Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gregg R Thomas on December 31, 2012 at 12:21am

Alas a "solution" is a long way off as long as the desire is to "disarm & comply" and not to "protect & defend".

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 30, 2012 at 9:21am

The 2nd Amendment doesn't stipulate that any person has to have a personal reason for having a gun. It's there in order to be able to form a "well-regulated militia." The amendment further does not stipulate that the militia needs to exist YET. Yes, I agree it's stupid, but I also don't see the 2nd Amendment being removed from the Bill of Rights anytime soon. We're stuck with it, which is why I don't think gun control can ever be very effective.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 30, 2012 at 1:12pm

Yeah, there isn't nearly enough agreement yet to swing a repeal or substantial refinement of the 2nd Amendment. That hurdle will remain too high for generations. We may never see any Constitutional "fix" to the gun crime problem.

Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on December 30, 2012 at 3:31pm

When the Framers penned "the right to bear arms" their point of reference was a single shot musket; not a 100 round auto-loading assault rifle. This batch of politicians seems gridlocked on just about everything. IMHO, only the highest court could render any refinement. So yes, I agree, very unlikely. Which is ironic, because this event spurred a huge run on guns.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 29, 2012 at 9:52pm

If giving up my hobby, would save one child, so be it.

What are your hobbies? I can't think of one that might not, at least theoretically, be traced back to the death of a child. If your hobby involves goods made outside the united states (and how many hobbies don't anymore), there might be a foreign third world business that uses underage children and places them in mortal danger.

 

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 29, 2012 at 8:23pm

Huh?
First its cultural differences between the US and other countries, now its cultural differences between the states.How about the data that clearly indicates that in areas of the country with more guns per capita there are more gun deaths, and where there are less guns less death. On the bottom the list NY and NJ, pretty scary big cities. You ever been to Newark?

Not one comment on the numbers. Rand and the CDC have no dog in this race. She make an interesting observation is all.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 29, 2012 at 10:02pm

I have been to Los Angeles and I live in Cleveland. What does where I live have to do with anything?

There are are real cultural differences between different parts of the country (remember the recent election? red states? blue states?). 

What do you think your statistics prove? They don't prove that it's merely the presence of guns that account for them.

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 29, 2012 at 10:32pm

Newark is a cesspool. It has a low per capita rate of gun ownership and a rate of gun death that is half the national average. That means regardless of whether they are good guys or bad guys less of everybody ends up dead.

The top gun per capita ownership states have 1.5x to 2x the rate of gun death. You can be as prepared as you want, the data correlates that the more guns people have the higher likelihood that you will die from a gun in that area.

2nd amendment aside, please explain how statistically, a state that has more guns in it makes the average person that lives there more safe from death due to a gun.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 29, 2012 at 11:56pm

2nd amendment aside, please explain how statistically, a state that has more guns in it makes the average person that lives there more safe from death due to a gun.

Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say that in states (or cities) with more guns people are safer? Please refute an argument I have actually made.

Permalink Reply by Marc on December 31, 2012 at 9:10am

Apologies Unseen. I keep forgetting how narrowly you defined this debate, and it has meandered back in forth to a general gun control debate and your original topic.

I already agreed that extensively trianed and vetted professionals would make a difference. Not a teacher with an 8 hour course and gun in the top drawer of his/her desk next to the extra box of chalk.

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 31, 2012 at 9:43am

In any large school, there will be a few teachers with military experience. Unlike police, whose primary training is in keeping the peace, a military person is trained primarily to find and neutralize a target. I would favor military training over police training. If it's a keeping the peace situation (an unruly individual, perhaps), call the cops. If someone is actively shooting, call a soldier.

Permalink Reply by RobertPiano on December 31, 2012 at 10:04am

Unseen, I am curious, just a few questions for you. Do you advocate armed guards in private schools? How about movie theaters or post offices? Lets face it, there have been mass killings at military bases. Perhaps public school children are a special class? Do you really think ex-military are really the best idea? My father was a front line Korean war veteran. He ran a Quad-50 half track. Lets just say it wasn't used against aircraft as it was intended. He did the best he could, but was not the most stable guy I ever met.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 47
• 48
• 49
• 50
• 51
• …
• 73
• Next ›
• Page