Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 23, 2012 at 7:47am

---Here's how effective gun control would work, every house, outhouse, barn, tool shed, garage (etc., etc., etc.) would be searched, guns found and melted down.---


It is obvious that these words are very carefully absent from the current public discussion, even though I would expect that this is what many people that think of gun control would want. It's the equivalent of the late term abortion discussion or the required ultrasound discussion when the real goal is to completely ban all abortions under all circumstances. I could live with a ban of all non-hunting weapons/target shooting weapons except for very extensively trained, background checked, psychologically checked, way beyond current conceal carry requirements qualified individuals. Take that 2nd Amendment. I would love to hear the response of the 'I only hunt and target shoot' crowd to that, as I am sure it would show some truth.

It could be done quite non-threateningly to the 2nd Amendment, prove ownership of the gun or its confiscated, the official song being song is its the illegal guns that are the problem not the abiding citizens.

Politically, the problem is, of course, that this would amount to the self-fulfilling prophecy if it is done in this administration since Obama would be 'coming to take your guns' after all.

As far as a concealed carry teacher changing the game statistically I think that the requirements would need to go far beyond what typically qualifies you for a concealed carry permit here in NY.

Here, you take an 8 hour course, most which advertise that the emphasis is on 'shooting on the move' or 'active shooting' which hardly qualifies for the under pressure situations that these scenarios would be.

If the qualifications for concealed carry included more extensive background checks, basic psychological evaluations such as those given to police, and extensive long term weapons training similar to what is given to the military or law enforcement, I may concede your point.

On the other hand simply having previous military training is not enough considering the high instance of PTSD, anger issues, and socialization issues, from returning military people, you don't really know where their head is at after all that they have experienced.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 23, 2012 at 11:11am

It could be done quite non-threateningly to the 2nd Amendment, prove ownership of the gun or its confiscated, the official song being song is its the illegal guns that are the problem not the abiding citizens.

How would the govt become AWARE of the existence of the weapon in the first place? Of course, after the bad guy's shoot-em-up, the government can step in and charge the suicidally-dead corpse with having a gun that is illegal.

On the other hand simply having previous military training is not enough considering the high instance of PTSD, anger issues, and socialization issues, from returning military people, you don't really know where their head is at after all that they have experienced.

I think a lot of people with PTSD would simply want to stay about as far from this sort of duty as they could get, but yes some sort of psychological evaluation for ex-military would seem to be called for.

I don't think that having stealth teachers/staffers with arms available on campus is a perfect solution. No solution that's perfect is also possible. And maybe the day will come when an armed teacher goes on a rampage, but I think that's less likely than the intruder/killer. 

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 23, 2012 at 9:49pm

--How would the govt become AWARE of the existence of the weapon in the first place? Of course, after the bad guy's shoot-em-up, the government can step in and charge the suicidally-dead corpse with having a gun that is illegal.--

I like to think of it as 'retroactive licensing compliance' but others might call it illegal search and (if necessary) seizure.

If we had proper documentation and universal registration of all guns regardless of it being a commercial or private sale, if we made reporting the theft of a gun required, and the failure to report, a crime, then this conversation would be moot.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 23, 2012 at 10:14pm

If we had proper documentation and universal registration of all guns regardless of it being a commercial or private sale, if we made reporting the theft of a gun required, and the failure to report, a crime, then this conversation would be moot.

And what about the people who don't obey the law? They exist, and thus there won't be anything "universal" about registration and people won't report lost guns for a variety of reasons, including that they don't know yet that they have been lost/stolen. What are we going to threaten them with? Ten years in a Federal penitentiary. They're already full to the brim with people caught with marijuana.

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 23, 2012 at 10:36pm

What about the people who don't obey any other law? You arrest them for violating the law.

If you have so many guns or are that careless with them, that you don't know how long its been lost or stolen, doesn't that tell you a lot about that person's casual attitude towards a lethal weapon?

The current occupancy of prisons does not make murder or any other current offense any less a crime. We'll just let them go, no room. Perhaps that will instigate a much needed prioritization of what warrants a confineable offense in the US.

I don't go more than a few days without knowing my keys or a credit card has been misplaced, but it might take a me a few months or more to figure out the weapon that is so important to my safety, and my 2nd amendment rights has gone missing?

That's sounds worthy of a criminal investigation to me, and defines what I consider to be 'responsible gun ownership'. This argument gives all those law biding citizen gun owners I hear so much about a bad name.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on February 25, 2013 at 12:32pm

Unless the goal is to keep blood off the hands of anyone intervening instead of maximizing the saving of lives, one should worry about crossfire. It's one thing if a policeman shoots at a suspect fleeing a robbery where the suspect isn't trying to kill as many people as possible, another if the shooter is just trying to kill everyone in sight before going out in a blaze of glory.

You can "get" that distinction, can't you?

If children are taught that police or guards are there for their protection, that should make them feel safer than were they to be left unprotected.

I believe most soldiers on a base are unarmed unless engaged in some activity requiring it. In the case of Virginia tech, it had a vast campus. A totally different situation from a small elementary school building.

Permalink Reply by SteveInCO on December 14, 2012 at 11:02pm

Absolutely it would have been lower.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

This individual (who also killed his mother before going on the rampage) was stopped relatively quickly by an assistant principal dashing out to his car and retrieving a .45.

Notice these events take place in areas where firearms are banned.  Clearly that doesn't stop the shooter, but it has lots to do with stopping the response to the shooter, and the nutjubs are just lucid enough to realize that.

Permalink Reply by Tom Pep on December 14, 2012 at 11:42pm

I would not send my children to a school with armed guards, I'd rather teach them at home.

George Orwells 1984 is starting to become a reality in the states, you guys seriously need to consider the price you are paying for your safety and ask if it's worth your liberty.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 15, 2012 at 12:06am

Why wouldn't you send children to a school with armed guards? The guards needn't be standing at the door holding an AK-47. In fact, the guns could be in a locked cabinet somewhere, only to be opened if gunshots were heard.

Permalink Reply by Becca on December 15, 2012 at 12:58pm

By the time the cabinets were opened and the guards at the scene how many people will be dead? That's the problem with guns for protection, they have to be easily available and at the ready in an instant, not locked away as they should be.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 15, 2012 at 2:53pm

If it took them 2 or 3 minutes to get the guns...remember, the attack lasted 10 minutes. Are you saying that unless they could spare every single life, then better to just let them die?

Why is it that when the subject of guns comes up, most of my liberal friends (and I count myself a liberal) abandon all logic?

Permalink Reply by Rocky john on December 15, 2012 at 3:49pm

Because it is better to try prevent this from happening in the first place rather than having people at the school armed who could hopefully kill this type of attacker before he killed to many children

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• …
• 73
• Next ›
• Page