutely no means to do so. Well, none if you discount the deterrent of harsh language and the stern sign on the gate declaring a policy of "zero tolerance for weapons".

"From the another viewpoint, the school was responsible for providing protection for 100's of kids, while possessing absolutely no means to do so"

Protection from what? People with guns?

Gun owners use circular arguments to support a means of defending themselves against other gun owners. Only one solution to that.

"what is the justification for the legality of 30 plus round clips, armour piercing hand gun rounds(cop killer ammunition), semi automatic assault rifles that can easily be converted to full automatic, Barrett Rifles, to mention a few that puzzle me. I am not talking here about banning guns in general, but I really would like to hear the rational for these things being legal."

They are so you can protect yourself. From your own government, if the need arises.

And the day will come. Guaranteed. Its a matter of time. History shows us this is so.

Our founding fathers were much smarter than the average person today. Thank God.

there really is no good justification; the problem I see is that even w/o the above, a determined person can wreak havoc w/ a "typical" firearm

reducing magazine size to 10, just means carrying a few extra magazines (a typical magazine change rifle or pistol takes all of a second to two)

the real problem as I see it, is keeping firearms out of the hands that shouldn't have them- a tall order I know

one easy start is to get rid of the loophole on private sales w/ no background check- just go to any gun swap/show and you'll see dozens of individuals selling large numbers of firearms and because they aren't licensed dealers- no background check

there are several experts (read some of Colonel Grossman's stuff) that point to the desensitization of violence through media and video games, he also contends that it also offers viable "training" for would be offenders- it rewards proper sight picture and trigger control, a person can become a pretty good shot w/o even getting to a range

as far as the school goes, it certainly had more security in place than any of our local schools- locked doors and you have to be identified and then buzzed in- of course w/ a AR you can get through most glass doors handily

Couldnt have said it better myself Stephen.

>Gun owners use circular arguments to support a means of defending themselves against other gun owners. Only one solution to that.<

If every gun in the country was confiscated today, gun smuggling would start tomorrow. Consider how successful banning alcohol, drugs or illegal immigrants have been. So when all the newly armed bad guys know you and your house are unarmed just how safe will you be?

We cannot stop the flow of drugs across our borders.
We cannot stop 10,000 illegal mexicans PER NIGHT coming across our borders.

What in the world would make anyone think you can stop guns, knives, or anything else that could be used as a weapon against others?

You cannot. Period.


If someone had driven a car over a chain-link fence, onto the playground, and run over dozens of kids and a few teachers, would someone be wanting to ban all cars? Or just big ones that could run down the fence easiest?

Of course not. No one would want to give up their car. Hypocrites.

But because some dont want a gun, they dont think anyone else should have one.
Thats whats at the core. The warped thinking of some people.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/16/2012 19:20:08 MST.

"They are so you can protect yourself. From your own government, if the need arises."

You really believe that a disorganized rabble with a few light arms could protect us from the firepower and surveillance methods of the US military?

"And the day will come. Guaranteed. Its a matter of time. History shows us this is so."

Probably true if we don't start paying more attention to our choices at the ballot box, but the kind of things I mentioned in my original post are not going to make a difference if it comes to revolution.

"Our founding fathers were much smarter than the average person today. Thank God."

Which is probably why the 2nd Amendment BEGINS with the words "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free state", whereas the average person today, a group in which I include the current majority of the Supreme Court, focuses on the second part, "the right of the citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed". I wonder why the Founding Fathers didn't put that first? Any insights?

The issue is the weapon of choice. A gun can be concealed, easily carried anywhere, and used from a distance. It can easily kill many at once with precision. . The only thing a gun does is kill. It doesn't serve any other purpose.


A knife would not have worked in this case. You simply would not have had the overall devastating effect that the guns produced.

I think that making this about guns or school security is the easy way out. Guns are not why this guy did this - they are how he did this. How doesn't matter to me. Could have been a bomb or poison or a fire. The school security seems to have done fairly well in these circumstances. What matters to me is why he did this - and how we all let him get to that state without intervention. In my opinion this needs to be about modern mental health assessment/treatment/containment.

I found this earlier and I can understand the mother's sentiment. These are the kids that I work with.

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html

Edited by Staplebox on 12/16/2012 20:03:29 MST.

"one easy start is to get rid of the loophole on private sales w/ no background check- just go to any gun swap/show and you'll see dozens of individuals selling large numbers of firearms and because they aren't licensed dealers- no background check

there are several experts (read some of Colonel Grossman's stuff) that point to the desensitization of violence through media and video games, he also contends that it also offers viable "training" for would be offenders- it rewards proper sight picture and trigger control, a person can become a pretty good shot w/o even getting to a range"

I'm with you all the way on this part, Mike.

How to keep firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them is well nigh an impossible task, which is why I tend to look for answers in the control area in the short term. I have no problem with hunting rifles, shotguns, or handguns in the home, subject to a very thorough vetting procedure. But access to guns/accessories in all their permutations is out of control in this country. Combined with the points you make above, it is an increasingly lethal and socially destructive phenomenon that poses a threat to us as a cohesive, civilized society, IMO. No easy answers, but we need to start figuring some out pretty darn quick, again IMO.

re: adair:

-----"From the another viewpoint, the school was responsible for providing protection for 100's of kids, while possessing absolutely no means to do so. Well, none if you discount the deterrent of harsh language and the stern sign on the gate declaring a policy of "zero tolerance for weapons"."-----

Great point. from this article

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”


re: Dave Ure

-----"Protection from what? People with guns?

Gun owners use circular arguments to support a means of defending themselves against other gun owners. Only one solution to that."

"A knife would not have worked in this case. You simply would not have had the overall devastating effect that the guns produced."---

Don't ignore the reality Dave. We have had 6 mass attacks in China with knives, axes, etc. They have not been quite as bad as this, but the attackers have killed 20 and wounded 60.

From the article I linked, the mass killings in the US peaked in 1929. We had 42 instances in the 1990s. The last decade was down to 26. So in reality we just have faster, better news and we hear about it.

They interviewed some secret service agents that did a study of shootings, mentioned a couple things:

Shootings are very rare - I think maybe we shouldn't worry about them so much?

Usually, the shooter talks about it weeks or more ahead of time, gets weapons and practices,... so if you hear someone talking about shooting people tell the authorities

Newton was an anomaly in this regard - shooter apparently didn't talk about it ahead of time


That's what we should be doing - Secret Service (or whoever) study and recommend changes based on facts and effectiveness


Another interesting thing was early reports were wrong

It was reported early that shooter just used hand guns - he used assault weapons

Shooter was not let in - actually he broke in a window

Shooter went there to kill his mother and her class - mother wasn't a teacher, just an occasional volunteer

On the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response was ever-more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns. Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by 2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the developed world’s most violence-ridden nations.


A fact that should be of greater concern is that per capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent.


Israel, in the 1970s, faced a rash of terrorist attacks on their schools. Israel also heard people screaming for more gun control, as we do today. Their government analyzed the problem and decided to do the opposite and armed their teachers instead.

What happened?

School shootings ceased as schools were no longer "soft" targets full of people who could not shoot back.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/16/2012 21:54:34 MST.

"Shooter went there to kill his mother and her class - mother wasn't a teacher, just an occasional volunteer"

Jerry, how can that be? He had already killed his mother in the home, and then he went to the school.

--B.G.--

60 Minutes said the initial reports were that the mother was a teacher and he targeted her class, neither of which is correct

The initial reporters didn't know she was killed at home before-hand?

Or maybe they thought he killed his mother and then went to kill her class?

Couple thoughts about what the facts are in my opinion regardless of your politics

First Even if we drastically change the laws tomorrow we will still have millions of guns already out there that aren't going away. In a sense the cat is out of the bag here.

Second it would help if we dispelled some Hollywood myths about "assault" weapons. Its common in movies to see the hero sweeping his gun across a room, firing rapidly and knocking over bad guys like bowling pins. That just is not realistic. Civilian assault rifles can't fire that fast because they aren't truly automatic and in any case that kind of rapid fire is very inaccurate. What makes mass shootings so bad is not the speed of the fire but the fact that the shooter is under no pressure and can slowly and methodically shoot.

Should we ban certain guns? Well maybe or maybe not but it won't change the overall picture of guns in America for a LONG time. In the meantime a more profitable discussion is what would actually help.

Here is what might actually help

1. Changing laws so families of true nut cases like Loughmiller of the AZ shooting can get them involuntarily locked up in mental hospitals.

2. Checking for a history of mental illness on firearms background checks. This was supposed to happen but its not really being enforced. No need for a new law just enforce the old one better.

3. Physical security at schools so even if nut cases get guns they don't have free reign there.

so how safe do you really feel at the airport? lamb or lion?
with all the untrained unarmed TSA agents? {not that I would want them armed} but have we really been protected? or have the people just had enough! and protected themselves! pilot subdued by passengers... shoe bomber... by passengers....
and the Virginia flight crashed rather than being used as a weapon... by passengers!

and most recently Vicky Soto who locked her kids in as she bled out!
HEROES stepping up and doing what must be done!

an empty holster scares me, more than the towel heads ever could!

3 rednecks could have stopped 911 from ever happening if not for the false security...
{black, white, green, or orange, it does not matter}

look around and be aware! don`t be "fish in a barrel!"
public school = public day care!?

OUR PRAYERS GO OUT TO THE FAMILIES OF THE VICTIMS.

Edited by mrgadget921 on 12/17/2012 12:16:36 MST.

Links are helpful to research what is said.

For example, there has only been 1 mass murder by a woman?

"In Europe, there are just as many crazy people and disaffected individuals as in the U.S. Compare the mass murder numbers. Europe doesn't sell military assault weapons over the counter and at gun shows to the general public. We do. "

Jeffrey,

Don’t be so quick to point to Europe as an example. Even without your military style weapons, a Norwegian can still kill 77 innocents – and that is with gun control.

"so how safe do you really feel at the airport? ...
3 rednecks could have stopped 911 from ever happening if not for the false security..."

Our over-reaction to 911 was far worse than 911 itself

Two wars killed more U.S. people and way, way more of other people and totally disrupted that area

All of our ridiculous "security theatre" stuff like taking shoes off and the porno scanners is just to scare us so we will go along with whatever they want to do with us

Let us not over-react to these mass shootings

I'm a high school teacher of 13 years, a department chair, and member of our school's leadership team which entails emergency planning and policy among other duties. We regularly carry out lockdown drills to simulate a shooter or other threat on campus.

People in past posts have mentioned security and a school's duty to keep its students safe.

As far as my school is concerned, and I believe my school as an accurate representation of the situation at most schools, the only reason we have not had a violent incident, from a security standpoint, is luck.

If you can jump an 6-8 foot fence, you can be on a school campus in seconds. But that isn't necessary; given the crowds, multiple entrances, etc., a random person can walk onto a campus during morning drop-off with ease. A parent or other "known" face can generally enter without question during morning drop-off.

Sound like we need more security? Talk to your local district about funds. My school has 2400 students and precisely 4 security guards, none of which are armed. We have one police SRO (special resource officer), but he rotates amongst various campuses.

Unless people want us to begin turning our schools into facilities that more resemble prisons (secure entry checkpoints, metal detectors, locked doors, etc.), we are safe by luck alone.

Think about the world we've created here.
I guess the fact that we regularly conduct drills and plan for a "shooter on campus" by locking doors, drawing blinds, and having minors crawl under desks away from windows is a direct by-product of our Freedom to have 300 million guns accessible by just about anyone that wants one, including kids.

School officials, police unions,and government just refuse to admit that there is nothing you can do to prevent and predict the overwhelmingly rare and random violent act.
They feel that they need to say or promise to do "something" to stop it from happening again no matter how hair-brained, ineffectual, and unAmenrican their plan is.
\
We should be having a national debate on mental illness, who is responsible for monitoring these people? diagnosing? How did pour education and health system fail so badly that so many sociopathic mentally ill people are out there waiting to do another copycat and get their 15 minutes again?
Seems like the government and health insurance industry doesn't want that debate, instead the police state offers more lies and the media spreads fear. the knee jerk reaction is to go to the prison wardens play book and treat good law abiding citizens like dangerous criminals and spread suspicion to our neighbors.
Every one of these incidence was perpetrated by someone who was known to be unstable and mental ill. Why did they not get help? Why were they not somewhere that they could be monitored?
Do we already know the answer and don't want to deal with our poor health services?
Are we going to allow government agencies to exploit these tragedies to gain funding and job security by keeping up in a state of fear and suspicion or are we going to fix the health service problem and ask serious questions about our culture?

When we clamp down on airport travel in the name of security, more people drive. Duh. Trips of 150-300 miles become road trips instead of flights and thereby are MUCH less safe. So a decade later we are trying to prevent a reoccurrence of 9-11 (a method of attack that didn't work later the same day when unarmed passengers refused to be compliant) and we don't know if any hijackings have been avoided. But we do know that millions of people driving instead of flying have been at greater risk and thousands have died as a result.

Easier to estimate is that since 600 million passengers are slowed another 30 minutes (my wait times vary from 10 minutes to 5-1/2 hours), then 300 million people-hours are wasted every year. That's 456 75-year lifetimes wasted every year waiting in security lines. We're coming up on 5,000 lifetimes wasted just waiting in line.

Back to schools: Calls for more security seem like a no-brainer. But there are consequences. More money for guards means less money for teachers. Kids notice their surroundings and if we raise them in a security state, I think something is lost. I'm one of the good guys - you want me in your kid's school: I do really cool science demonstrations and I'm apparently the best middle-school math coach for 1000 miles around. But it's a battle already getting into the classroom with NCLB-driven curriculums and tight schedules. Add onerous security to that and I'll stay home more and tutor my own kids instead of everyone's. Is it a bad thing that one can breeze into school without being challenged by a guard and passed through a metal detector? So my MD wife can go in and give a talk on anatomy or coach Battle-of-the-Books?

Perspective, please, perspective. These iconic events so reported so widely and, frankly, over-reacted to, that we forget that the scores (hundreds?) of children who died in a auto accident because soccer-mom was juggling a latte, cell-phone and two errands on the way to school are just as dead; but where is the conversation trying to save those lives?

My response to 9-11 would have been: "Let's all, 100% of us, wear our seat belts for the next year. That will save 5,000 normal people's lives and more than balance out 3,000 dead stockbrokers."

My response to Newtown is, "Reagan was crazy to put all the crazy people on the street to save a few bucks. The NRA needs to raise the bar and be elite, respectable and responsible instead of playing to their whacko faction. Let's not make media celebrities out of pathetic losers. How about a new law that repeals privacy rights of any post-mortem-convicted mass murderer? If you kill more than one other person ALL your dirty laundry will be aired nationwide." Freak-o-nomics did a podcast on copy-cat suicides and NOT glorifying them, digging into the nasty, messy, ugly nature of it turned around a local suicide epidemic in Europe.

I think it's time we allowed concealed carry to extend into schools. It's not a solution, but it could help. Gun free zones are in ineffective unless there are metal detectors and security guards at every entrance.

Well said David

Maybe response to 9-11 should have been to harden cockpit doors

A very thoughtful post, David. Thank you. I, too, have spent hundreds of hours on school campuses as a volunteer, and see things very much the same way that you do.

Can we provide better mental health care? Absolutely. And we should. As for some of these other posts:

NIMH estimates that over a quarter of Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness--which makes the idea of locking up people without their consent a bit problematic...

And allowing more guns into schools? Let's see--there were some 25,000 people wounded accidentally by guns last year...and we want to make sure that they are in every school? Yikes.

I've owned a shotgun. I understand hunting, and target shooting. I understand (although I don't share the need) those who want to carry a pistol for self-protection.

I do not understand why we should allow any civilian in this society to own an assault weapon designed to facilitate killing lots of people all at once. And for every fear I have of the government forcing me into white slavery, I have ten or twenty fears about some whacko with a couple of assault guns having a bad day and opening fire as I drive by on the freeway or take my family shopping.

A rifle or a pistol is plenty. Unless you want to kill more people than that...and then you shouldn't be allowed to have anything sharper than a pencil.

"As tragic as this school shooting is, we need to expand our empathy past nation states if we ever want to evolve humanity's collective consciousness." Abby Martin

"I do not understand why we should allow any civilian in this society to own an assault weapon designed to facilitate killing lots of people all at once."

"A rifle or a pistol is plenty. Unless you want to kill more people than that...and then you shouldn't be allowed to have anything sharper than a pencil."

Paul, Here is the problem with that line of thinking. The assault weapon so many are upset about is of a relatively small caliber. The Bushmaster used by the shooter is designated as .223 and is a .22 caliber round.

Common hunting rifles, the .35 Marlin, 30-30 Remington, .270 Winchester 30.06 Springfield are all 30 caliber rounds and all possess vastly more stopping power than the Bushmaster or any other .22 caliber round. The 30.06 for example is a favorite of bear and moose hunters. Most if not all of these firearms are available to and already exist among the public with semi-auto actions and high capacity mags can be found for some. There are millions more of these firearms among the population than there are assault weapons. So unless you plan on banning all of them a ban will accomplish little.

"Common hunting rifles, the .35 Marlin, 30-30 Remington, .270 Winchester 30.06 Springfield are all 30 caliber rounds and all possess vastly more stopping power than the Bushmaster or any other .22 caliber round. The 30.06 for example is a favorite of bear and moose hunters. Most if not all of these firearms are available to and already exist among the public with semi-auto actions and high capacity mags can be found for some. There are millions more of these firearms among the population than there are assault weapons. So unless you plan on banning all of them a ban will accomplish little."

You've certainly convinced me, Bruce. Let's ban them all. Do you need a high capacity magazine to kill a moose? If so, then you really aren't much of a hunter...

"NIMH estimates that over a quarter of Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness--which makes the idea of locking up people without their consent a bit problematic..."

This a facetious argument. You're lumping all mental illnesses of all types into one category, then throw out a red herring about locking up everyone. We need someone to monitor people with serious mental illness, and yes if professionals think that person is a threat to society and themselves to be locked away in a mental health facility.
Who was monitoring the shooter in Newtown? No one. I prefer the problematic solution of better health care and locking these crazies up over watching any more of these media feeding frenzies after people have been killed. Gun control is a ineffectual bandaid designed to appease soccer moms and make people "feel" like something meaningful has been done while conveniently sidestepping the real problematic cause of these tragedies.

As much as 25%?

"NIMH estimates that over a quarter of Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness"

I think I also read somewhere or heard on the tube that there are @ 500,000 school staff in the USA. Actually that seems low; but anyway, taking those 2 figures: 25% of 500,000 is 125,000. Maybe arming all those folks might not be such a great idea.

Remains to be seen what if any modifications were made to the 223 used in the shooting Here's a little info on the 223 bushmaster:


The AR-15 comes in many sizes and has many options, depending on the manufacturer. The part shown bottom center is the lower receiver with pistol grip and trigger assembly. Under US law the lower alone is the component legally considered the "firearm".
Type Semi-automatic rifle / Service rifle
Place of origin United States
Service history
In service 1958–present
Production history
Designer Eugene Stoner
Designed 1957
Manufacturer ArmaLite, Colt, Bushmaster, Rock River Arms, Stag Arms, DPMS Panther Arms, Olympic Arms, and others.
Specifications
Weight 2.27 kg–3.9 kg (5.5–8.5 lb)

Cartridge .223 Remington, 5.56 NATO
Action Direct impingement / Rotating bolt


Rate of fire 800 rounds/min (fully automatic versions only)[1][2][3]


Muzzle velocity 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s)[4]
Effective range 400–600 m (avg 547 yd)[5][6][7]
Feed system Various STANAG magazines.
Sights Adjustable front and rear iron sights


And this:

Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M-16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. This was done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic. Despite this, through use of a "Drop In Auto Sear" or "lightning-link," conversion to full automatic is very straightforward (sometimes requiring slight modification to the bolt carrier).

800 rounds per minute

and this:

the AR-15 has more variants than any other rifle I know of. The compatibility with both .223 and 5.56 rounds makes the Armalite extremely popular with disaster preppers. There are variants chambered in other rounds, such as the .50 Beowulf, a 50-caliber round developed for the military which is designed to be used against vehicles and other harder targets. Those very high powered rounds are available on the civilian market.

There are other very dangerous modifications, including the ability to have a rifle that is legally a semi-automatic weapon, but functionally an automatic weapon. These completely legal devices are called "sliding stock" devices which allow shooters to bump-fire their weapons.


These are legally semi-automatic weapons because the trigger is pulled each time the weapon fires. You can see the weapon vibrating, going further back and forward than it normally would. The Recoil is pushing the weapon back, while the shooter pulls the weapon forward. A piece of the stock pushes the shooters finger off of the trigger, and the pressure pulling the gun forward pulls the shooters finger back on the trigger again.

well we can keep poking each other in the eye on this obviously sensitive issue or take a step back and see if there is some common ground

clearly we don't do a very good job with dealing with mental issues, it's not an easy subject to broach, but it is at the root of the problem- that would be a good place to start

closing the "gun show" loophole makes perfect sense as place to start on the firearm side, a background while not the end all solution, certainly helps keep firearms out of the hands of some folks that shouldn't possess them

banning "assault" weapons is problematic, it's hard to define and simply limiting magazine capacity is rather futile imo- I can train someone in a day at the range to get magazine swaps in the 1.5-2 second range

I do think there is good reason to ban certain ammo- specifically rounds designed to defeat body armor; the NRA used to be made up of a lot of LEOs, there hardly is any in their ranks anymore as they decided to cater to the fringe for some reason

or...... we can just keeping poking each other in the eye :)

"Think about the world we've created here.
I guess the fact that we regularly conduct drills and plan for a "shooter on campus" by locking doors, drawing blinds, and having minors crawl under desks away from windows is a direct by-product of our Freedom to have 300 million guns accessible by just about anyone that wants one, including kids."

+1 But you're pi$$ing into the wind, Craig. You're participating in a thread that is a microcosm of yet another national exercise in trivializing the problem and sweeping it under the rug. The killing will go on....and on, as our nation continues its nihilistic downward spiral into barbarism. As one who was born and raised here, and who has a deep sense of place here, I am sick at heart for my country. Whatever solutions eventually arise, will take far more time than I have to live, and the prospect of living out my days in a nation so obsessed with violence
is beyond depressing. For a look at how this obsession plays out on an industrial scale, check out this link. The Pentagon is finally starting to come clean about the true human cost of our militarized foreign policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/wounded-troops-iraq-afghanistan_n_2272619.html

I guess in this context the domestic slaughter is actually sort of trivial. :(

Edited by ouzel on 12/17/2012 20:54:36 MST.

"If someone had driven a car over a chain-link fence, onto the playground, and run over dozens of kids and a few teachers, would someone be wanting to ban all cars? Or just big ones that could run down the fence easiest?

Of course not. No one would want to give up their car. Hypocrites.

But because some dont want a gun, they dont think anyone else should have one.
Thats whats at the core. The warped thinking of some people."

For me, the warped thinking starts with people who apparently cannot distinguish between the purpose for which a car is designed and that for which a gun is designed. But at least such a person cannot be accused of hypocrisy.

Not to mention that driving a car requires being tested for knowledge of the laws, visual acuity, and an actual driving test, after which you obtain a license. Maybe we could start there with guns?

Edited for content.

Edited by ouzel on 12/17/2012 20:52:54 MST.

As the OP, I'm going to assume that everyone in our community is OK and none were directly affected by this tragedy. I'm out, but I hope everyone enjoys the political argument this thread has descended into.

Nice job of taking what I posted out of context. Let's try that again.

I wrote: Can we provide better mental health care? Absolutely. And we should. As for some of these other posts:

NIMH estimates that over a quarter of Americans suffer from some kind of mental illness--which makes the idea of locking up people without their consent a bit problematic...

NOTE: I was suggesting exactly what you are suggesting. IT was SOME OF THOSE OTHER POSTS who suggested locking everyone up.

IN fact, we should provide much better mental health care and monitoring than we do.

And we should also ban weapons whose primary goal is to kill lots of people quickly.

You might have noticed this if you've driven I-84 through Newtown; especially going north or east towards Hartford. The original was placed alongside I-84 on 9-12-2001. The owner passed away a few years back and the new owner picked up the standard so to speak. It's become kind of a local icon.

"And allowing more guns into schools? Let's see--there were some 25,000 people wounded accidentally by guns last year...and we want to make sure that they are in every school? Yikes."

Firearms are used heavily for sport, so obviously there are going to be accidents. By that logic, we shouldn't let anyone conceal carry anywhere because of accidents. But how often does a firearm tucked into someones waistband suddenly fire and kill an innocent bystander? Not very.

"You've certainly convinced me, Bruce. Let's ban them all. Do you need a high capacity magazine to kill a moose? If so, then you really aren't much of a hunter..."

No, but you may need a high capacity magazine to defend yourself against people. Many home invasions involve several people. Being able to fire excessively could be provide a huge advantage. Or you could just reload more often. The only way to limit the lethality of rifles would be to be semi auto.

"I do not understand why we should allow any civilian in this society to own an assault weapon designed to facilitate killing lots of people all at once. And for every fear I have of the government forcing me into white slavery, I have ten or twenty fears about some whacko with a couple of assault guns having a bad day and opening fire as I drive by on the freeway or take my family shopping."

A weapon designed to facilitate killing lots of people all at once is an explosive. A weapon designed to facilitate killing lots of people in a short period of time would be a machine gun. An assault rifle is not "designed" to kill lots of people at once. It's designed to kill once person at a time with accurate fire and it has semi automatic capabilities to allow quick follow up shots. Firing a rifle in fully automatic is extremely inaccurate and would only be used for suppressive fire. Fully automatic weapons can't be owned or purchased unless they were manufactured and registered with the BATFE before 1986. Even then, purchase is super highly regulated.

What we have are modernized semi automatic rifles ("assault" weapon) designed after general issue military rifles that are no more lethal than the many semi automatic recreational rifles available (not "assault" weapons). The difference is like trying to kill someone by running them over with a car made in 1970 or a car made in 2010. You would rather own the car made in 2010 but either car will run someone over just fine.

I don't get it. How do a people who have never had any gun control, and thereby have no experience whatsoever with how gun control works and what its effects are, speak with any authority about gun control?

Hey, could you fellas work in to this conversation a competent discussion of private gun ownership/operation as a factor in global warming, if it exists and relates to gun control in Connecticut?


Let me know what you come up with, so I can make a decision. Consensus points are all I ask.

Thanks so much.

+1 Miguel.

I have stayed out of this conversation for days and probably shouldn't comment. As a dad of three boys the Newtown tragedy is especially troubling. Thought about it a lot as I sent my boys to school this week.

However, when people are intent on committing evil acts their is nothing we can do to stop them (unless we find out beforehand). For example, 12 guys with knife cutters, OK City bombing, etc found a way to commit a violent act.

Putting tighter restrictions on guns will just lead to enterprising criminals creating an alternative market for people to purchase. Drugs are illegal, but addicts have no trouble getting access to drugs. Tighter restrictions will really just place limits on law abiding citizens. Criminals are responsible for many of the homicides in the US and no gun control will prevent them from obtaining guns.

According to the FBI, violent crimes have declined 21.9% in the last ten years. During that same period the number of homicides have declined by 10% and the rate of homicides have declined by 16.8%. So saying that the US is spiraling downward, etc is just not supported by the numbers. Actually just the opposite is true.

As a gun owner I have mine for hunting, sport(targeting shooting) and protection. Not sure why that is an issue for so many people. Many argue that guns are not necessary for protection and I struggle understanding that point. If someone where to break into my home with or without a gun how am I going to protect my family? Just hope it all turns out ok. BTW, according to the FBI the one crime that has risen over the past 10 years is burglary. And what's interesting about burglary is that it has dropped significantly in the commercial world, but risen significantly among residential property. Really don't care if someone disapproves of my right, but please stopping treading on me.

For the record, 33 teens have died while texting and driving since this thread was started. Also 18,000 people have been burglarized since this thread started (According to FBI)

As with all things improvements can be made. I'm all for doing realistic things to improve situation, but doing radical things like outlawing guns or making it difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase is just not right. However we are a country with an out of control media that loves to incite us. Every mass murder leads to gun control, every storm on the coast leads to why build their in the first place, oil spill leads to stop the drilling, on and on and on.......

However this is all trivial when you think about the loss these families are experiencing.

Brad

Miguel,

What dreamland are you living in. People in the US have to deal with some form of gun control if they want to purchase or carry firearms. Or maybe you just didn't realize since you left this country long ago.

Just because the laws aren't as restrictive as in some societies doesn't mean there aren't laws.

Geez. Can you drop your anti American know it all attitude?

+2 Miguel.

"Gun control" is a farce in this country. I know guns and I know my state's gun laws. And I have never known anyone that wanted a gun but couldn't purchase it.

Has anyone in this discussion ever been denied the ability to buy a gun?

From a .22 plinker for your kid to a handgun to a semi-auto "assault" styled rifle, what is it people want that they can't get? Are people mad they have to be background checked or wait 10 days or whatever your state requires? Mad that they can't legally buy 15 guns at one time?

Thus far, what exactly is the government denying law-abiding people here? A semi-auto .223 with a rail system, lasers, lights, a collapsible stock, endless black-market mods, and a few thousand rounds to go with it somehow isn't enough? Not being able to carry it into Starbucks is infringing on your Freedom?

So California neuters their AR15s. But anyone in the know can get around this in a second. Want a bigger magazine for your Glock? Drive a few hours to Nevada or hit your local gun show.

So California also doesn't issue many concealed carry permits. Boo Hoo. Does that stop anyone that wants to carry? Gun stores still directly market half their pistols as the perfect "purse" or "concealed" gun and will sell you a slim-fit belt or ankle holster to go with it. Tactical or leather?

"Gun Control". What a joke.

I have to agree with you Brad, there is no huge problem here.


"...As with all things improvements can be made."

Diane Feinstein is proposing:

make assault weapons illegal, but define it to mean it can't fire more than one round per second (or whatever) rather than pistol grip or bayonet mount

eliminate gun show loophole - everyone has to get approval to own gun

more than 10 rounds per clip would be illegal


the assault weapons ban is more to make us feel good

the other two would probably reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings

"I don't get it. How do a people who have never had any gun control, and thereby have no experience whatsoever with how gun control works and what its effects are, speak with any authority about gun control?"

The nation historically has. The "founding fathers", many from Scotland, saw how gun control made it easy for power abuses.

Anyway, I think the tools of murder and terror should be kept out of the wrong hands. How that is accomplished?

---

Here is something people can do right now.

"The “Watch Dogs” group organized earlier this year as part of a national program to involve more fathers and male role models in schools."
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/dec/18/dads-serve-watch-dogs-spokane-school/

Perhaps a Dad, who had taken extra interest in Adam, might have made all the difference.

I love statistics, Brad.

How about this one: In 2008, according to the FBI, 14,180 people were murdered in America.[4] In 2010, according to the UNODC, 67.5% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm.

Not knives. Not bats. Not curling irons. But guns.

The culture of gun toting independence has been embedded in the US culture for a very long time and continues to have negative effects.

"Crime has been a long-standing concern in the United States, with high rates at the beginning of the 20th century compared to parts of Western Europe. In 1916, 198 homicides were recorded in Chicago, a city of slightly over 2 million at the time. This level of crime was not exceptional when compared to other American cities such as New York City, but was much higher relative to European cities, such as London, which then had three times the population but recorded only 45 homicides in the same year.[6]"

Homicide crimes have fallen slightly in the past 10 years on a per capita basis. The population of the US has increased by 10% of the same ten years. Congratulations in "smoothing" out the killings.

"In contrast to the recent sharp decrease in the homicide rate, the rates of other violent crimes and of property crimes, although they have continuously decreased recently, have decreased at a considerably slower pace than in the 1990s.[11] Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2009 as in 1968, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1964. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1973, despite having decreased steadily since 1991.[12]"

Sadly, the US has a problem and it is not going away.

Craig I think Miguel's post and to a lesser extent your's implied that the US has no controls on gun ownership. But of course that's not the case, there are laws concerning the purchase and possession of guns.

Some people think existing law is too restrictive, some think it's too lax.

Edited by davidlutz on 12/18/2012 11:58:13 MST.

We live in an advocate culture. It seems to me that people used to come together to work towards a goal on an ad hoc basis. Once they achieved their goal they split up and went about their business. Now we have professional groups of all shapes and sizes that exist solely to advocate for one cause or another. That's what they do, that's how they make their living.

They have a President, a Vice-President of Public Policy, a bunch of Regional Directors of Advocacy Advancement, an office on K Street, etc, etc.

Can you imagine any of these guys one day saying "You know what, I think our work here is done, let's go home"? That will never happen.

The NRA is one of these groups but there are many, many others on both sides of the political spectrum.

It gets in the way of reasonable people having a reasonable dialogue IMO.

Another thing that concerns me is the reflexive reaction to look to the State to fix things. Some event takes place, new laws are written, politicians throw out a few speeches, everybody feels good and the winning lobbyist firm throws a party for the interns manning the phones downstairs.

Then the event happens again. Rinse and repeat.

Cynical, I know.

I think our best chance for preventing the horrible events at Sandy Hook from happening lies in stronger community ties. Some sort of stronger support network. I don't know anything about that kid's life, but I think it's too easy for troubled kids to become isolated and look for ways to act out and make an impression. Sometimes it's through violence.

I have no idea how to do that but church comes to mind. Not necessarily religion - church. I don't think more State oversight is the answer.

Who knows - it's complicated.

Edited by davidlutz on 12/18/2012 11:59:20 MST.

Guns are deeply ingrained in a significant part of our population. I hear many people say they couldn't possibly defend themselves without one. But I have made it 47 years without having to use a gun once to defend myself. And many countries manage with strict gun laws and have much lower gun violence rates. We know it is possible. My only concern is the fact that it takes away our rights. But I just can't believe the argument that we, as a country, can't provide at least as good of security with pretty tight gun restrictions.

No idea what this "gun show loophole" crap is.

Dealers...must run background checks on official sales.

Person-to-person sales, are totally unregulated. Because they cannot be.
I can sell a gun I own, to anyone, at any time. Just like I could sell a pair of shoes.
I can do it at my home, or in a parking lot, or at a gun show. It cannot be tracked or traced.

Even if guns were all registered by serial #, and sales and transfers controlled, all someone has to say is "I lost it"


No one has any idea of how many guns are in the US, regardless of what you hear.

Guns have a very long life. Most guns produced in the last 100 yrs are still around in fine working condition. I have around 20, and I have only bought 3 new ones. Im also not a collector or anything, many have been in my family for several generations.

20?

Holy crap.

According to the 2011 FBI report:

1992:
Population: 255M
Violent crimes: 1,932,274
Violent crime rate: 757
Murder/non negligent manslaughter: 23,760
Murder rate: 9.3

2011:
Population: 311M
Violent crimes: 1,203,564
Violent crime rate: 386.3
Murder/non negligent manslaughter: 14,612
Murder rate: 4.7

I agree that England has much lower murder rate, but the citizens are able to purchase weapons (handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc). I'm no expert on the England permitting process, but it's not like the rate is lower because guns are outlawed. Guess I'm not getting your point or what your advocating. Both countries have access to guns, but have drastically different murder rates. I think your point supports that access to guns is not the issue.

Why does the US have only 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world prison population. I think murder rates are going down over time because over the US's more aggressive sentencing policy (ie strong stand on drugs starting in 80's, 3 strikes, etc) and we have less criminals around to commit crimes again.

We certainly have problems and the murder rate in the US is a sad state. However trying to eliminate guns is just not going to do it.

Brad

"Why does the US have only 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world prison population. I think murder rates are going down over time because over the US's more aggressive sentencing policy (ie strong stand on drugs starting in 80's, 3 strikes, etc) and we have less criminals around to commit crimes again."

I was reading some scientific article somewhere, and they tried to correlate crime rates with social changes

The main thing they could find correlation with was abortion

If people that don't want to have children are allowed to have abortion, then there is lower crime rate in the future when those children would have become old enough to commit crimes

(As if this thread wasn't already contentious enough : )

"I don't get it. How do a people who have never had any gun control, and thereby have no experience whatsoever with how gun control works and what its effects are, speak with any authority about gun control?"

We have gun control in many different forms in the United States. It really depends on the state. There is no state where you can't purchase a firearm but it may come with a ton of red tape and headaches. In many states a concealed carry permit is impossible to get. You can't get a firearm if you are a felon. The federal assault weapons ban expired but many states have still adopted it.

The thing to look at is concealed carry and how it relates to crime statistics. From what I have seen, concealed carry shouldn't raise crime at all and possibly lower it for obvious reasons.

Forensic Psychiatrist

http://www.hulu.com/watch/436130

http://www.hulu.com/watch/436129#i1,p0,d1

Brad, for info. - handguns have been illegal in the UK since 1997.

According to Wikipedia "Following the Dunblane massacre, the government passed the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997, banning private ownership of handguns almost completely."

Thanks Ed. I stated I didn't know the UK gun law very well. Are rifles and shotguns for sporting still allowed?

Brad

David, interesting video (http://www.hulu.com/watch/436130)

That was just one person's opinion, but

He said it wasn't guns or mental illness

People first get the mindset of blaming other people, hopeless, suspicious

All the gratuitous violence in video games and movies contributes

The 24 hour news cycle where people talk about it for weeks - you have to kill 20 children to make it more shocking so people will talk about it more

If you demonstrate to your children compassion for strangers it would help them avoid this

etc.

Brad, you originally posted that you wanted the culture to change. Regulating or banning assault type weapons is, among other things, an important symbolic way to show that our society finds these weapons unacceptable or at least highly dangerous. How do you change the culture while essentially saying that these weapons are safe enough to sell over the counter and at gun shows? There's far more stigma associated with a pack of cigarettes today than with an AK47. We have to change. You want "change" without doing anything meaningful related to the problem. You really want nothing to change. You want to lament. Of course stricter regulations will not end crime or murder. But the argument someone in this thread made that 'the Chinese are killing children with axes and knives so it's no use banning assault weapons' is just so much specious nra propaganda; it doesn't even make sense. What, we have wait for murder to end before we can address the problem of guns? We can lessen the tragedies, probably significantly, without being able to stop all of them. Isn't this worth it?

p.s. strong negative societal signals have helped to significantly reduce smoking in this country. And yeah I found those signals annoying. But we're better and healthier for them.

Jeffrey,

We are obviously a violent nation which is represented by our crime rates and large prison population. Why is that? I don't believe it is simply because we have access to guns. The causes in my opinion are much deeper--mental health treatment, eroding of the core family (high divorce rate), kids being raised in day cares, video games, music, domestic violence and many others. Something pushes people to the point of violence.

Handguns represent over 70% of all homicides. Rifles represent only 2.5%. Per FBI, but the undisclosed weapon type could skew this number. No breakdown on the percentage of rifles in the 2.5% that are actually AR type. Seems like a really small part of the overall problem. Also if you look at the weapons used in Paducah and Virginia Tech events you will see that no AR type rifles were used. The carbine rifle used during Columbine was approved weapon even though we had a AR ban. Not sure if a carbine would be considered AR---need to ask a gun expert. So when we say getting rid of AR will help I just don't buy it. I think the idiot will either buy the AR on the black market, use another type gun or move to other weapons. I think the political agenda is to start with AR and then move to handguns, shotguns, etc. For the record I don't have an AR rifle and have no desire to buy one. Banning them really doesn't matter to me.

I think (not saying you) a lot of people are saying "hey ban the AR rifles" and things will get much better. I just think that is a false belief. The VT massacre was done with two handguns.

There is probably no greater source or anxiety and frustration for a parent than that brought on by situations in which you cannot protect or defend your children.

I've been thinking about this today and remembered this article. Here's a link and some brief excerpts:

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/97sep/grief.htm

A Grief Like No Other

The grief caused by murder does not follow a predictable course. It does not neatly unfold in stages. When a person dies after a long illness, his or her family has time to prepare emotionally for the death, to feel an anticipatory grief. When someone is murdered, the death usually comes without warning. A parent might have breakfast with a child on an ordinary morning -- and then never see or hold or speak to that child again. The period of mourning after a natural death lasts one, two, perhaps three years. The much more complicated mourning that follows a homicide may be prolonged by the legal system, the attitudes of society, the nature of the crime, and the final disposition of the case. A murder is an unnatural death; no ordinary rules apply. The intense grief experienced by survivors can last four years, five years, a decade, even a lifetime.

Parents may be torn by self-doubts. Parents are supposed to keep their children safe from harm, at any cost. The murder of a child looms as a profound failure of parental responsibility, regardless of whether or not that murder could have been prevented. The parents of a murder victim wonder what their child might have become someday. The murder of a child violates the natural order, destroying a parent's stake in the future.

The relatives of murder victims often lose not only their faith in society, the legal system, and old friends but also their faith in God. The sense of personal invulnerability that allows someone to lead a normal life -- to leave the house, drive a car, say good-bye to loved ones before a mundane errand, confident of seeing them again -- may be utterly destroyed. A murder can provoke an existential despair completely at odds with a person's lifelong beliefs. The anger many survivors feel, along with often violent fantasies of revenge, may conflict with religious traditions that stress mercy and forgiveness. Ministers and priests may alienate the families of murder victims with comments like "The Lord knows best," "Everything happens for a reason," and "It's all part of His plan." The murder of a child is difficult to reconcile with belief in a just, all-powerful God. A congregation may react insensitively to the persistence of a survivor's grief. Ken Czillinger thinks that America's religious institutions tend to promote a male-oriented approach to grief, stressing both repression and denial of feelings. The families of murder victims often find themselves pulling away from churches that have long been the focus of their lives.

MB

We regulate private sales of cars quite successfully. Why shouldn't we do the same with guns?

And for those who do seems to constantly confuse cars with guns: Cars are designed to transport people more or less safely from one place to another. Guns are designed to kill people. It is astonishing that we have tougher regulations for cars than for guns.

For all those gun control advocates......

Paul.

We don't regulate the sale of cars. We tax and liscense if you want them registered. That's a difference. I can buy a car from joe and keep it on my place no problem. Even easier if it is concealable like a gun


And guns aren't just designed to kill people. They are for target shooting and hunting too. The percentage of guns that actually have killed a person is probably pretty low. Not sure about the percentage of cars.

Edited by mpl_35 on 12/18/2012 16:34:34 MST.

Hope we would all agree the US must do a better job in institutionalizing more of our mental patients and ensure those coded as such in school do not have access to weapons in their respective households. Not a perfect system (see the recent Oregon case where a regular young man borrowed the rifle) but we just cannot wait for them to commit any sort of violent or property crime so the criminal justice system can treat them by letting them loose on the streets.

The US is a very large country with porous borders, so a gun ban isn't going to work even if the politicians agree to implement one (not likely). Maybe a multi-pronged solution of better mental (and other) health plus hardening our schools, malls, etc.. As stated above, the violent crime rate actually has gone down due to demographics; just need to get a handle on these mass shootings.

Edited by hknewman on 12/18/2012 16:46:28 MST.

"Why does the US have only 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world prison population."

Could be we are stricter, better at catching criminals or both. I'd argue a lot of these people should really be in mental hospitals. If we dealt with mental illness better we could reduce the prison population and most likely the homeless population to boot.

Oh interesting fact - England has had a lower murder rate then the US about two centuries even though for much of that time guns were easily available in England. I don't think current gun laws or video games explain a 200 year trend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregion/in-newtown-conn-a-stiff-resistance-to-gun-restrictions.html?ref=politics

Anybody who hasn't read this article know what Tannerite is?

I find myself actually having to agree, at least partially, with all you gun lovers who say guns aren't the problem. You're right, it's the society that produces people who see guns as an essential part of life.

"Why does the US have only 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world prison population."

"Could be we are stricter, better at catching criminals or both. I'd argue a lot of these people should really be in mental hospitals. If we dealt with mental illness better we could reduce the prison population and most likely the homeless population to boot."

________________________________________

Or it could be non-violent drug offenders that would be far better served in treatment programs but are instead hit with mandatory minimum sentencing requirements.

In the US, we own more guns than citizens of any other country, by far. And we have gun homicide rates that can only be matched in third world countries, best I can tell. So, how do strict gun advocates propose we fix this problem? Do we double down and bet that even more guns will fix the problem? Or do you not think this is a problem? I understand the desire not to be tread upon, but what are you all willing to sacrifice to help solve our gun problem?

Edited by alexdrewreed on 12/19/2012 08:40:31 MST.

MB

"We don't regulate the sale of cars. We tax and liscense if you want them registered. That's a difference. I can buy a car from joe and keep it on my place no problem. Even easier if it is concealable like a gun

And guns aren't just designed to kill people. They are for target shooting and hunting too. The percentage of guns that actually have killed a person is probably pretty low. Not sure about the percentage of cars."


Let's see. If you sell a car, you have to register that sale with the state so that the new owner is responsible for any damages or violations that car causes. To operate the car, you need a license and a photo ID, as well as insurance to cover any damages that you might cause with your car.

Why shouldn't we require those same regulations for gun owners?

And how many magazines do you need to shoot bottles or deer?

Ben C.

This has made the most sense of anything I have seen in the last few days in relation to
mass murderers.

I post it again, it doesn't take long to watch. Got me thinking.

Forensic Psychiatrist

http://www.hulu.com/watch/436130

http://www.hulu.com/watch/436129#i1,p0,d1

We dont have a legal gun problem, we have a people problem.
Society has failed, for many reasons.

You wont take guns away from people in the following link, and God help you if they are the only ones who have them. Police dont prevent crimes, they solve them afterwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jsX0OYhO0A


These type people commonly have AUTOMATIC weapons, which were obtained illegally. I recall reading of one site of a shootout where the police recovered 700 bullet casings. Miraculously, no one was injured.

The ONLY thing that keeps these people out of YOUR home at night, it the odds that you probably have a gun.

People have been killing other people for thousands of years, long before they had guns to do so. And will continue to do so no matter what.

The sensationalized killing you HEAR about, are few, and usually seem to have been done by persons with KNOWN MENTAL ISSUES. These school shootings are basically copycat killings, the killer wants the shock value. These are also in part due to the medias sensationalism of past such events. Even without access to guns, someone intent on a shocking murderous act, followed by suicide has other means at their disposal to accomplish that.

These acts usually occur in what we perceive as "safe" zones, but what makes them safe? A sign? Gimme a break. Its the fact that it was PRESUMED to be a safe zone that makes it so shocking.

Nothing makes them safe. We send our kids to school HOPING that they are safe there. While we do have locks and means to protect ourselves and them at home.

What happened at that school should not have been possible. Teachers and school personnel charged with the protection of students in their care, have no way to excersise that. The school had a locked door he had to be buzzed in, but the window next to it wasnt armored. The classrooms did not have deadbolts that could be activated. And this school had recently been renovated for safety.

A couple hundred dollars spent, would have saved a lot of lives.

What they did, was refuse to believe that anything bad would actually ever happen, so they didnt take childrens safety seriously.




The worst school massacre in the US did not occur by gunfire, it was done with a gallon of gasoline.

But the really scary thing, is the people in the above video, their vote counts as much as yours, or mine.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/18/2012 19:07:37 MST.

"I understand the desire not to be tread upon, but what are you all willing to sacrifice to help solve our gun problem?"

Asking what we are willing to "sacrifice" implies we as a society are choosing guns over kids.
The issue is not people being "selfish" and valuing guns over kids. The issue is a lot of people just aren't convinced a few gun laws will change anything. This isn't just a few wackos at the NRA there are millions of Americans who share this view to some degree. Guns are just a fact of life in America right now. We don't have the option to virtually ban them like England does.

Couple ideas of what might help

-Take a look at our mental health system. I wonder how other societies treat potential psychos. Maybe the difference isn't their guns laws but their mental health laws?

-Figure out a way to screen for mental health cases in background checks.

A LOT of mass shootings have involved mental cases who probably should have been locked up. It won't be easy to fix mental health but I think it should be looked at VERY carefully.

Two ideas that would be a lot quicker and less controversial

-Rotate current police officers through schools more regularly as part of daily patrols

-If we can't have armed security at least one or two school officials could have access to a tazer a can of pepper spray the size of a fire extinguisher. Yes it might not help but it would be better then nothing.

-New buildings could incorporate more security, as in harder to break into. I don't want schools to be forts but solid walls and stronger doors don't spell Fort Knox.

Edited by Cameron on 12/18/2012 18:48:27 MST.

Brad: thanks for your reasoned and calm response to my post. I wrote my post during the last ten minutes of a half hour lunch break and realized later that I had come down way too hard on you--personalized things--in a way that you don't deserve. You've been reasonable throughout this discussion. So it's my bad. Obviously, emotions are running high.

I certainly agree with you about all of the sociological reasons that we've become, or rather remain, a violent nation. You don't however suggest a way for society to change. And even if you do have good programs to solve the problem of violence in the U.S. over the next twenty years, what do we do in the meantime? Again, I suggest that outlawing assault weapons announces that our society finds them unacceptable. Surely this is a beginning. Or maybe you have a sweeping solution that will work in a year?

I live in Oakland Ca. I absolutely hate guns. Children and adults are killed every week by the kinds of guns you and others, the nra, defend. And they have been for decades. The nra says that if everyone is armed we'll all be safer. Well, in east Oakland everyone is armed and it's hell. Gee, in Lebanon, as good of a petri-dish for this theory as any--or in many states in Africa-- everyone is armed and see how well that's worked out.

I hate guns and find them wicked.The nra wants to force me to carry a gun to defend myself from all the other people with guns. I won't do it. My guess is that most school teachers won't do it either. Do people who hate guns have rights? Police across the nation say that arming civilians en masse is a bad idea. More and more people will die if we do. But the nra is just one arm of the gun lobby that wants, surprise surprise, to sell guns.

Last summer I ran into a guy in Yosemite, just at the start of a hike from Tuolomne Meadows, carrying a big gun openly on his hip with a big smile. Apparently guns are now legal in National Parks. Did I mention that I hate guns? And that I live in Oakland? I go to Yosemite to get away from guns. Will gun lobbyists leave me any place where I don't have to face down guns? Apparently not.

And now we see the consequences.

I dare an open carry guy, or a group of them, to go to Newtown and walk around. Maybe they'll feel the kind of intimidation that I feel when these potential whackos with guns walk down my street, yes feel fear in the sense that there's a good chance that they'll be shot by a parent who thinks that this "open carrier" is the next mass murderer. Which is what I think when I see an open carry guy.

And I dare the nra to go to Newtown and advocate in a public forum for gun rights. Up with assault weapons. This is what they stand for; come on, where are your principles nra when it counts? Go to Newtown. Stage a gun rights rally. See what happens.

Edited by book on 12/18/2012 19:53:59 MST.

"Will gun lobbyists leave me any place where I don't have to face down guns? Apparently not."

And now we see the consequences."

+1 A cry from the heart and well put.

"I dare an open carry guy, or a group of them, to go to Newtown and walk around. Maybe they'll feel the kind of intimidation that I feel when these potential whackos with guns walk down my street, yes feel fear in the sense that there's a good chance that they'll probably be shot by a parent who thinks that this "open carrier" is the next mass murderer. Which is what I think when I see an open carry guy."

Sadly, Jeffrey, you might be surprised by Newtownians attitudes toward guns. The link I posted at the bottom of the previous page is about exactly that. It is heartbreaking in the context of this thread, but there it is. You might want to check it out. In fact I hope all posters to this thread read it. It offers a very clear example of just how difficult this problem is going to be to sort out.

Jeffrey,

There are limitless numbers of small cities and towns, where the vast majority of the population are gun owners due to the culture.


You might even even be surprised to learn that the opening day of hunting season is a corporate holiday for many large global companies at their rural US sites. They have too, because no one will show up for work anyway.

No crime problems for the most part in these areas where gun ownership of households actually approaches 100%.

The problems in YOUR are are obviously not due to guns, its due to the local people.
You should contemplate the hows and whys of that reality.
Lack of God, Lack of education, lack of family values, etc.

You should also probably move if you feel unsafe.

Yup there's plenta a guns in Newtown. Like lots of suburban "ring" towns in areas that used to be relatively rural there are folks with different cultures and different values. It's not all tony suburban bliss.

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article (also linked) by an expert on the second amendment that might offer ideas for a compromise position.

http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/saul_cornell_guns/

The European-style handgun bans recently struck down by the Supreme Court reflected three-decade-old policy thinking about guns. But two generations of academic research have pointed us toward a new paradigm for gun regulation. Most of this innovative gun research looks to the marketplace, not bans, as the primary means to reduce gun violence. Rather than simply banning handguns, an unpopular policy in most parts of the country, the new research suggests a more targeted strategy, with the primary goals being to prevent guns from moving into the black market and to restrict the access of dangerous people — including those with mental illness — to firearms. Rather than ban handguns, the new model only uses bans for a very narrow range of particularly dangerous items not essential for sport or individual self-defense: high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons and a few highly unusual weapons such as high caliber sniper rifles. Many would also argue for providing tax incentives to encourage responsible gun ownership practices, like enrolling in gun safety courses or purchasing gun safes. The goal would be to provide both carrots and sticks to gun owners.

David Olsen,

Thanks for the video clips. I agree. I think what the gentleman says makes about as much sense as anything I have seen.

One thing I am nervous about is the rush to pass immediate legislation with anything to do with this. Congress does not have a good track record of looking at the unforeseen/unintended consequences when they pass knee-jerk legislation. Whether that be for games, guns, movies, mental health, police on every corner, you name it.

Bob Burke

I keep saying to myself to quit posting and go on a hike or whatever, but

On PBS someone pointed out that the mother that was killed had 6 guns

The solution to the problem is not for people to have more guns

Having more guns causes more problems than it solves

Jeffrey

Thanks for your post and I didn't see anything wrong with your earlier post. All good.

Interesting to hear your prospective from Oakland and it gives me a better prospective of where you are coming from. Let me know give you my prospective:

I live in a small town of 2,000 people and the closest large city is Charlotte, NC which is 40 minutes away. My town is surrounded by rural farm land and plenty of open space. I grew up hunting before I had my drivers license which is the normal for my area. Not only did I hunt, but we frequently shot skeet and did target shooting. Growing up my life consisted of school, sports, fishing, hunting, playing outside, riding motorcycles in woods, etc. with my buddies. Only handgun in my house was my dad's and he carried it as a truck driver. He drove a lot at night and had to unload food at grocery stores. Some of the stores where located in bad neighborhoods, so the gun was for protection. He only had a couple of encounters and luckily nothing ever escalated into him having to use the gun. On one occasion three guys approach my dad, but once they saw the gun on his hip they moved along saying "he has a gun".

So I ask are guns the problems or maybe those that have access to guns in your area. I personally believe that those criminal in your area will not be effected by gun control because they can always find them on the black market. However gun control will effect those in my areas who use guns responsibly.

All that being said I'm for making changes. Maybe start with enforcing what is on the books. I read something recently where only 1% of the felonies who provide false information to obtain a permit where prosecuted. Really? Do we need to make requirements tougher to obtain a permit? No. Do we need a system that requires background checks for all permits? Yes. We already have a lot of no gun zones, but we poorly enforce.

Many things will improve the situation, but I doubt we will stop the mass murders we are seeing. People wanting to do evil will find a way. Makes you realize how little impact we really have on the situation.

Brad and others: geeze I forgot to clarify. I have absolutely nothing against hunting rifles. In fact I'm a big fan of Ducks Unlimited and all responsible hunters of non-endangered wildlife. Most hunters help control populations of deer etc. and are fans of protecting wild space. Also,I'm a meat eater. It's the "urban" guns I've come to hate. It may be that the city/rural divide, the different experiences of people in those locals, fuels the mutual incomprehension of the two sides in this debate. In Chicago, New York, Oakland/Richmond, most large urban centers, gun violence is wearying. It's people shooting people, often children, no hunting about it.
I understand that the vast majority of gun owners, urban or rural, are responsible. It is the tiny minority who do a whole lot of damage.

Jeffrey I would guess most of the guns that so bother you are illegal. In CA pistols must be registered with local police and carrying them in any urban area requires a permit. The permits are "may issue" which means local officials can issue it to you IF they want to or deny it. Generally they are easier to get in rural areas and almost impossible in urban areas like yours. Any felony conviction etc. disqualifies you from owning a gun or getting a concealed carry permit.

The problem in your area is we need to better enforce the laws we already have.

Edit - Thanks to those who are being careful to keep these comments more respectful then the last couple gun threads. Its not a bad issue to discuss but given the sad situation I hope we can continue to be civil.

Edited by Cameron on 12/19/2012 06:06:55 MST.

I have to laugh when people start spouting statistics and charts and talk about violent Americans all the while cynically leaving out the fact that the over whelming majority of violence and specifically gun violence is directly related to the the war on drugs. Especially in urban areas. If you are sick of the violence then you need to be involved in ending Nixon's drug war and helping to rebuild our urban neighborhoods.

This whole thread is an example of what the problem is. No one can agree on anything and everyone has an opinion, which everyone else is supposed to respect and give equal credence to. If there is anything everyone can probably agree on is that what happened at Newton and all those other places with similar tragedies, is that they were all horrific and tragic, and should not be repeated. And yet, because of the disagreement over what to do... if there even IS a consensus that something must be done (some of the posts here seem to suggest that there is no need for anything to be done)... nothing ever gets done. Perhaps that is the first thing that needs addressing... to bring about consensus on the most basic things first. Then take it up the ladder. Because nothing will happen otherwise. While everyone argues, yet another shooting will occur, and then the whole uproar starts all over again, with exactly the same arguments, exactly the same anguish, exactly the same reasons. The way I see it, the mental health problems are mainly with the entire society, with the unending inability to make up its mind. You can't know if something works until you actually try it, and that requires making a decision.

MB says: :"Jeffrey, you should probably move if you feel unsafe."

Several times a year in Oakland and Richmond there's another particularly sad killing, usually involving a kid caught in crossfire, that prompts hundreds of locals to march to take back our streets. These are the local parents and workers, church goers most often. They all want guns off the streets. All of them. So do the police. That's why their marching.

Gee, are all of these thousands of people supposed to quit their jobs and move? In Chicago, NY, etc. too? Are we to give up the streets to the punks with guns and all have to move out? Can well all come stay with you, MB? will you have jobs for us?

But god forbid that gun owners should be inconvenienced.

From the American Journal on Public Health:

"Among a long list of issues facing the American public, guns are third only to gay marriage and abortion in terms of people who report that they are “not willing to listen to the other side.”


It's an interesting study: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2008.143099

Jeffrey, How does gun control help your situation, Chicago, NY, etc. Sounds like you are talking about high crime areas when you say things like crossfire, taking back our streets, etc. I personally don't think any gun control is going to keep guns out of the hands of these individuals. I doubt any of them could legally purchase a gun under current gun laws. Not saying its not a problem, just don't see how gun control helps.

You've got me thinking Doug.
Something i find difficult to understand as a non US citizen
I get the 'land of the free' thing. Everyone has personal freedom, with as little government interference as possible, yeah?
So some folks think they can own as many guns as they want. The gun folk seem to be mostly Republican (looking from the outside), yet at the same time they demand the personal freedom to carry guns, they want to deny that freedom to folk who want to have an abortion, or have gay rights?

Jeffery and Brad are calmly discussing their different urban and rural perspectives. As a fifth-generation San Francisco living in small-town Alaska for the last 15 years, I've experienced both sides of that.

I knew respectable gun owners in the city. They tended to be quieter about it, had fewer bumper stickers, and of course had to go to a range or hunting to shoot. I also had friends held up while working as teenagers in drive-throughs, a father of a classmate was wounded with a rifle when racist, local teens were roughing him up, and - the biggest driver for most people - there were all the headlines and news reports of inner-city and domestic-violence deaths involving guns. I understand how urban dwellers see guns as a problem and I note that where things are the worst (DC), the locals are most adamant about controlling guns.

In a small Alaskan town, most men have guns and while we were looking at day-care options for the our toddler, we didn't ask IF they had guns in the house, but WHERE the guns were stored - "the nightstand" being the wrong answer and "locked in the gun cabinet and ammo is kept in the basement" being a good answer. I know many more hunters up here, perhaps because there are a lot more tasty critters. For reasons of marital harmony, I don't hunt myself, but being a strong hiker, willing to carry multiple loads of meat out and being an above-average camp cook, make me a popular guy to have on a trip and earns an equal share of the bear/elk/caribou.

So I hope I straddle the line a bit - I certainly can have civil conversations with folks on both sides. A few points:

Gun control, as anyone seriously suggests it, doesn't restrict hunting or home defense at all. A 12-gauge and/or a 30/06 rifle will handle any hunting outside of Alaska and will drop a burglar far quicker than any handgun.

Rural, well-armed areas DO have lower crime rates. Some of that is probably fear of confronting an armed citizen, but there are many other factors. Making drugs illegal and therefore profitable not only causes gangs to fight for turf, but causes user to steal for their habit. And whether it is the worst part of Oakland or the most scenic, roadless, native village in Alaska; hopelessness breeds escapist behaviors be they drug use or suicide. Guns didn't create the hopelessness, but an armed desperate person often has a worse outcome.

Also, in a small town, you know most everyone. Sure, stuff happens, but more fingers are pointed and crimes get solved because all actions are less anonymous. Maybe more importantly, there aren't "too many rats in the cage" - I don't think we evolved as a species in 1,000,000-person villages. Small towns and small schools avoid many of the clique-ish and gang-like behaviors of bigger settings.

No despots have ever been overthrown in the US with guns. Reagan was a little extreme (and far too anti-wilderness) for my tastes, but he survived Hinckley's attack. Nixon would have been the clearest potential threat and he resigned. I just don't see paranoid hillbillies, even with guns converted to full-auto, standing up to federal or military forces and I think Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc, bear that out. "Red Dawn" (the old one and the new one) was a fantasy, not a documentary.

The gun owners want the gun-control crowd to have perspective: 10,000 gun deaths are less than 25,000 auto deaths. A lot of those deaths were gang bangers or victims or domestic violence. And they trot out their poster-child cases of someone defending themselves from a stranger.

And the gun controllers want the gun owners to have perspective: No one is going to take away sporting guns. A gun in your house is more likely to be used against a household member than a stranger. And they trot out their horror stories of school shootings, etc.

And the most fearful on each side drive the debate. Gang members and paranoid whackos are scary to many people, very much so to a few. Violence by strangers IS a possibility but some people seize on that way out of proportion to the risk.

I react to the start of such fears in myself by looking at the stats and the risks. The unknown is scary but the unknown is also very uncommon. I fly a lot and an airplane malfunction would be out of my control, but so unlikely, I dismiss it (except in small planes up here). But some people are incapacitated by their fear of flying. Yet they drive everyday which is FAR riskier.

If you want to live a long time then eat less, exercise more, don't smoke, and wear your seat belt. Your anxiety about guns will shorten the average life more than bullets would.

If you fear your neighbors, move where you don't have any (and join the paranoid, cabin-dweeling North Roaders in my area). If you fear the government, then don't break the law - problem solved.

There is common ground. Not on where the end point should be, but on small steps in that direction. Stricter enforcement of existing gun laws. Evidence-based programs to reduce inner-city hopelessness, joblessness, and violence. Better mental-health and substance-abuse programs. No one suite of policies will make everyone safe. But small steps DO help (driving deaths have been halved in a few decades, per-mile deaths are down far more in my lifetime). And small steps are politically possible.

Great post David.

Mike:

"So some folks think they can own as many guns as they want. The gun folk seem to be mostly Republican (looking from the outside), yet at the same time they demand the personal freedom to carry guns, they want to deny that freedom to folk who want to have an abortion, or have gay rights?"

The extremists on both sides want their rules to apply to everyone. In big cities, where most of the gun problems are, the majority favor more gun control but often want it applied nationwide. In rural areas where jobs are in short supply, resource-development is popular and the extremists (Cheney was from Wyoming) want drill rigs everywhere including coastal states that don't want them.

(Interestingly, suicide by gun - a larger number of deaths than homicide by gun - happens MUCH more often with rural, old, white males. Inner city blacks, on average, shoot each other more often, but they have the lowest rates of shooting themselves.)

In my small town, a few Democrats have no guns. More commonly, they have some (reasonable in my mind) small selection of firearms as functional tools. The only people I know with 10-100 firearms vote with the NRA and the Republican party.

When a person or a church cherry-picks a passage from Leviticus to decide whose rights to deny, it does seem bizarre given that they invariably eat cheeseburgers, shellfish, wear mixed fibers and didn't stone their wife for not being a virgin on her wedding day - all of which are all also clearly dictated in the Bible.

I find not logic but predictability if I expect people to fear the unknown. Denying rights to blacks, immigrants, gays, etc correlates hugely with not having friends, family and co-workers from those groups. Non-gun owners fear guns much more than sportsmen do.

There's this weird tendency to adopt all of a party's platform as your own. The "pro-life" party wants to kill more prisoners. The "pro-choice" party denies that more people might choice not to work if jobless benefits were higher.

And then there are total disconnects - Republicans want "traditional family values" but when their VP candidate's daughter (our Governor until she quit) gets knocked up out of wedlock, she's only praised for keeping the pregnancy. And not pillared for her subsequent divorce (and now the son's). Democrats say they are pro-education, but won't admit or act on the plain and obvious fact that some teachers are better than others, and the best teachers make a huge difference in a child's life.

Again, I think small steps can often be agreed on. I wish more of that process was evidence-based instead of fighting over each other's beliefs.

Jeffrey says:
"
Several times a year in Oakland and Richmond there's another particularly sad killing, usually involving a kid caught in crossfire, that prompts hundreds of locals to march to take back our streets. These are the local parents and workers, church goers most often. They all want guns off the streets. All of them. So do the police. That's why their marching.

Gee, are all of these thousands of people supposed to quit their jobs and move? In Chicago, NY, etc. too? Are we to give up the streets to the punks with guns and all have to move out? Can well all come stay with you, MB? will you have jobs for us?

But god forbid that gun owners should be inconvenienced."


If you want to be safe. Yes. Leave. Its that simple.

History shows us the solution to your problem has to be with the residents, not the police.

When our founding fathers set down the bill of rights, they couldnt foresee the future and the problems we would have. The interpretation of some rights by a liberal judicial system is responsible for the difficulty in enforcing laws, and getting rid of crime. Today an convicted murderer can be on death row for 20+ yrs.

They used to hang the next day.

I am willing to sacrifice the rights necessary to allow swift and proper punishment to be applied, and criminals to be rounded up. Much stiffer mandatory sentences for drug users, as well as sellers, and anyone using guns to commit crimes, including automatic death.

What are you willing to sacrifice? Nothing?

How about sacrificing the right to carry a gun?
10 years in jail for carrying. Life the second time?

Nope.

There is nothing wrong with carrying a gun.

You have a god given right to defend yourself from bodily harm. Period.

The gun folk seem to be mostly Republican (looking from the outside), yet at the same time they demand the personal freedom to carry guns, they want to deny that freedom to folk who want to have an abortion, or have gay rights?

And to those who want to use drugs?

http://www.gunsanddopeparty.com/index.html


Gun sales almost always go up after these shootings, as gun control scaremongering reaches fever pitch.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/18/gun-sales-surge-newtown-crackdown

I just hope that something positive can come out of this terrible tragedy, but views seem so polarised that you have to wonder.

Mike
"How about sacrificing the right to carry a gun?"

What does that accomplish? It's extreme comments like that that prevent us from ever making progress. Just like the other side saying we should be able to buy any gun we want without any restrictions. How about something more reasonable that addresses the problem.

FYI, To carry a gun in my state you have to obtain a concealed handgun permit. This includes attending a Firearm Safety Class and obtaining a different permit than just a handgun permit. The permits also have to be renewed every 5 years. You also have a 42 page manual to read that outlines the laws. (http://ncdoj.gov/Files/About-DOJ/Law-Enforcement-Liaison/2007-NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx). They don't just give them out and you can't carry guns just anywhere you like. Most would be surprised at the requirements and limitations. The appendix in the back will give you a quick rundown on those.

How many murders are actually committed by people that legally carry a concealed weapon? The vast majority of the murders are committed by criminals, gangs, drug trade and domestic violence. I don't see how sacrificing the right to carry prevents these murders. How is a 10 year jail term going to influence someone willing to spend life in prison or death penalty for murder.

I am very saddened by the Newtown massacre, my heart goes out to the family and friends if the victims.

I do not want to get involve in US politics or tell the people in the US what they should do with guns, for that is up to them, but I though I would tell the story of recent tougher gun control laws in Australia.

In 1996 Australia sadly experienced the Port Arthur massacre which remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person, 35 innocent people where murdered and 21 people injured.

Gun control laws in Australia, which had been relatively lenient before the Port Arthur massacre, were reviewed and tightened significantly after the incident.

The Australian Government banned and heavily restricted the legal ownership and use of self-loading rifles, self-loading and pump-action shotguns, and heavily tightened controls on their legal use. The government also initiated a "buy-back" scheme where some 643,000 firearms where removed and destroyed.

Since 1996, anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms. Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued.

For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence. Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number.

It is illegal to own, use and possess a handgun in Australia without a licence to do so.

During the post Port Arthur Massacre debate the gun lobby put forward many of the same pro gun arguments that I am reading here on this thread, historical rights to own guns, self defence, it will not be safe to walk the streets, we will not be safe in our homes etc, in Australia we do not have a bill of rights.

Besides the Gun Lobby “the world will end” predictions the results of the post 1996 gun laws tell their own story.

In the 18 years leading up to the Port Arthur Massacre, there were some 13 mass murders involving guns in Australia, in the 16 years since 1996 there have been no mass murders involving guns.

The number of firearm-related deaths in Australia has declined to around 50% of the long-term pre 1996 levels.

The Gun Lobby in Australia is still working to have the 1996 gun laws overturned.

Tony

PS. I visited the Port Arthur Massacre site about 10 years ago and I still feel the deep sadness in my heart.

Rules are quite different here, Brad. You can carry your pistol on your belt like Yosemite Sam. We like our guns here in Kentucky.

Not long ago there was a political rally near my office(Main Street,small town Kentucky) It's near the square. We have a fair sized parking lot and lots of people were parking in it because of the rally. There is excitement about the political rally. A guy is organizing people for the rally in my parking lot while wearing pistols on his belt. I wasn't crazy about this, but what can I do? Walk out there with a gun of my own? Bad idea. Walk out there without a gun? Not ideal either.

I think the homicides are part of the gun issue, but the other part is that they allow intimidation. They give power to people who might have no particular reason for that power than their willingness to intimidate by carrying a firearm. No one was killed, but it just feels bad and helpless when someone gets what they want because they are carrying a gun. This hasn't happened often, but I certainly don't want it to happen MORE often.

I think its different than being out on a hunting trip. There, you probably know everybody and you probably wouldn't hunt with someone you thought was irresponsible. But with complete strangers on the streets, even on my property, I simply don't like dealing with armed people on a regular basis.

Does this aspect ever trouble others? Or are gun-toting strangers in a town setting completely foreign to most of you?

Mike,

I think a significant problem is identifying criminals. Dropping a jeweler in prison because a carries a revolver to protect his shop/life may get a gun off the street, but it's not targeting the thugs that are doing most of the shooting in Oakland. (Note that programs that attempt to stop people on the street or search public housing blocks looking for guns will probably get stopped by civil rights lawsuits.)

I live across the bay and don't make it into Oakland too often, so most of what I hear is colored by the media. The image that gets presented is one where residents follow the "snitches get stitches" philosophy and the only time they pour into the streets is when a police officer has done the shooting (e.g. Mixon/Grant). To be fair, the two girls that were shot recently did receive an article in SFgate, but there seemed little mention of protest marches beyond small vigils.

That said, what makes the news can easily misrepresent the actual situation on the ground, so it's good to hear from someone actually there. Oakland's police force is woefully outnumbered; I think they have something like 666 officers in a city that needs a few thousand and they've announced that they will no longer respond to a number of crimes, including burglary, grand theft, etc. (You're supposed to fill out a report online.) I think the California Highway Patrol has taken over some traffic duties there, but at this time the police force appears essentially out of the picture.

It's extreme comments like that that prevent us from ever making progress.

Brad, but that's just it. Outside the States, that is not an extreme comment at all; it is self evident. Why not then make bombs, nerve gas, cyanide, sarin, tanks, and bazookas legal, too, then? After all, bombs don't kill people, people do.

You have the right to use force equal to the force you might reasonably be assaulted with. That means a firearm.

You should not have to put yourself at risk to defend yourself, that is why a firearm is acceptable for defense against a knife, or baseball bat. Deadly force, is deadly force.

Not too many people being killed by the items you listed. Those are implements of mass destruction and war.

Just another example of insane reasoning.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/19/2012 15:34:46 MST.

Ben,

I agree that event was not appropriate for carrying a handgun. Really just nonsense.

In NC you can carry your handgun like Yosemite Sam if you like, but we have heavy restrictions on where. Examples of places prohibited in NC:
- Any space occupied by federal and state employees
- Any premises where the controller of the property has posted a sign saying concealed guns not prohibited
- Educational property
- Areas of assemblies, parades, funerals or demonstrations (This would have covered your political event)
- All place that sales and consumes alcohol
- Any area prohibited by federal law

As you can see not a lot of places for people to actually carry. Most people I know actually have them to carry in their car in case of an emergency. Very few people actually wear them like Yosemite Sam. I think we have laws that work by restricting areas and we don't need to take a radical approach and say no concealed handgun permits.

You bring up an interesting point about intimidation. I shared a story in an earlier post about my dad. He was a truck driver and had to make deliveries at night. One time he was unloading his truck at a grocery store when 3 guys approached him. Once they saw the gun on his hip they said lets get out of here he has a gun. Would it have been better for him to be intimidated and possibly injured/murdered in that situation or have them intimidated. BTW several weeks before that another driver for his company had been shot while unloading. As you can see the issue is a little personal to me. Many people have jobs that put them in potentially dangerous situation and a gun can be a good deterrent. Should everyone carry a gun on the job--absolutely not. Schools, office building, etc should have security systems.

I also think the reporter in Michigan felt a little intimidated when he was punch by the demonstrator. Should he have been able to carry a gun-NO. Should the demonstrator have been arrested yes.

Insane reasoning is walking around with a gun because you are afraid that someone else with a gun might assault you.

Why is everyone assaulting each other? Is it because the law permits unstable people access to guns?

"Examples of places prohibited in NC:
- Any space occupied by federal and state employees
- Any premises where the controller of the property has posted a sign saying concealed guns not prohibited"

Well, that certainly explains a few things to me. Not.

--B.G.--

Miguel,

Please understand I mean this with no disrespect and I appreciate your insight. Why does it matter what people outside the US think? Just because other countries don't consider it extreme doesn't mean that it isn't extreme within the US. What if your government said they were going to make it illegal to manufacture and own a samurai sword. How do you think your country would respond? I wouldn't think it is extreme, but I have a feeling your citizens would.

You guys have a very different set of rules there, Brad. We can get a conceal-carry license pretty easy. But you don't need it if you're willing to carry them Yosemite Sam style.

Also, here in Kentucky, you can carry a gun almost anywhere. I can walk into the capitol during legislative session with a gun looking down on the legislators.

My dad had a similar story, Brad. He was a WWII vet but never carried a gun after the war. I know of at least one occasion where he was threatened with a gun in his work. He was making a call at a farm. He worked it out. But his response was different. He still didn't want to carry a gun. I suspect most everyone in our small town knew he didn't carry a gun.

Oops
"- Any premises where the controller of the property has posted a sign saying concealed guns not prohibited""

Any premises where the controller (owner) of the property has posted a sign saying concealed guns prohibited. In other words if the owner of a business says no guns allowed you can't bring them on the property even if you have a concealed permit.

"Insane reasoning is walking around with a gun because you are afraid that someone else with a gun might assault you."

Nope.

Insane is pretending that someone else will be there to protect you and your family if the need arises. They most assuredly will not be.

Hedging your bet by staying out of trouble,and in large groups is a good start.


I had a coworker a few yrs back who lived out in the country on about 20 acres, so his neighbors were far away. His pregnant wife was home alone with their small 1 yr old child one early one morning while he was at work. She heard a sound at their back door and walked in the kitchen, and listened. She also saw the door knob turning slowly.

She fired her gun thru the kitchen door.

When the police got there, they looked around and no one was there. They did not believe her at first, until they realized there was no bullet hole in the outer screen door, which a spring keeps always closed unless someone is holding it open.


WHen my wife was 20, she was followed home one night and someone tried to break down the door to the townhouse she lived in. She had a purse gun,a small .25 cal and got it out, fortunately for her she screamed that she was going to shoot and the person left.

When I was small, we lived on the edge of town, in a rural area. My mom went to pick us up from school one day, for some reason my dad was off work and sleeping in their bedroom. He woke up and a man was standing in the bedroom, he asked what are you doing here? and the guy said "your wife let me in". My dad reached into the nightstand and pulled out his browning 9MM and the guy took off. The guy had unlocked several windows in the house , planning to come back that night.



THese are the type cases you never hear about.

You can be assured, that for every innocent life taken you hear about , plenty of other lives have been spared and crimes/rapes prevented by the presence of firearms.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/19/2012 16:21:35 MST.

Ben C.

Our dad's had different circumstances. My dad was delivering at night in a high crime area in Charlotte. Only time he carried the gun was at a few stores, so less than 5% of the time. In my small town nobody carries guns around on their hip. Probably seen it once or twice in my whole life. However many have them in their car and homes.

"Why is everyone assaulting each other? Is it because the law permits unstable people access to guns?"

The law in NC actually doesn't allow unstable (or at least those diagnosed by mental health professionals) people to own a gun. Also felonies and many less crimes will prevent you from owning a gun.

However I don't think that was your real question. I think you think anyone who wants to own a firearm is just insane and unstable. In your world if we outlawed firearms all the assaults, murders and crimes would just go away.

Brad, I suspect my dad's reaction probably had more to do with his background in WWII. He spent a few years in Germany at a bad time. He never really talked about it. But I don't think he wanted to carry a gun once he got back from that.

Why does it matter what people outside the US think?

Very true. I guess it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Then I also guess that it is high time that Americans stop criticizing everyone else and putting out government sanctioned lists about who is violating human rights and and who is part of an Axis of Evil and such, too. Because really, what does it matter what Americans think about bad things happening in the rest of the world? Most of it isn't happening to them, right? And those countries aren't their countries to criticize.

But seriously, you do have a point (and in the same vein I, too, have the utmost respect for you. You've always argued fairly and with an open mind). And I'm sorry to offer whatever unwelcome thoughts I might have in trying to help the situation. (though it concerns me, too, since my entire family is American and they all live in Massachusetts and New York).

I guess that effectively eliminates all of us here outside the States from this discussion. Carry on then, I guess. If you don't mind the massacres and such, certainly how you deal with it is your own concern. Please don't take offense at the way all the rest of us out here keep shaking our heads in disbelief and mutter irritation at the continuous plastering all over the world news about American horror and shock and sorrow over something that is as perennial as Christmas and no one seems to want to get serious about doing something about. It's hard to have much sympathy for people who keep lamenting something, but take no unified action. Arguing about it seems particularly immature. I wonder what it would take to get the message into the entire populace's head once and for all? I don't even want to contemplate that.

MB wrote "Insane is pretending that someone else will be there to protect you and your family if the need arises. They most assuredly will not be."

As a former LEO, I completely agree.




.


.

Edited by wandering_bob on 12/19/2012 16:41:54 MST.

" I had a coworker a few yrs back who lived out in the country on about 20 acres, so his neighbors were far away. His pregnant wife was home alone with their small 1 yr old child one early one morning while he was at work. She heard a sound at their back door and walked in the kitchen, and listened. She also saw the door knob turning slowly.

She fired her gun thru the kitchen door."

Exactly the type of person who shouldn't have a gun.

I'm all for people having guns if they have shown they can safely operate them, are of sound mind, and have no history of violence. Gun ownership comes with a certain responsibility. Unfortunately, there are no prerequisites to ownership.

I'm former active duty 82nd, Guard SF MI, all sorts of weapons training by some of the best in the world.

If you can guarantee no one else has a firearm I will gladly give mine up. I'll take my chances in a streetfight instead, I think on average ill come out pretty good.

Beyond the obvious there is another issue that makes me sad. The day after a prayer vigil was held on the school campus, it was probably the first and the last. I guess there is one more way I would give up my firearms, allow prayer back in schools, I think that would be a worthy trade.

Edited by FatTexan on 12/19/2012 17:00:48 MST.

"
She fired her gun thru the kitchen door."

Exactly the type of person who shouldn't have a gun.
"


Not neccessarily. While I agree that you should always see your target, sometimes it may not be prudent to allow it to get that far. I related only what I recall being told. I think she had recently talked to her husband so she was sure it could not be him. I was there with him when she called him to tell him what had happened.

Under the laws in many states, you are explicitly allowed to use deadly force against intruders in your home, business, or car, whether or not they are armed.

Trying to gain forcible access to someone home via a back-door certainly qualifies as an intruder.


Could such actions lead to some kind of mistake. Yes.

But they can also have a very different outcome in certain circumstances if someone hesitates as well. The obligation is not on the victim to hesitate or retreat. There are "stand your ground" laws that cover this.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/19/2012 17:39:12 MST.

Miguel,

I apologize for not doing a good job writing my response. My fault.

I certainly like hearing comments from those outside the US. We surely have our share of problems and can learn from others. I personally think we can make changes to our gun laws to improve things, but to take a position of basically outlawing guns is not the answer for the US. What works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another country. Culture and history play a big role often times.

If I was outside the US I would be shaking my head at why does the country have such a large prison population and violent crime rate. Not that we allow citizens to purchase and own firearms. Again gun laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, just law abiding citizens.

Worth reading the whole are article with an open mind

Christopher-

I teach in a California public high school. Prayer is not outlawed at all; I don't know where people get this idea. Anybody that wants to pray in any form they choose may do so during non-instructional time. We have teachers that lead prayer groups with students during lunch on a voluntary basis nearly every day. This is pretty common in public high schools.

Of course, we extend the courtesy to all religious denominations present; Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Jehovah's Witnesses, any subgroup within those groups, and then some. All are present to some degree on my highly diverse campus.

I regularly see a student-led Christian prayer group gathering in front of our flagpole every morning. We also have a Muslim group that does so in a classroom at lunch every day. We also have a few "interfaith" groups that meet to discuss and contrast each other's theology.

As long as it is voluntary and during non-instructional time, people are welcome to pray as much as they choose.

Would you prefer it in the classroom during instructional time and/or during schoolwide assemblies and gatherings?

I do have a good friend and co-worker that practices Sufi Islam that would be more than competent and willing to lead school-wide prayers if asked.
Our Advanced Placement Biology and Physiology teacher is a devout Jew with many interesting spiritual insights. She would be more than happy to lead a prayer; I've been to her house for Passover and she speaks quite passionately.
There are a few Hindi faculty members that would be more than happy to share the teachings and conversations of Lord Krishna and Arjuna.
Of course there are also quite a few different denominations of Christian faculty on campus as well, from Catholics to Southern Baptists to born-again Evangelicals, though I doubt they can all agree on details such as pre-trib vs. post-trib rapture or whether or not homosexuality is a sin...a pretty diverse group in and of themselves.

So who should lead the prayers?

All are very capable, thoughtful, and kind adults that could have a great and lasting impact on our students if given the opportunity.

Thank you Craig. That was brilliant. The prohibition in not against prayer in schools, it is against compulsory prayer in schools. I'm not going to elaborate on this. Think about it.

As a devout Christian I really appreciate this legal protection and have the greatest respect for the foresight of our founding fathers in insisting upon it.

Edited by obxcola on 12/19/2012 20:31:13 MST.

"I know of at least one occasion where he was threatened with a gun in his work. "

True story - I was once an assistant manager of a burger king in Rochester, NY. On, I think, Lyell Ave (or something like that) for anyone who knows the area. Way back then it wasn't the nicest part of town.

I was working the drive-thru window one night when this guy jumps the counter and presses a gun against my right temple. What kind of gun? A big, shiny handgun. Big. Cold. Against my temple.

He grabbed my collar and told me to open the safe. I figured I was dead. Our safe, you see, never opened on the first try. No kidding. It had a hinky dial that never quite worked very well - it always took 2 to 3 times to open. I figured I wouldn't be able to open the safe and he'd shoot me. I kind of remembered not being nervous, just resigned.

But, of course, as these things go, the safe did open on the first try, I gave him the money and he left.

I've never forgotten, though, how it feels to have a loaded gun pressed against your temple. It wasn't fun.

"Would you prefer it in the classroom during instructional time and/or during schoolwide assemblies and gatherings? "

Frankly, yes.

I love hearing comments from those outside the US, but it seems like many of them assume that every country is the same and every law or restriction will have the same effect universally.

I've never forgotten, though, how it feels to have a loaded gun pressed against your temple. It wasn't fun.

Doug, I had the same experience...gun to my head... working the night shift at a gift shop of a downtown Boston hotel. All I can say is that I certainly wasn't doing any heroic thinking or logical progression of calculations once that pistol was against my forehead. All I felt was like Pissing in my pants. Never want to experience it again.

Edited by butuki on 12/20/2012 00:32:49 MST.

I've had a gun pointed at me twice. The second time I swear I heard the bullet fly past my head. It's what made me turn my head and see the guy pointing the gun at me. What was wrong with me? I was the wrong race. Really, that was it. I ran. Fast.

I'm old now. I can't run fast anymore (but I can walk all day!). I don't believe the type of people who assaulted me with guns before will be deterred by new regulations. They will still have guns. They will still assault innocents.

I wish I was allowed to carry a gun to at least have a chance to defend myself against people like that. Or to protect my students.

But I can't. I live in California, and in my county, honest and innocent people can't get concealed carry permits unless they make major contributions to certain political types. Or so my LEO relatives tell me.

So if it happens a third time, I imagine my luck will run out and I'll get shot. Because I won't break the law and carry illegally.

And my LEO family and friends won't be there to protect me, just like they couldn't be there for the Newtown kids. The police can only get there well after the event. They can't predict them and arrive ahead of time.

When this happens, please toss my ashes off a ridge in the southern Sierra somewhere. Or better yet, leave my carcass somewhere for the California condors to feed on. But dig the lead bullet out first please.

"The extremists on both sides want their rules to apply to everyone"

What's sad is that what I presume to be the "extremist" gun control position in the US is still more permissive than most other first world countries.

I love hearing comments from those outside the US, but it seems like many of them assume that every country is the same and every law or restriction will have the same effect universally.

What's there to discuss about guns? Guns are guns. They do the same thing everywhere. Guns don't act according to cultural boundaries or respect one person over another. They're inanimate objects that cause the same effect in every country in the world.

And how do you know what the effects of very strict gun control would be if you've never had that kind of gun control? Every single post by Americans who've never experienced living in that kind of society, both pro and against, are purely conjecture. You simply can't know until you've tried it.

I believe that the effects might actually surprise a lot of people. That it wouldn't be nearly as bad as everyone is complaining about.

“And how do you know what the effects of very strict gun control would be if you've never had that kind of gun control? Every single post by Americans who've never experienced living in that kind of society, both pro and against, are purely conjecture. You simply can't know until you've tried it.”

Miguel – I’m not an American, but a Canadian living in the UK. I’ve seen the gun laws in Canada and here in the UK first hand. I have a police officer cousin from Manchester who I met the first time I visited the UK some 20 + years ago. At the time, hand guns were legal but the police didn’t carry them. They frequently encountered armed criminals and had to wait for a special armed response team. 20 years later and hand guns are banned and my cousin is Police Inspector. I recently asked him what effect the ban had. His response – honest people no longer have guns, but there has been little impact on a criminal’s access to guns.

You statement above is BS.

"And how do you know what the effects of very strict gun control would be if you've never had that kind of gun control? Every single post by Americans who've never experienced living in that kind of society, both pro and against, are purely conjecture. You simply can't know until you've tried it.”

Actually we have areas in America where gun control laws are extremely strict so we have experienced it. Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. It also has one of the highest murder rates in the nation. I have lived in some areas where guns were very strictly controlled and didn't feel the least bit safer. Actually the only time I was at imminent risk of gun violence was in an area where guns were very regulate.

Lets keep a couple things in perspective.

-Violent Crime is down overall in America. Most credit this to better law enforcement

-Accidental gun deaths are down because of Hunter Safety classes, the NRA and other educational efforts

-"Mass" shootings are down by some measures, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the 1990s. All horrible but we are not necessarily getting worse and worse. A lot of this is credited to schools being more aware of developing problems and improving security.

-Gun violence in concentrated in certain areas and groups. A lot of it has to do with gang activities in inner city areas and drugs. Law abiding Americans who stay out of these areas are much safer then the statistics indicate.

I'm not saying we don't have a problem but I am saying we need to look at things calmly and not react out of panic. Remember the Patriot Act and the TSA? I'd hate to have the equivalent of those laws for our schools or mental health system.

So, if we're convinced gun regulation has no impact on the low rates of homicide in Britain, what is it they are doing right? Its really not very American of us to acknowledge that they are doing something better than us in the first place, I know. Pretty sure they don't have prayer in school. I know they have free health care, so maybe they have a little better mental health system(did I just re-open the healthcare debate?). They've got an awesome queen. But other than that, I'm not sure what they do that different than us regarding gun violence than restrict handguns. What say the Brits? I'm here to learn.

" Not neccessarily. While I agree that you should always see your target, sometimes it may not be prudent to allow it to get that far.

Could such actions lead to some kind of mistake. Yes."

A big mistake that would have put her in jail. Could have been anyone. Would be hard to prove you are in danger when you have no idea who is at the door or their intentions. Someone at the door isn't an intruder.

Just goes to show there are a lot of shooters out there lacking the most basic of fundamentals.

Go to any shooting range and observe for a bit, you'll see some scary ****.

Many years ago, my cousin from NY came over here as part of his Europe tour pre college. He was amazed at the bar room brawls he witnessed when i took him on a night on the town. Part of growing up here is taking part in a brawl or two. At least that's so from my part of town. Maybe we let our teenage hormones kick off with nothing more harmful than a broken nose or black eye, and Americans store up their aggresion?
I was surprised that he thought Scots nightlife was violent, as he was from 'murder city'.

A few years later, i made my first visit to NY. I was surprised at how quiet and peaceful it was. As i made ready to go for my first night on the town, my Scots born uncle gave me some advice. If you get in a fight Mike, and give someone the good news, leave the bar straight away. Most Americans can't take a beating, and will go home to fetch their gun and come back to the bar to get you.

As a white person, some of the best nights i had were in 'black' bars that i was warned not to go near. :-)

In Scotland, folk that carry any kind of weapon is thought of as a coward.

Just saying.

There was a shooting in Texas that made the news about 15, 20 years ago here in Scotland.
A Scots oil worker was in Texas for work reasons. It was after dark, and he was lost. He knocked on someones door to ask for directions, call a taxi or whatever, and was shot and killed through the door from the householder. The householder was never charged.
Most Scots were dumbfounded by this.

The perceptions of firearms here are quite different. People have an emotional association with guns, but its quite different in the US than it is is Scotland. Its interesting that its associated with "cowardice" there in Scotland. I think most Americans would probably agree that, in the US, guns are associated with "power". I think this difference in perceptions or associations with what a gun means, on a reptilian emotional level, has much to do with both the difference in gun homicide rates and the willingness of the 2 counties to enact gun control legislation.

Can we change are perceptions of guns? I think a change in our perception of guns would make a bigger difference than any gun control legislation. Do Americans want our association with guns to change from "power" to "cowardice"?

"I was surprised that he thought Scots nightlife was violent, as he was from 'murder city'."

Why doesn't Scotland pass laws to stop the senseless fighting in bars? I say 10 years in prison for the first fight and then life for the second fight.

Guns aren't really a problem here Ben. The penalties are too severe. Knives are the Scots weapon of choice. In a bid to stop knife carrying, a 2 year sentence is now standard for carrying a knife without good reason.
You are thought a coward though, if you can't sort it 'man on man'.

Fighting is fun. :-)

"Fighting is fun. :-)"

LOL.

Well that sounds crazy to me, but normal to you. Go figure. Different cultures. Made myself a note that if I visit Scotland to bring some big friends along for support.

I read that 82% of the all the murders in Scotland where committed by people who were either drunk or under the influence of drugs. If you guys would just pass laws outlawing alcohol and drugs you could cut your murder rate by 82%. Why wouldn't you make that sacrifice?

The situation in the UK could hardly be more different: ALL handguns were banned in 1997 after a school shooting incident the year before. I believe shotguns and rifles for hunting may be licenced to those who can demonstrate reason for having them. Incidently many types of knives are also banned and carrying any "offensive weapon" in a public place is illegal.

Nonetheless, there are some illegal guns (and replica guns) among the criminal fraternity, but shootings are very rare. Knife crime is a bigger problem, but fatal stabbings are not frequently reported.

FWIW, my view is that trying to prevent access to weapons just to those with mental health problems will never work. Where do you draw the line? Psychopaths who take a bad turn can kill with a baseball bat, yet those who have gone on a shooting spree can appear almost normal, but have a deep seated grudge or resentment that has been eating away at them for a considerable time.

Edited by Scunnered on 12/20/2012 09:54:13 MST.

Seriously, it's a quiet life in Scotland. Any fighting happens in town centres amongst the young folk. It's a right of passage that you grow out of. You can go for a quiet beer or two without any worries. :-)
Maybe young Americans need some place that they can go to let off steam?

Fighting takes place in the US too...in bars, on the freeways, in the school yard, in the octagon. The US has a massively violent culture.

The biggest difference is that those in a fight in the US are more likely to pull their guns.

I've seen both Dave, and the US is pretty quiet when it comes to bar room brawls.

A Dundee social evening. :-)
My point is, young males are violent. Don't give them the means to do catastrophic damage.
HERE

Folk need to let off steam. I didn't post that video for simple entertainment.
Karl Marx called football (soccer) the opium of the masses. At that time in Europe, there was no place to congregate apart from football (soccer) games. Mass brawls were/are common at football.
When the masses are unhappy with government, the mass becomes a ready to erupt mob. The controlling elite need to let the 'mob' loose at times.
The Romans were expert at this with their 'bread and circuses'.

The US has many unhappy folk, and reality TV and livetime war isn't proving to be enough of a circus.

Guns are not the only common factor in these cases. All involve men. All involve meds. These factors deserve at least as much blame/consideration.

Maybe young Americans need some place that they can go to let off steam?

The US is an increasingly belligerent society on the roads and everywhere else it seems, ... people willing to shoot others, drive them off the road, or play "chicken" in autos on the interstate at 65 mph (~80 kph). I see the later about once a month on my commute to work, so that may be the form of blowing off steam. Not that we have a monopoly on mass murders as tragedies in Scotland, Australia, and elsewhere have shown, but it usually takes a lot of payola to move our national Congress, unless they could possibly be threatened by violence, as the response to the McVeigh bombing - try buying certain agricultural chemicals in the US - or 9/11 shows.

The irony is for all the talk from some of our Congress-critters about how having concealed pistols makes people safer, one wonders why then Congress doesn't allow them in their chambers?

Our own Capitol Hill shows what a "gun-free" zone really should look like. All entrance points, only through a metal detector, with armed law enforcement at the ready (donut break later). That's what all federal buildings have had also btw since the late 1980's when I had to enter for business (miss the line and they'd come down hard like an episode of Miami Vice).

It's a big enough country that sane, non-violent people should be able to own firearms - some people still subsist on squirrels - but school districts should guard their most vulnerable public spaces (namely schools) like we guard Congress, ... maybe let some capable administrators carry, etc... Add that in a diverse country like the US, we have very different urban, suburban, and rural areas, with different patterns of crime/gun-ownership ... so those school districts with the state need to be the lead in figuring it all out (once the board members are done doling out no-bid construction and testing contracts to their buddies, that is). Also we need to reverse Reagan's emptying out of the nation's loony bins.

ed: add

Edited by hknewman on 12/20/2012 11:35:53 MST.

Any needless killing is one too many, but let's make sure of our facts.

The overall trend in violent crime and homicides in this country has been trending down dramatically since it's peak in about 1991.

children run a much greater risk (between 50 and 100 times greater) of being murdered away from school than at school...killings on school property (and murders of children in general) have been declining since the early 1990s.

http://www.classroomtools.com/safefact.htm

What's probably going to come out of this is a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban and a limitation on gun magazine size. What's not going to come out of this is a gun ban in the U.S. The supreme court has ruled, the overwhelming majority of citizens don't want it.

Protect the children? Absolutely, but it makes sense to me to focus first on what's going to save the most lives. According to the CDC, obesity kills about 13 people PER HOUR in the U.S. It just doesn't make as good of a headline.

Obesity is a problem?
Maybe if the parents weren't so scared of idiots with guns, they would let their kids outside to run around on their own?

That's exactly my point Mike, people aren't looking at things rationally or they would let well-briefed kids run around outside. It's much more dangerous worrying about things that are very unlikely to happen (murder by a stranger) while ignoring something orders of magnitude MORE likely to happen (obesity from lack of exercise and too much eating.) This is the type of issue where people are least likely to make rational risk assessments.

Mass shooting are a problem. Boring old stuff like obesity is a bigger problem. It's important to keep things in perspective.

Mike, you just need to visit where the Borderers settled. Recreational fighting still going on. People will invite you outside,
and then back inside for a beer. They will only shoot you if adultery is involved.

The rest of the country, you get into a fist-a-cuffs and you will end up with a felony charge and maybe conviction for assault, which will follow you for the rest of your life. No voting, banned from owning guns or even holding a bullet, trouble finding work. Not worth it. So
bar room fights are no longer recreation, and fights in general have more to do with turf wars and drug deals, more serious
business.

I have been told by my Scottish relatives that the Scotts who helped write the US constitution were the ones who strongly supported including the 2nd amendment. Because of their experiences with the oppression of the English (battle of Culloden etc.) They had lots of arms control foisted upon them (no swords, knives other arms etc.) and were unable to defend themselves against even small mistreatment by English forces and royal supporters.

Edited by oware on 12/20/2012 13:14:58 MST.

Buck: +1 on perspective.

Our schools do outdoor recess down to -10F. We kick the kids outside each day down to -20F, although we let them come back in after 10-20 minutes when it's subzero.

The unknown is scary. The familiar is not. Yet the familiar that you spend all your time doing (driving, working, stepping out of a wet bathtub) is where the big risks are.

And as to your point about guns away from school killing vastly more children: there's a huge reporting bias both for mass killings and for school shootings. A kid's suicide here, a child's death in a DV incidence there doesn't get reported nationally. Just like "going postal" is an unfair phrase - the USPS is no more dangerous than other workplaces, but since every town has a school and a post office, those shootings become national news. Like airplane crashes versus automotive deaths. Where are the headlines, "Yet again, another 6 months without any deaths on any major US air carrier!" or "Another day, another 75 people dead on the roads!"? But, man!, crash one little RJ with 30 people on board and kill a handful and it's national news for days afterwards!

I'm in Kenai. You?

I'm with you, Buck. And we already have the kids at school to teach lessons on exercise and eating habits. And we do nothing. We even feed them a meal every day. And the meals are horrible. I pack a lunch for my kids every day because the meals served are not tasty or healthy.

A summary of a Harvard study

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

The study

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf




So you might want to slow your banning gun roll. And you guys so proud of having no guns might want to reconsider.

"Compared to the U.S., the suicide rate for males ages 15 to 24 
years  in  Sri  Lanka  is  nearly  four  times  greater;  the  female  rate  nearly  13  times 
greater.  The  most  common  mode  of  suicide  is  ingestion  of  liquid  pesticides.”  Lawrence  R. 
Berger, Suicides  and Pesticides  in  Sri Lanka, 78 AM.  J.  PUB.  HEALTH 826 (1988) (empha‐
sis added). 


As we see by the copycat incidents, what is popular or much remarked in a culture is what is repeated.

Again, the sensational modern media fuels and spreads around any kind of "fad" even the most vile.

Our friends just lost a 10 year old boy to strangulation after reading on the internet about getting high by choking,

Very very sad.

Gun violence is but a symptom. The root of the problems need to be addressed.

Never mind. Would just lead to more arguing and hateful language.

Edited by idester on 12/20/2012 15:39:34 MST.

Doug I didn't think your comment was bad in any way but since you removed yours I'll remove my response to it.

Edited by Cameron on 12/20/2012 15:57:45 MST.

"FWIW, my view is that trying to prevent access to weapons just to those with mental health problems will never work. Where do you draw the line? Psychopaths who take a bad turn can kill with a baseball bat, yet those who have gone on a shooting spree can appear almost normal, but have a deep seated grudge or resentment that has been eating away at them for a considerable time."

+1 You should have gone into medicine, Stuart, with a specialty in epidemiology. Here's an epidemiologist's take on the issue that strongly supports your comments. Focusing solely on those who are mentally ill to prevent gun violence is largely ineffective.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/a-misguided-focus-on-mental-illness-in-gun-control-debate.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1356044659-++fukRI/C6qmsspZ0kyl+A

"It's much more dangerous worrying about things that are very unlikely to happen (murder by a stranger) while ignoring something orders of magnitude MORE likely to happen (obesity from lack of exercise and too much eating.) This is the type of issue where people are least likely to make rational risk assessments."

Why do we have to choose between the two? Are you saying we can't pursue solutions to both problems simultaneously?

Yes, Why choose between the two? Can't we worry about both at the same time?

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the world ISN'T out to get you.

"What's there to discuss about guns? Guns are guns. They do the same thing everywhere. Guns don't act according to cultural boundaries or respect one person over another. They're inanimate objects that cause the same effect in every country in the world.

And how do you know what the effects of very strict gun control would be if you've never had that kind of gun control? Every single post by Americans who've never experienced living in that kind of society, both pro and against, are purely conjecture. You simply can't know until you've tried it.

I believe that the effects might actually surprise a lot of people. That it wouldn't be nearly as bad as everyone is complaining about."

Guns don't act. People act. People are different. While gun control might work well in some places, in others it can just make things safer for criminals and more dangerous for the average person.

Here is one of my favorite quotes regarding gun control, from an essay on gun control in Japan:

"More than gun control, more than the lack of criminal procedure safeguards, more than the authority of the police, it is the pervasive social controls of Japan that best explain the low crime rate. Other nations, such as the former Soviet Union, have had severe gun control, less criminal justice safeguards, and more unconstrained police forces than Japan. But the Soviets' crime rate was high and Japan's minuscule because Japan has the socially-accepted and internalised restraints on individual behaviour which the Soviets lack. While social controls fell and crime rose everywhere in the English-speaking world in the 1960s, social controls remained and crime fell in Japan.

More than the people of any other democracy, the Japanese accept the authority of their police and trust their government. In this cultural context, it is easy to see why gun control has succeeded in Japan, the people accept gun control with the same readiness that they accept other Government controls. Further, they have little incentive to disobey gun controls, since they have hardly any cultural heritage of gun ownership."

If you have the time, I would try and read some of it. It really demonstrates the complexity of gun politics and how they relate to cultural standards.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html


In some ways, we do have strict gun control. I can't get a concealed carry permit here, so I encounter strict gun control outside of my home in public places. None of that really matters here because firearms are in abundance and we have constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure. If someone has a pistol, they can walk around with it concealed with no concern for the legality and very little chance of of being searched. In a place without rights against unreasonable search and seizure and a very low number of privately owned firearms in existence, the effect of such laws would be very different.

"And you guys so proud of having no guns might want to reconsider."

I'm from Australia and lived for a few years in the US in the early 90s. Contrasting two societies with different levels of gun control, I know where I feel safer...

As per Tony Beasley's comments up thread, mass murders dropped to zero after the Port Arthur Massacre and the tightening of gun laws. I can't imagine how increasing guns in our country would make us safer.

I also think comparing the US and other countries isn't always helpful. With so many weapons in circulation can you enact effective gun control ? I suspect the genie may be well out of this bottle.

"A big mistake that would have put her in jail. Could have been anyone. Would be hard to prove you are in danger when you have no idea who is at the door or their intentions. Someone at the door isn't an intruder."

Not likely.
Someone trying to come in your backdoor at 6:30 in the morning, when you live well off the road out in the country is not there to offer you brownies.

This womans husband worked shiftwork, and left at 3:45 every morning because they turned over at 4:30am on days.

All you need is reasonable fear of bodily harm. Period. You do not have to hesitate.

Mistakes do happen, and they are terrible, but that is often the fault of the person killed. People have every right to protect life and property, and some do take that seriously.

I recall one case almost 30 yrs ago. Became an international incident. Japanese exchange student in a mask was going to a halloween party, and showed up at the wrong house at 9pm at night, 3 weeks before halloween. Didnt go to the door, wandered to the back of someones house looking for the party. Too stupid to realize there were no cars there, no party sounds, etc. Homeowner heard something and found the guy in his carport, told him to freeze, he didnt and moved toward the homeowner, he was promptly killed. I dont think he understood what he was being told, thats kind of a cultural phrase used here in the US, but he put himself in that situation.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/20/2012 19:23:42 MST.

Buck: children and adults are gunned down by semi-automatic rifle fire and you want to talk about the obesity epidemic? Come on. Why not bring in cancer? Old age? Meningitis? we can't have gun control because other things are killing us as well.

Gun advocates are always shifting the argument away from guns. We can't regulate or ban assault style weapons until our children are thinner; nothing can be done until we find a cure for psychosis; and of course, there's always car accidents: let's not change our gun laws until everyone drives more safely; furthermore, there's always the crazy people in China: as long as there are knife wielding madmen in China, we can't address the gun problem here at home. We can't make a beginning because the end is not in sight. The perfect is the enemy of the good. And so let's keep things the same and just wait for the next inevitable massacre, and once again wring our hands and pretend that we care.

The end can never be attained unless we make a beginning. Otherwise, it's all just nonsense. There is no panacea, for guns or any social evil. Buck, you're probably against serving healthier food to children in schools because many children remain fat anyway. Just give up.

Or maybe you don't feel this way. Then how about saving a good number of childrens' and adults' lives by banning assault weapons? Yes, murders will go on, but not so many. Make a beginning. Make a statement that our society finds these weapons unacceptable because too many people are dying because of them.

Change means that we actually change. We can't have it both ways. Maybe for the good of society a lot of responsible people will have to give up their toys. (Because if an assault weapon is more than a toy for you, we've all got a problem.) There are other toys. Yes, it's a sacrifice for responsible people. Ask yourself it it's worth it.

Jeffrey,

It is not that simple.
No one really wants to ban assault weapons.
The anti-gun lobby wants to ban all guns.
They want to effectively remove the ability for citizens to protect themselves.

What you hear, is propaganda, sensationalism, to sway uninformed public opinion.
To them, banning assault weapons, or handguns are footholds in the execution of an liberal agenda. This battle has been going on a long time, it is nothing new.

The simple truth is, there is nothing special about an assault weapon. With few exceptions today, most firearms are semi-automatic. They fire once each time the trigger is pulled, and use recoil to reload for the next shot. They may make larger clips for assault weapons, big deal. Many states have limitations on clip sizes that can be sold.

It takes literally 1-2 seconds to change a clip. Push a button, the empty falls out, slide a new one in. Done.



No one wants tragedies to happen. But guns prevent more crimes than are caused against innocent people. That is what is at stake here, not assault weapons.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/20/2012 19:59:38 MST.

"Yes, Why choose between the two? Can't we worry about both at the same time?"

Frankly, I'd rather see us do something about both at the same time. We've been worrying for far too long already. Seems like you folks are on the cutting edge up in AK, at least on the obesity front, by kicking the little dears out into the playground during recess. Sounds vaguely like what they used to do with us back in the Cretaceous Period. Worked, too. There weren't many obese children back then, because when you're running from all those dinosaurs you just can't afford to waddle.
The gun thing is probably not going to be quite that simple but, what the heck, if we didn't have something to worry about we'd just sit around snarfing down Cheetos and get......obese.

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the world ISN'T out to get you."

I'm NOT paranoid, darn it; I'm right! Aren't I? :0/

You statement above is BS.

Made me smile. Paul, I am American. Just because I've lived a large portion of my life outside the States, and I have a very diverse background, doesn't detract from the fact that the entire paternal side of my family is straight from South Carolina and New York, including my father and brother. I'm not speaking about all this as an outsider. But I also have an outsider's perspective. Believe it or not, that is possible.

As to my comments... I read every post in any thread I intend to comment on, listening to what everyone has to say. My main intent is to try to understand what people are trying to say, even those I totally disagree with, and then to offer something of value to the discussion, rarely to try to "fight" with anyone. I figured that in this discussion too much was heading toward a simplistic BW interpretation of guns/no guns, and that inserting something that might touch on people's emotional stance, but making people aware of the logic behind their positions, might get the discussion out of a rut and move in a new direction. Usually I'm not much offended by opposing views or even people telling me I'm full of BS. What I think is success is having gotten people talking again, in a new vein. And on that case, I think my comments were spot on. They did what they intended. People are talking, from a new perspective.

livingontheroad said:
" All you need is reasonable fear of bodily harm. Period. You do not have to hesitate."

Reasonable being the key word here. Reasonable will likely be determined in court. An unidentified person turning a door knob doesn't constitute an imminent threat to me. I'd rather identify a threat and not shoot the town drunk or a confused senior. You don't pull the trigger without knowing what you're gonna hit. If for no other reason, the potential criminal and most definitely civil lawsuits are going to ruin you. Plenty of people have gone to jail for "defending their property".

book said:
"Gun advocates are always shifting the argument away from guns. We can't regulate or ban assault style weapons until our children are thinner; nothing can be done until we find a cure for psychosis; and of course, there's always car accidents: let's not change our gun laws until everyone drives more safely; furthermore, there's always the crazy people in China: as long as there are knife wielding madmen in China, we can't address the gun problem here at home. We can't make a beginning because the end is not in sight. The perfect is the enemy of the good. And so let's keep things the same and just wait for the next inevitable massacre, and once again wring our hands and pretend that we care."

+1 They also claim that gun control means banning all weapons and leaves the innocent with no way to protect themselves.

Jeffrey,

Very well put. And I think it is just that which is the crux of the whole problem. You can talk and talk until everyone is blue in the face, but unless you take the first step toward doing something, it's all just talk and often a lot of false bravado. No more.

I'm trying to be fair to both sides and just focus on the possible not the ideal. Here are what I see as undisputed facts.

1. Congress MIGHT pass a new assault weapons/high capacity magazine ban, I repeat they MIGHT.

2. Such a ban would ONLY ban the further manufacture of MORE "assault" weapons. In other words all the assault rifles and hi capacity magazines out there will stay out there.

3. That is ALL that is likely to happen as far as actual gun control is concerned.

Now if we wanted to make school shootings impossible or difficult via gun control we'd have to tightly control not just assault rifles (way overrated as killing machines) but all guns with the following characteristics.

1. The ability to fire rapidly

2. The ability to be reloaded faster then victims could escape or rush the shooter.

You could only do this if you eliminated virtually all of the guns used for hunting, target shooting, historical re-enactments, and self defense.
In other words making a serious dent in the availability of guns "suitable" for mass murder just is not politically possible.

Now given what I've just described I would argue an assault weapons ban is a complete waste of time. It would be like banning Dr. Pepper to stop obesity.

I respect your opinion if you think getting rid of a bunch of guns would be good in theory but in reality I am arguing we are so far from that goal that our efforts to protect schools should be spent elsewhere. Having our politicians waste limited time arguing over meaningless laws is a shame because there is so much else they could do that might actually help avoid more tragedies.

Edited by Cameron on 12/20/2012 21:37:28 MST.

Have you anti gun people even read the numerous links I have provided? You guys drag out nothing concrete. I provide links that demonstrate that banning guns don't make you safer. That decrease gun violence. Big freaking deal. It is overall violence that matters.

Fact: only 1 mass murder attack since 1950 on US soil has occured where guns where allowed.
Fact: Israel virtually eliminated attacks by turning "soft" targets into hard targets
Fact: outlawing guns doesn't help


I am not making this up. Unlike those who want to ban guns, I have provided a Harvard based study.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:29:41 MST.

----You are NOT legally allowed to use deadly force to defend property.


That depends on where you are. Some state are much more liberal in their application of statutes like the Castle doctrine.



Miguel,

When did you become an American again?

Miguel,

When did you become an American again?

Michael,


(^J^)/" ⎛⌒Y⌒⎞

Edited by butuki on 12/20/2012 22:16:47 MST.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:29:09 MST.

AB, You are dead wrong. Laws vary by STATE.

Sixteen states have adopted "Stand Your Ground" laws that allow an individual to use deadly force to protect a residence, place of business, vehicle or other property, so far Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia and Washington have enacted statutes.

The law states that an individual in self-defense "has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force,it also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the shooters covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them..

There are requirements that vary from state to state before deadly force can be used a few examples are:An intruder must be making or have made an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.

The occupant of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home.

The occupant of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary. The occupant of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force.


Again, if an intruder is attempting to enter your home, or your car with YOU in it, the apriori assumption is that they intend to do you harm.

You are correct, you cannot shoot them if they are running away or leaving.

States also have "kill a carjacker" laws as well. If someone tries to steal your car with someone in it, you can kill them, plain and simple.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/20/2012 22:08:02 MST.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:35:02 MST.

A lot of "stand your ground" laws came from silly lawsuits. These laws are an (imperfect) attempt to define what is legal and what is not. Before in some states you had a "duty to retreat" which meant you could only respond with force if you couldn't get away. That sounds reasonable but an old man was criminally charged for shooting an assailant who chased him down and tackled him. The lawyers were arguing the he should have tried to run some more!

If it sounds like the Old West its really not. Its well known in the community that even a legal and justifiable shooting can land you in court and cause all kinds of legal headaches so smart guys are REALLY careful. Almost every tactical gun magazine issue will have at least one article dedicated to legal issues and not doing something dumb that could land you in jail.

Edited by Cameron on 12/20/2012 22:25:24 MST.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:28:31 MST.

"As per Tony Beasley's comments up thread, mass murders dropped to zero after the Port Arthur Massacre and the tightening of gun laws. "

Not zero.

The Monash University shooting cause more gun control measures to be enacted making handguns have to be made larger to make them harder to conceal.

And mass murder just moved to use other means.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childers_Palace_Fire June 2000 killed 15 backpackers: nine women and six men.

Backpackers no less.

In the past, people were actualy sued by their assailant who was only wounded. So it was common knowledge that you needed to finish killing them if you only wounded them, totally dead, or you could be sued by them.

These laws prevent that suit, so it actually is good for the perp.

How Fd up the world gets when lawyers get involved.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/20/2012 22:37:55 MST.

ab-

I don't know in which state you live (and the rules for concealed carry licenses vary by state) but here in Oregon (and Utah and Florida), there is no "federal test" of any kind needed to get a concealed carry permit. Fill out the application, pay your fee, successfully go through the background check, and pick up your permit.

I've never read or heard of such a test. What's your source for this please?

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:30:38 MST.

Jeffrey,

There were quite a few straw man arguments wielded against me there.

Buck, you're probably against serving healthier food to children in schools because many children remain fat anyway. Obviously you know that's not what I think since I pointed out how many people obesity is killing.

I don't own any assault weapons and I don't think they are toys. I am not arguing that knives are as dangerous as guns. They're not. We have gun control now. In general you can't own a machine gun. There are many situations where guns cannot be carried, etc. The only question is where to draw the line on gun control. Don't try to peg the most extreme pro-gun arguments on me because I'm not the guy making them.

Perhaps you didn't notice I said I thought an assault weapons ban and a limit on magazine size would come out of this and I didn't argue against it. And if we can improve our ability to pre-identify the extremely rare person who commits such crimes, I think we should and try to figure out appropriate actions. An example of something I don't think we should do is turn our schools into armed fortresses in response.

People are really, really poor at risk assessment. Anytime we spend an inordinate time focusing on a lesser problems we are spending too little time focusing on greater problems. Our concern for risks should be proportional, and it's often not for situations like this tragedy.

Thousands of parents are panicking about sending their kids to school now when schools are one of the safest places our kids can be. Despite what the media might lead us to believe, statistically this country is getting safer.

Should we try to make things safer yet? Sure, to a reasonable degree. I think regardless of what anyone on this thread wants the assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions will come and that most gun possession rights will be maintained for the foreseeable future.

hooah! certainly the first step in the right direction!!!!

"I guess there is one more way I would give up my firearms, allow prayer back in schools, I think that would be a worthy trade." {add and a president who fears god!} just my 2 cents!
best comment since it started!

I'm getting annoyed here. An assault rifle is a select fire rifle (fully automatic and semi automatic capable). You can't buy a fully automatic weapon unless it was manufactured and properly registered with the BATF before 1986. Even then it's a ton of red tape and they can be extremely expensive. Please people, the words "assault rifle" should never be used in an American gun control debate.

Now, there is the wacky federal definition of an assault rifle (as defined by the federal assault weapons ban), but it's incredibly stupid. It bans rifles based on cosmetic features that do not limit their lethality. A semi automatic rifle is a semi automatic rifle. It doesn't matter if they are black and scary or wooden stocked and sporty.

Edited by justin_baker on 12/21/2012 00:50:34 MST.

"They want to effectively remove the ability for citizens to protect themselves."

This is coming from someone who owns 20 guns. You are delusional by ignoring the root cause of why you need to defend yourself against the apparent zombies running amuck. Honest to God, you represent part of the problem to which there is no solution. Fire away.

a b,

From what I've been able to determine, the HSC and safety demonstration is purely a California requirement. There are no such federal requirements that I can locate or find reference to. Perhaps you heard a reference to the DoJ and thought it was the Federal DoJ rather than the California DoJ? It's also possible the dealer didn't know what he was talking about; I recall reading similar examples when perusing yelp reviews some time back.

For a rifle, I assume the questionnaire you completed was ATF form 4473? California's requirements for permits and safety demonstrations only apply to handguns.

Only seven states require a license/permit for handguns, and four states require such for all firearms. Only about six states require a safety exam/training as part of the process.

Personally I agree that much better training should be a requirement, and I think that is well supported by the original meaning/usage of "well-regulated".

Ref:
http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/hscinfo
http://smartgunlaws.org/licensing-of-gun-owners-purchasers-policy-summary/
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf

God, it was so awful. And right before Christmas made it even worse. Can you imagine the parents who now have to either return or pass on the gifts they bought for their children? I ache so for them all.

Why do we have these incidents? I know other countries have had them, but nowhere near the number we have. I thought at first the blame was all on guns, but now I think an even more important part of the equation is the lack of mental health care. Look at health insurance policies. My policy, through work, provides for only 3 visits a year. On a personal note, I've been in counseling for almost two years now; the first year-and-a-half it was weekly; I'm now able to go every two weeks instead; but I STILL have things I'm working through! My church helped me with the cost until I got another job, and I've been paying out of pocket since. Insurance coverage is a joke. 3 visits a year would do nothing for any serious problem.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm just so weary of seeing these horrific and UNNECESSARY tragedies played out over and over and over. No child should have to die at school like that! No one should have to be afraid of going to school, or going shopping, or going to a movie. What has happened to our society?

"As per Tony Beasley's comments up thread, mass murders dropped to zero after the Port Arthur Massacre and the tightening of gun laws. "

Not zero.

The Monash University shooting cause more gun control measures to be enacted making handguns have to be made larger to make them harder to conceal."

Two people died in this incident in 2002. Is this a mass murder via guns ? Want constitutes a mass murder ? Semantics, from my point of view any deaths are tragic so you are correct David.

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

With respect to this mass killing, your point is that in absence of firearms an enterprising psychopath will find a way. Perhaps. However I am glad that as a nation we have worked to restrict the option of firearms as a method for mass murder.

Edited by dwhitton on 12/21/2012 03:06:30 MST.

Miguel,

I’m happy I made you smile, and I’m quite aware that you are an American. I did not say you are full of BS, but rather your statement that “Americans who've never experienced living in that kind of society, both pro and against, are purely conjecture.” was BS. Both the pro and anti sides can point to gun laws outside the US to make their point (quite well informed views), often supported by detailed stats.

As an outsider (non-American) looking at this discussion, I would agree with you that the discussion was being polarized between the pro and anti gun factions. The irony is I don’t even see this as a ‘gun issue’ but rather a ‘societal issue’. The mass shootings in the US, and to some extent, Canada, UK and Europe are a symptom of a problem (if one even exists) rather than the problem itself.

I would compare it to a natural disaster like a hurricane or tornado. There is loss of life, you greave, but with a natural disaster, there is no immediate reaction to do something so you move on. Even if that something has no bearing the cause of the disaster (a good portion of this discussion on the thread). However, if you notice that the rate of these disasters is increasing, you might come to the realization that there is a fundamental problem (climate change for example) that you might be able to influence if you take the time to understand the problem.

I see these mass shootings as a societal natural disaster. There is no quick solution, whether it is banning assault rifles (anti-gun stance) or turning your schools into armed camps (pro-gun) that will prevent these relatively isolated events. However, as a society, if you see the rate of these disasters increasing, there might be an underling problem that might need to be addressed. This might mean universal health care (like Canada and Europe) to address mental health issues; it might be better support in local communities for single parents; addressing how the media contribute to these events, or a hundred other causes that you might find if you really dig into the problem.

While the discussion is focused on ‘guns’, prayer in classrooms (that one made me laugh), or arming your teachers, the problem will not be solved.

"The Monash University shooting cause more gun control measures to be enacted making handguns have to be made larger to make them harder to conceal."

Handguns have always been very strongly controlled in Australia - I'm not aware of any size restrictions.

I did not say you are full of BS, but rather your statement that “Americans who've never experienced living in that kind of society, both pro and against, are purely conjecture.” was BS. Both the pro and anti sides can point to gun laws outside the US to make their point (quite well informed views), often supported by detailed stats.

Right. But looking up statistics and trying to convince others with them is also not how the problem will be solved, no matter how informed. You can't know what is going to happen until you actually go ahead and try something. It's the same as taking statistics for how many car accidents occur and using that to determine whether or not you ought to go and drive your car.

While the discussion is focused on ‘guns’, prayer in classrooms (that one made me laugh), or arming your teachers, the problem will not be solved.

That is exactly my earlier point. From the start I have attempted to talk about the way people talk about the issues, not about the guns themselves. I see the main problem as both a misinterpretation and self-deception surrounding the perception of the issue. As long as the perception and way of communicating don't change, the solution to the problem will never be clear.

.

Edited by Ice-axe on 01/09/2013 20:31:20 MST.

Michael L.

I also noticed that no one acknowledged your Harvard study. I personally thought it was very comprehensive and the results spoke for themselves. However it doesn't support the gun control groups message.

They also ignore all the FBI statistics that should the 20 year drop in violent crimes and hand gun deaths. These numbers have even dropped since the AR ban was lifted in 2004. Does this have anything to do with gun ownership, probably not. My guess is stronger sentencing of criminals, better law enforcement, systems that track things better, home security systems, etc.

Do we need to improve the process? Sure. Many options have been discussed. Do we need to ban all guns, absolutely not.

Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2009 as in 1968, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1964. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1973, despite having decreased steadily since 1991.[12]

Bureau of Justice Statistics


This implies that the rate on a per capita basis has fallen but on an absolute level hasn't changed since 1973. This was posted pages ago but quickly ignored by the gun owners.

""They want to effectively remove the ability for citizens to protect themselves."

This is coming from someone who owns 20 guns. You are delusional by ignoring the root cause of why you need to defend yourself against the apparent zombies running amuck. Honest to God, you represent part of the problem to which there is no solution. Fire away."



You are an idiot.
We have crime and criminals, not zombies.
People are robbed, beaten, raped, stabbed every day in their homes
Most violent crimes dont involve a gun
Removing guns, doesnt stop crime. It does remove the ability of citizens to protect themselves at minimal risk.

If you dont like guns, great. Live somewhere they arent allowed and be happy there.

It is no coincidence that crime correllates significantly with areas that vote democratic. Figure out the reasons for yourself. Liberals are too tolerant and expect too much from the government.

Edited by livingontheroad on 12/21/2012 09:34:33 MST.

"I also noticed that no one acknowledged your Harvard study."

That's not really unusual in these forums. No one acknowledged my American Journal of Public Health study either, which concluded: "On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."

In the end, I think we know that the vast majority of people are going to trust a study whose conclusion aligns to what they already have a propensity to believe, and find fault with a study whose conclusion goes against what they already have a propensity to believe, especially when the studies are on a wildly contentious issue.

Edited by idester on 12/21/2012 09:40:49 MST.

"You are an idiot.
We have crime and criminals, not zombies.
People are robbed, beaten, raped, stabbed every day in their homes
Most violent crimes dont involve a gun
Removing guns, doesnt stop crime. It does remove the ability of citizens to protect themselves at minimal risk.

If you dont like guns, great. Live somewhere they arent allowed and be happy there.

It is no coincidence that crime correllates significantly with areas that vote democratic. Figure out the reasons for yourself. Liberals are too tolerant and expect too much from the government."

Nice. Name calling. So when are you bringing religion into the discussion?

In 2010, according to the UNODC, 67.5% of all homicides in the United States were perpetrated using a firearm, so in fact, YES most violent crimes do involve the use of a gun.

The only idiot here is the one who owns over 20 guns for the reasons you mention. You posted previously that it is all about protecting yourself using the same force that would be used against you. Are you expecting a mob of at least 20 gun toting criminals at your door or would one hand gun do the job?

This is where the argument for protection fails. How much weaponry do you need to BE protected versus FEEL protected?

As far as moving, it would seem that you may want to take your own advice. Sounds like your local streets are crime ridden cesspools. Where is Robo Cop when you need him?

Its looking more and more like the solution to our gun problem will be to do nothing.

I don't think anyone is proposing to ban all guns, Brad. Not even me. I used to own a shotgun, and I really didn't see a problem with it, other than the fact that those doves had an uncanny ability to dodge my shot. I did get rid of it, though, when I had my first son. I have not discouraged them from learning to shoot a shotgun or rifle. I just thought, and still think, that we were better off with no guns in the house with curious boys running around.

I think action on handguns makes more sense than long guns.

A lot of people have made good arguments on gun control not having a short term effect because there are already so many weapons out there. I kind of agree with that. I think its more of a long term solution. IMO, handgun control will, over time, change people's perceptions regarding them, which is what I think is really needed to make things better. I think a good argument can be made that other first world countries have such better gun homicide rates than us because of differing perceptions of gun use. Changing those perceptions will take time. Looking at the numbers, its hard to believe there is no correlation between gun control and gun homicide rates among first world countries. Maybe my kids will see some benefit from changes.

My favorite article on the American Journal of Public Health gun study - http://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2012/12/20/a-useless-study-on-gun-possession/. I'm not sure I've ever seen a study whose finding endorsed gun control, where the methodology wasn't skewed to force a bias towards gun control. Kleck couldn't do it, and he was a liberal, Democrat card-carrying ACLU member. But at least he was intellectually honest enough to admit his findings.

It's a shame this won't do anything to change how we deal with the mentally ill, or the desenitizing effect of violent video games, etc.

20 guns? Piker.

I just saw the NRA has taken a new, important stand: We need more guns in the schools.

And Joe, you can pry my game controller from my cold, dead hands. :)

Ben C.

You just completely miss quoted what the NRA said. I'm not an NRA member and have no intentions of becoming one. Below are some quotes from MSNBC (very liberal site):

“With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”

""And he noted that there are millions of active and retired police officers, military veterans, and private security guards – “an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained, qualified citizens” – who should devise a protection plan for every school."

"He criticized Congress for not creating a national database of the mentally ill and called for increased federal prosecution of those who illegally possess guns."

My county has resource officers in all the schools and yes they are armed. I went to my son's elementary school Christmas party yesterday and the resource officer (county deputy) was walking the halls. His quote was put a "POLICE OFFICER" in every school, not put more guns in schools.

Come on Ben. If you don't like the suggestion, then at least say I don't think we need an armed Police Officer in schools. For all I know the NRA believes all the teachers, staff, etc should pack a gun, but that's not what he said.

He also suggested that maybe a group of qualified law enforcement, military and security experts would be a good resource for helping develop a plan for better securing our schools. I personally think they would do a better job than a bunch of politicians and school administrators.

Brad, I was trying a little bit of humor along with a little of the truth. That's why I didn't use quotes around it. I truly just saw the headline. It translated about as well as sarcasm usually does on here. I should have know better than to try to inject a little levity on a gun control thread without being a little more obvious.

I just thought is was funny that anyone thought the NRA was going to budge a bit on gun control issues. To be fair, they do want more guns in the schools so long as they are in the hands of authorities. I'm pretty sure my principal would have shot at me once or twice in 9th grade if he had a gun back then.

Edited by alexdrewreed on 12/21/2012 12:21:40 MST.

Ben,

And I hope you know that I was harassing you some.... I was giving you the Keyshaun Johnson "Come on man". If you haven't seen him do it on the NFL pregame shows then you are probably lost.

We all know what lobbyist agendas are on both sides of every political issue.... Unfortunately

Football. Unlike you guys, we live in a basketball state. Getting better at obvious humor?

Police in the schools, police in the malls, police in the theatres. Funny how the freedom to bear arms is looking more and more like the freedom to live in a police state.

I think ALL Americans of all colours, ages and creeds, should be forced to carry sub-machine guns around all day. Eventually they would all kill each other and then the country could be invaded (again), this time by some people who are SANE, and the country could start fresh. NEWSTART.

I was thinking of applying for a professorship in a US university, but when I read about armed invader drills, I realised I didn't want to normalize myself to this kind of mad behaviour.

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be ridiculous. Somebody needs to step up and objectively re-evaluate this learned behaviour, and change it for the good of everyone. It IS learned behaviour, and therefore, can be unlearned.

something that is a little less dour.

"People also benefit from interacting with canines. Simply petting a dog can decrease levels of stress hormones, regulate breathing, and lower blood pressure. Research also has shown that petting releases oxytocin, a hormone associated with bonding and affection, in both the dog and the human."

I owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to my pups, who did more than any human could during a difficult period in my life. I love them as much as I could ever love any human (and love them much more than I like most humans ;-).

I used to joke that a former girlfriend was smart enough not to ask me who I loved more, her or my pups. She was just happy that I loved her too.....

Edited by idester on 12/21/2012 14:16:36 MST.

John,

Americans generally have a pathological fear of violence, so it's really quite safe here. Why, just carrying a mini Swiss Army knife into a school can be enough to get a student expelled. (If you haven't noticed, we love "zero-tolerance" policies; it saves us the hard work of thinking.) Just making a threatening gesture at someone is sufficient for an arrest on assault charges.

Based on the table here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
You can see that attempts to characterize the US as a third-world style bloodsoaked battleground are just a wee bit over the top. Some sample rates per 100K:
Venezuela: 45.1
South Africa: 31.1
Brazil: 21
Mexico: 16.9
Russia: 10.2
USA: 4.2
Canada: 1.6
UK: 1.2
China: 1

To provide an American perspective, I generally feel more unsafe around Southern Europe because of all the property crime that seems to be generally tolerated. Keep in mind that gang activity plays a large role in the US rates; if you aren't involved in that scene I think the difference between the US and Europe is practically insignificant.)

Thank you Jon for possibly the most delusional response I've seen on this subject. And this from a university professor?

Our 'learned behavior' is at least partially a result of our revolt against EUROPEAN tyranny. Perhaps you would also consider your solution reasonable for the Basque seperatist movement?

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Edited by spelt on 12/21/2012 17:17:20 MST.

Er, Scott, surely you didn't take John's post seriously? That was "satire", man. It's supposed to be outrageous! He deliberately inflated the absurdity of the pro-gun position so as to illustrate how insane it all sounds. Because it is absurd. And John's sarcasm would be the result if the absurdity was taken to its logical conclusion.

If you haven't read it, Here is a masterful example of satire. (Just don't take his suggestions seriously, or you might end up with a debilitating conniption)

Guns in the malls, guns in theaters, guns in church, guns in schools. Guns in our national parks. Guns on the street; guns in your home. Everyone is ready to shoot everyone else.

That's the message of the nra. Be very, very afraid and buy our guns.

And if you can think of a space where guns aren't welcome, maybe in your prayer space, well, the nra will send their devils to make sure that even your children will find that they need to buy guns too. Just like the tobacco executives of yesteryear.

Was it satire when you said you didn't come to the US because of the drills? I sure hope so because if not you might have missed a good opportunity.

Foreigners seem to look at the supposedly high murder rate in the US and freak out. Actually you are a lot safer then you would think for a number of reasons.

1. Most of that crime is in a few cities with really high crime rates.

2. Many of the victims of gun violence are members of criminal gangs.

In other words a law abiding citizen who avoids a few bad areas is pretty safe in the US.

"Guns in the malls, guns in theaters, guns in church, guns in schools. Guns in our national parks. Guns on the street; guns in your home. Everyone is ready to shoot everyone else."

Jeffrey, just curious. How many people have you every seen carry a gun? Not counting law enforcement, security guard or hunters in season. Just the plain on law abiding citizen in your daily walk of life. I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen someone with a gun on them in 46 years. Just curious. Might be where I live.

Brad: you know what, you got me there. Open display guns aren't that common where I live.

I was really just responding to nra talking points. Their answer to gun violence is always the same: more guns. Everywhere.

But the reality is less dramatic. So I agree with your point.

Maybe I sound a bit over the top in my posts. I really don't walk around afraid; just the opposite. I'll never carry a gun just to go about my life. In fact, it seems to me that the gun advocates are the timid rabbits. Why in the world would you need to carry a gun just to step outdoors? I know that I don't.

Edited by book on 12/21/2012 22:05:26 MST.

Hi Miguel,

I take all of this seriously. There are 28 people dead from this incident; all of those lives were precious,including Adam Lanza's. If it was satire, it was inappropriate.

The most reasoned response I've seen on this subject was David Chenault's blog post:http://bedrockandparadox.com/2012/12/19/newtown-for-a-new-century/

Firearms are a significant part of Americans' heritage and culture, especially in the more rural parts of the US. I'm not an NRA member, and never will be. That organization is a poor representative of firearms owners in my country; many of their stated policy objectives are not only ludicrous, but dangerous. However, their membership is less than 10% of the gun owners in the US. Again, if other folks around the world believe the NRA platform represents the views of the average American firearm owner, they're mistaken.

Since i started this, I would like to pose a question, somewhat related to my original question in my opening post: How many people here, especially those offering opinions on this subject, have been the victim of violent crime? I have been victimized before; it will never happen to me or my family again. My firearms and training assure that.