Proud of our Youth !

[Touch'EmAll]

I am opening myself up for attack on this one, I am fully aware. However, today I am very proud of our youth and all who protested!

Today at the Nation's Capital and at cities across America were some of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam era.

These massive gun control rallies and protests hope to bring an end to the increasing gun violence and deaths so prevalent in today's world all across America.

The NRA doesn't realize one critical point - back in George Washington's day they didn't have automatic assault rifles capable of mass destruction and mortality.

Times change and we need to change our laws accordingly to help protect and serve our citizens.

Now if the NRA wants to defend the rights to own a single shot rifle, no problem, I will march alongside the NRA.

Steve

[bnorth]

I am opening myself up for attack on this one, I am fully aware. However, today I am very proud of our youth and all who protested!

Today at the Nation's Capital and at cities across America were some of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam era.

These massive gun control rallies and protests hope to bring an end to the increasing gun violence and deaths so prevalent in today's world all across America.

The NRA doesn't realize one critical point - back in George Washington's day they didn't have automatic assault rifles capable of mass destruction and mortality.

Times change and we need to change our laws accordingly to help protect and serve our citizens.

Now if the NRA wants to defend the rights to own a single shot rifle, no problem, I will march alongside the NRA.

Steve

Opening yourself up for attack, how about hopefully being banned for posting this political garbage.

[Slinger]

Opening yourself up for attack, how about hopefully being banned for posting this political garbage.

This ^^^

[egri]

Opening yourself up for attack, how about hopefully being banned for posting this political garbage.

Agree completely.

[Republicaninmass]

Agree completely.


2nd


There's literally 100,000s of forums you can post on

[Leon]

Opening yourself up for attack, how about hopefully being banned for posting this political garbage.

Is it political? I am not sure we can have this gun debate without it being political but in essence it's not. I think both lefties and righties want to own guns. But how do we make America safer? (I reserve the right to lock this thread if it goes too far downhill.)
.

[barrysloate]

These kids are 17 and 18 years old, many who will be able to vote for the first time in November. We'll see where this all goes. Ideally, both sides of the gun debate can come to some understanding, but given the mood in America today, we'll probably see more shouting and less listening.

I see good points on both sides, and I'm happy to see young people getting so involved, whether you agree with them or not.

[Jim65]

You can ban all guns but it does not get to the root of the problem, why are they shooting up schools? Why blame our mental health laws or the media that glorifies all these mass shootings when guns are the easiest targets?

[Leon]

You can ban all guns but it does not get to the root of the problem, why are they shooting up schools? Why blame our mental health laws or the media that glorifies all these mass shootings when guns are the easiest targets?

It would seem that we can all agree on not letting mentally unstable people have guns. That might be a pretty big task in itself.
As for the media, they are what they are. They just report the stuff though I agree it seems they glorify it by how much they cover it. But if it didn't happen they wouldn't cover it. :) It is going to be tough to make meaningful changes, imo. Even if they appear meaningful I have a feeling it might only slightly curb the issue. There are so many guns in our society (and elsewhere) I don't see the problem going away soon. And I am usually mostly an optimist.

[Jim65]

It would seem that we can all agree on not letting mentally unstable people have guns. That might be a pretty big task in itself.
As for the media, they are what they are. They just report the stuff though I agree it seems they glorify it by how much they cover it. But if it didn't happen they wouldn't cover it. :) It is going to be tough to make meaningful changes, imo. Even if they appear meaningful I have a feeling it might only slightly curb the issue. There are so many guns in society (and elsewhere) I don't see the problem going away soon. And I am usually mostly an optimist.

Hi Leon, Im not really blaming the media, I know they have a job to do but I guarantee there is someone out there right now feeling like a nobody who fails at everything who sees how famous the Lakeland shooter is and might just be crazy enough to emulate him.

[Leon]

Hi Leon, Im not really blaming the media, I know they have a job to do but I guarantee there is someone out there right now feeling like a nobody who fails at everything who sees how famous the Lakeland shooter is and might just be crazy enough to emulate him.

I understand but not sure there is an (easy) answer.

[barrysloate]

I agree with Leon that there is no easy fix here. When I think of all the changes I would like to see made, I realize they may not do a damn thing to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

A dialogue between guns rights people and those who believe there should be fewer guns would be a good start. But that will never happen.

[nolemmings]

I see good points on both sides, and I'm happy to see young people getting so involved, whether you agree with them or not.

Spot on.

[bnorth]

Some people collect guns, target shoot with guns, and hunt with guns. Banning guns is as stupid to them as banning baseball card collecting would be to most on this forum.

[bravos4evr]

I got 4 words for ya

"shall not be infringed"

[barrysloate]

Some people collect guns, target shoot with guns, and hunt with guns. Banning guns is as stupid to them as banning baseball card collecting would be to most on this forum.

Ben- nobody is suggesting that guns should be banned. Responsible Americans have every right to own them. That said, something in America isn't working. But nobody is willing to get together to fix it. And I don't have the answer on how to do that. Just saying there is a problem.

[clydepepper]

I am opening myself up for attack on this one, I am fully aware. However, today I am very proud of our youth and all who protested!

Today at the Nation's Capital and at cities across America were some of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam era.

These massive gun control rallies and protests hope to bring an end to the increasing gun violence and deaths so prevalent in today's world all across America.

The NRA doesn't realize one critical point - back in George Washington's day they didn't have automatic assault rifles capable of mass destruction and mortality.

Times change and we need to change our laws accordingly to help protect and serve our citizens.

Now if the NRA wants to defend the rights to own a single shot rifle, no problem, I will march alongside the NRA.

Steve



Steve- Thank you for being willing to speak at a time when it's needed, but not popular.

Clearly, regardless of where you stand on this issue, needed solutions cannot come about without healthy (that means polite, though spirited back and forth) discussion.

The very fact that it is taking our children, even survivors, to get anything started in this area, speaks volumes about the mess our generation has forced upon them.

I say this as a conservative with an open mind when it comes to the better good.

Leon - I hope my post doesn't cause this very vital thread to be blocked.

-Raymond

[Leon]

As I said earlier, I don't know why this has to be political? Yeah, everyone seems to make it be that way but it doesn't have to be. We all want the same things it's just a matter of how we get there. There are good arguments on all sides. :) If this thread goes way south then it can be locked. Hopefully it can be discussed in a civil manner. thanks

Steve- Thank you for being willing to speak at a time when it's needed, but not popular.

Clearly, regardless of where you stand on this issue, needed solutions cannot come about without healthy (that means polite, though spirited back and forth) discussion.

The very fact that it is taking our children, even survivors, to get anything started in this area, speaks volumes about the mess our generation has forced upon them.

I say this as a conservative with an open mind when it comes to the better good.

Leon - I hope my post doesn't cause this very vital thread to be blocked.

-Raymond

[mikemb]

I too am proud of our young adults. They speak very well and want to change things. Whatever side you are on, what we have now is not working and change is needed.

But these young adults have their most powerful tool ahead of them. their vote. Some can vote now, just about all will have that in a few years. That is where we all have the power to elect those who we want to represent us and our views and if not, vote them out.

Mike

[bravos4evr]

I am opening myself up for attack on this one, I am fully aware. However, today I am very proud of our youth and all who protested!

Today at the Nation's Capital and at cities across America were some of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam era.

These massive gun control rallies and protests hope to bring an end to the increasing gun violence and deaths so prevalent in today's world all across America.

The NRA doesn't realize one critical point - back in George Washington's day they didn't have automatic assault rifles capable of mass destruction and mortality.

Times change and we need to change our laws accordingly to help protect and serve our citizens.

Now if the NRA wants to defend the rights to own a single shot rifle, no problem, I will march alongside the NRA.

Steve


so much wrong with this post, time to break it down:

Today at the Nation's Capital and at cities across America were some of the biggest youth protests since the Vietnam era.

and they will be just as ineffective, protests are a tired monument to the delusional wasteland of the 60's that is half of our nation's issues today

These massive gun control rallies and protests hope to bring an end to the increasing gun violence and deaths so prevalent in today's world all across America.

please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.

They aren't prevalent , not at all, of the 36k annual gun deaths in the USA 20k of those are suicide, and the majority of the remaining are the result of gang violence, only a tiny % are due to "mass shootings" gun control has been proven to show it won't do one tiny thing to that % either, as anyone determined to kill a lot of people is not going to be stopped by a gun law

why isn't the media reporting this accurately? hmmmm?


The NRA doesn't realize one critical point - back in George Washington's day they didn't have automatic assault rifles capable of mass destruction and mortality.

A- no mass shooting in the history of the USA has been done by an automatic weapon, semi-auto sure, but not a fully automatic, so ,by proxy, not one single "assault weapon" has been used in a school shooting either.

B- fully automatic weapons are expensive to buy (grandfathered in relics that cost tens of thousands) and require a year's wait and more $$$ in tax stamps and fees.

C- AR-15 is not high powered, nor fully automatic, nor a military weapon, nor an assault rifle, it's a moderate to low powered semi-automatic, varmint and home protection weapon. It looks scary because of it's cool tactical garb, but underneath the weapon itself is just a hunting rifle with a magazine

D- did the founding fathers plan for the computer and mass media ? so does your first amendment rights to freedom of speech end with the quill and ink? that's a fallacious and silly argument, (and btw, they knew of gatlin gun type weapons and the early attempts at semi-auto)



Times change and we need to change our laws accordingly to help protect and serve our citizens.

times may change, but my natural rights to protect myself with firearms does not, neither does the power of my constitution, want to change it? fine, follow the rules and pass an amendment, get it through 2/3rds of Congress and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Something tells me you KNOW this will never happen as 100m+ gun owners would oppose you 100%.





You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

[chlankf]

It would seem that we can all agree on not letting mentally unstable people have guns. That might be a pretty big task in itself.

But who decides what mentally unstable is?

I agree that some have given up their right and other just shouldn't own. But.the definition of mentally unstable is where we could have big issues.

[bnorth]

so much wrong with this post, time to break it down:



and they will be just as ineffective, protests are a tired monument to the delusional wasteland of the 60's that is half of our nation's issues today



please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.

They aren't prevalent , not at all, of the 36k annual gun deaths in the USA 20k of those are suicide, and the majority of the remaining are the result of gang violence, only a tiny % are due to "mass shootings" gun control has been proven to show it won't do one tiny thing to that % either, as anyone determined to kill a lot of people is not going to be stopped by a gun law

why isn't the media reporting this accurately? hmmmm?




A- no mass shooting in the history of the USA has been done by an automatic weapon, semi-auto sure, but not a fully automatic, so ,by proxy, not one single "assault weapon" has been used in a school shooting either.

B- fully automatic weapons are expensive to buy (grandfathered in relics that cost tens of thousands) and require a year's wait and more $$$ in tax stamps and fees.

C- AR-15 is not high powered, nor fully automatic, nor a military weapon, nor an assault rifle, it's a moderate to low powered semi-automatic, varmint and home protection weapon. It looks scary because of it's cool tactical garb, but underneath the weapon itself is just a hunting rifle with a magazine

D- did the founding fathers plan for the computer and mass media ? so does your first amendment rights to freedom of speech end with the quill and ink? that's a fallacious and silly argument, (and btw, they knew of gatlin gun type weapons and the early attempts at semi-auto)





times may change, but my natural rights to protect myself with firearms does not, neither does the power of my constitution, want to change it? fine, follow the rules and pass an amendment, get it through 2/3rds of Congress and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Something tells me you KNOW this will never happen as 100m+ gun owners would oppose you 100%.





You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

Nick, thank you for the great post.:)

[JollyElm]

So, I'm going to listen to little snowflakes, who think eating Tide Pods is fun, telling me that my guns need to be taken away from me???? What a bunch of BS. They're blatantly being used by a certain side of the aisle as political pawns, and it's laughable.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Criminals who do illegal things would love for more types of guns to get banned and out of the law abiding owners...more unarmed people to go after who follow the law

bump stocks i can see being banned but without a constitutional amendment, all of this protesting will only amount to some very narrow law for the political 'victory' and on to the next thing

[AGuinness]

please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.





You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.


What’s frustrating about debating are arguments that A. Make such broad generalizations and B. Are done mainly to denigrate the opposite view.

If you do want to have honest debate, a little respect helps. And please, if somebody on the other side is misinformed, HELPING them works a lot better than aggressive condescension.

I have a great deal of respect for Leon allowing this discussion to take place, because while people here may come from all over the political landscape, we share a common interest. I had hoped that would foster constructive discussion, but that is not the case in many responses.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bravos4evr]

What’s frustrating about debating are arguments that A. Make such broad generalizations and B. Are done mainly to denigrate the opposite view.

If you do want to have honest debate, a little respect helps. And please, if somebody on the other side is misinformed, HELPING them works a lot better than aggressive condescension.

I have a great deal of respect for Leon allowing this discussion to take place, because while people here may come from all over the political landscape, we share a common interest. I had hoped that would foster constructive discussion, but that is not the case in many responses.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

[Leon]

I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

With all due respect, This is the part I disagree with and don't think is going on generally. That side of the argument doesn't want to abolish all of gun ownership rights. I lean to more gun ownership for protection. But the left is ok with guns just not assault guns, I think. And I think they want a lot more common sense things too which we should all be able to agree on.

[barrysloate]

I have tried so many times and been ignored so many times that at this point I have concluded it's 100% willful. The opposition simply doesn't care about the facts, they are only interested in the abolition of the 2nd amendment.

ETA: and for the record, I never attacked the man, but rather, his argument.

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false. And how can you complain that we are not interested in the facts when you have the facts all wrong yourself? And you complain we don't listen to you, but you surely don't listen to our concerns, you just preach.

Sounds to be like both sides are equally culpable.

[packs]

I find it surprising that some people could think of protests as not adding up to much. Women were granted the right to vote, we passed the Civil Rights Act and desegregated our schools and public spaces because of protests. We pulled out of the Vietnam War due in large part to the pressure of public opinion as well. They are extremely powerful statements and the solidarity needed to pull them off is what brings people together for change.

[vintagetoppsguy]

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false.

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

[packs]

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

[barrysloate]

David- that's a very fair question and you know what? I don't have an answer. You are correct that the gun control people can be vague.

But you know what I would like? To have a reasonable discussion with gun rights people like yourself- and I know you know a whole lot more about guns than I do- and not have insults thrown at me. Calling me a snowflake won't get the job done.

All either side wants is for the other side to listen.

[vintagetoppsguy]

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

As a law abiding gun owner, I wouldn't have an objection that, but I'm just not sure what it accomplishes?

To me, it would be just about as effective as a so-called background check.

[packs]

As a law abiding gun owner, I wouldn't have an objection that, but I'm just not sure what it accomplishes?

To me, it would be just about as effective as a so-called background check.


I can think of several law enforcement applications. One is simple in that if I shoot you in Texas with my gun that I bought in Illinois, local law enforcement is going to be severely handicapped in solving the crime. Even if I left the gun at the scene, they'd have no way to trace it back to me unless they knew where I purchased it, and even then the state I purchased the gun in may protect me even further. It is unlawful to have any type of database in some states.

[bravos4evr]

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false. And how can you complain that we are not interested in the facts when you have the facts all wrong yourself? And you complain we don't listen to you, but you surely don't listen to our concerns, you just preach.

Sounds to be like both sides are equally culpable.

this is all just not true.

death by 1000 cuts against our inalienable rights is abolition over time.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


and anyone who says "assault weapons" in regards to the AR-15 is either ignorant to the reality of firearms, or purposely lying to garner sympathy.

pick one.


I do not own a single firearm, but i am a veteran and i joined to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, I believe this duty continues to this day. If you try to take away my rights, I will fight you with my entire being

[bravos4evr]

One thing I would love to see is a national gun registry. There is no logical reason why it doesn't exist, but it is currently against federal law to develop one. The DMV has a national registry for motor vehicles but there is no national registry for firearms.

yeah, that's great this way a tyrannical govt will have a nice list in which to round up all those they oppose.. How very Stalin of you....

[packs]

yeah, that's great this way a tyrannical govt will have a nice list in which to round up all those they oppose.. How very Stalin of you....

That's a paranoid view of the government, no? You have to register benign things like your car, your property, even drones and dogs. But you don't think you should register a firearm?

There are 37 states where you can privately purchase a gun without any form of registration or back ground check at all. Those 37 states should, in my opinion, compel people who purchase a firearm to alert some type of regulatory agency to the fact that they've purchased a gun.

[clydepepper]

Specifics?

Okay. Let's have some! PLEASE!!!

Everyone who has a suggestion, speak up?


The question is this:

WHAT actions will work, in your opinion, to decrease the growing number of mass shootings?


Take any stance you want, just say something that YOU think will work!


I will start us off by believing that thorough background checks could eliminate folks with mental issues from being eligible to own a firearm of any kind.


Their absolute right to bare arms should be usurped by the need to keep others safe from attacks like the kinds we have been experiencing.


To paraphrase what I have stated in my post signature, ALL of our rights as Americans come with an understood equal hand of responsibility and accountability.


Those are words I have lived by all my live and I find it difficult for imagine anyone could make a valid argument against them.



.

[barrysloate]

this is all just not true.

death by 1000 cuts against our inalienable rights is abolition over time.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


and anyone who says "assault weapons" in regards to the AR-15 is either ignorant to the reality of firearms, or purposely lying to garner sympathy.

pick one.


I do not own a single firearm, but i am a veteran and i joined to protect and defend the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, I believe this duty continues to this day. If you try to take away my rights, I will fight you with my entire being

Nick- nobody is going to take your firearms away (ironic to say since you don't own any). All we are looking for is some common sense ways to make Americans safer.

Now that's easier said than done. Certainly strict background checks would help. Changing the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21, on the other hand, is pretty dumb and doesn't accomplish much of anything. And I've long been for a ban against owning assault weapons, but I realize that the bad guys will still own them so that won't work either.

The thing that gets me the angriest is that gun owners are so sure they've got it right that they tune out anyone who even hints at making small changes. Nobody can say for sure that some changes in the laws will make us safer, but I bet a whole lot of Americans would at least be willing to try.

Maybe at the end of the day nothing can be done to stop a crazed shooter from lighting up a school or church, but I hate to think we've given up trying.

The survivors of Parkland HS are at the forefront of a new movement, energizing young people across the country to take a stand and to register to vote as soon as they turn 18. And what does the NRA do? Vilify them and call them a group of radicals. Now that really pisses me off.

[bravos4evr]

That's a paranoid view of the government, no? You have to register benign things like your car, your property, even drones and dogs. But you don't think you should register a firearm?

There are 37 states where you can privately purchase a gun without any form of registration or back ground check at all. Those 37 states should, in my opinion, compel people who purchase a firearm to alert some type of regulatory agency to the fact that they've purchased a gun.

anyone who would give up their liberty for the sake of safety deserves neither.

what right does govt have to keep tabs on LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS?

none

what right do you have to have a list to keep tabs on you neighbors?

I believe you have no inalienable right to own a car, do you? you do to protect yourself.

not to mention that background checks, do nothing to stop crime, gun bans do nothing to stop crime

burden of proof lies on the gun grabbers, btw, I have the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment on my side.

[bravos4evr]

Nick- nobody is going to take your firearms away (ironic to say since you don't own any). All we are looking for is some common sense ways to make Americans safer.

Now that's easier said than done. Certainly strict background checks would help. Changing the age of gun ownership from 18 to 21, on the other hand, is pretty dumb and doesn't accomplish much of anything. And I've long been for a ban against owning assault weapons, but I realize that the bad guys will still own them so that won't work either.

The thing that gets me the angriest is that gun owners are so sure they've got it right that they tune out anyone who even hints at making small changes. Nobody can say for sure that some changes in the laws will make us safer, but I bet a whole lot of Americans would at least be willing to try.

Maybe at the end of the day nothing can be done to stop a crazed shooter from lighting up a school or church, but I hate to think we've given up trying.

The survivors of Parkland HS are at the forefront of a new movement, energizing young people across the country to take a stand and to register to vote as soon as they turn 18. And what does the NRA do? Vilify them and call them a group of radicals. Now that really pisses me off.

maybe enforcing the gun laws we already have?

maybe actually following through when agencies get reports of strange and dangerous behavior ?

maybe securing schools and eliminating "gun free zones?"

why is a courthouse and other govt buildings riddled with armed security (and our politicians) but not schools?

why not deal with the problems instead of trying to take away the rights of citizens.

you may not believe that this is the goal, but it's obvious to any defender of our constitution that abolition is the long term goal of those who oppose the 2nd amendment.


ETA: once again you use the word "assault weapon" please define what it is, in detail

ETTA: why is it surprising that I don't own guns yet defend the rights of my fellow americans? are you only interested in the bill of rights when it applies to you?

[packs]

anyone who would give up their liberty for the sake of safety deserves neither.

what right does govt have to keep tabs on LAW ABIDING GUN OWNERS?

none

what right do you have to have a list to keep tabs on you neighbors?

I believe you have no inalienable right to own a car, do you? you do to protect yourself.

not to mention that background checks, do nothing to stop crime, gun bans do nothing to stop crime

burden of proof lies on the gun grabbers, btw, I have the bill of rights and the 2nd amendment on my side.

That is an interesting point but because it's an inalienable right doesn't mean there can't be laws regarding the right. There are many laws that relate to firearms. I'm in favor of a registry. A registry does not suggest repossession or surveillance in my mind.

[Jim65]

Specifics?

Okay. Let's have some! PLEASE!!!

Everyone who has a suggestion, speak up?


The question is this:

WHAT actions will work, in your opinion, to decrease the growing number of mass shootings?


Take any stance you want, just say something that YOU think will work!


I will start us off by believing that thorough background checks could eliminate folks with mental issues from being eligible to own a firearm of any kind.


Only legally. I'm sure if someone is considering shooting up a school, they aren't going to worry about the consequences of owning an illegal firearm.

[rgpete]

Times have changed Schools security should be treated like at airports, prisons, and court houses. But how many Teens died because of texting while driving, alcohol and illegal drugs

[bnorth]

Times have changed Schools security should be treated like at airports, prisons, and court houses. But how many Teens died because of texting while driving, alcohol and illegal drugs

I am all for doing something about those texting while driving. Avoiding those morons is a full time job while driving or going for a walk. I have really noticed how bad it is while walking recently. I would say close to 25% of people I see are on their phones. It absolutely amazes me how there are not way more accidents/deaths because of them.

Last year I had a police officer almost hit me head on because he was playing on his phone. When we passed each other over half his car was in my lane.

On the school gun thing. Now we have a police officer at each school. When I was in HS about 20% of the vehicles(all unlocked) had guns in them and there was never a problem. I live in a rural area so many of us hunted on the way to and from school.

[clydepepper]

I am all for doing something about those texting while driving. Avoiding those morons is a full time job while driving or going for a walk. I have really noticed how bad it is while walking recently. I would say close to 25% of people I see are on their phones. It absolutely amazes me how there are not way more accidents/deaths because of them.

Last year I had a police officer almost hit me head on because he was playing on his phone. When we passed each other over half his car was in my lane.

On the school gun thing. Now we have a police officer at each school. When I was in HS about 20% of the vehicles(all unlocked) had guns in them and there was never a problem. I live in a rural area so many of us hunted on the way to and from school.



Ben- I couldn't agree with you more about the texting while driving. But, it's not just texting...it's distracted drivers...I cannot seem to get my brother to stop calling me on his 'hands-free' phone on the way home from work...in Atlanta mind you. He doesn't seem to grasp the idea that 'hands-free' does not solve the problem.

I'm glad to hear your HS never had a problem when you were there...I graduated 44 years ago...and we had fights and racial incidents, but no incidents involving firearms. Some people were injured, but nobody was killed.

But, let's focus on today's world...things are different...people are different.

Let me hear an idea from you, Ben...on reducing campus shootings.

I promise not to criticize your opinion...it's just important to get all opinions out there (here) so they can be discussed in a civilized manner...at least, that is my hope.


-Raymond

[vintagetoppsguy]

The opposition is in no way calling for the abolition of the second amendment. That is absolutely false.

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-stevens-says-second-amendment-should-be-repealed.html

[barrysloate]

David- you can always find one person to say anything. The second amendment will not be repealed.

[Leon]

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-stevens-says-second-amendment-should-be-repealed.html

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes :)

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.

[mikemb]

Really?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/27/retired-supreme-court-justice-stevens-says-second-amendment-should-be-repealed.html

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

[barrysloate]

Well Leon, I'm a liberal and I fully support the right of responsible Americans to own guns. I have absolutely no issue with it.

But it angers me to no end that the Parkland shooter (I can't even remember his name) can walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 the same way I can buy a quart of milk. Why isn't there a system in place that can prevent an unhinged lunatic from so easily buying one?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

Are you saying that Justice Stephens didn't say that just because of the news source?

Would it give you a nice warm, fuzzy feeling inside if it came from MSNBC?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/former-supreme-court-justice-calls-second-amendments-repeal

[tschock]

But it angers me to no end that the Parkland shooter (I can't even remember his name) can walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 the same way I can buy a quart of milk.

Barry,

Hyperbole, because he couldn't and didn't. Although there could be a more effective process.

[tschock]

As far as discussing solutions, two of the biggest deterrents would be not declaring schools as gun-free zones and not providing 24/7 coverage to these events.

[packs]

Some of the biggest obstacles I've noticed in the debate between sides is this POV from the gun rights advocates that if you use a term they don't agree with or think is technically wrong in some minute aspect re: firearms there is this tendency to then dismiss anything else that is said.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Some of the biggest obstacles I've noticed in the debate between sides is this POV from the gun control advocates that if you use Fox News as a source of information there is this tendency to then dismiss anything else that is said.

[tschock]

Some of the biggest obstacles I've noticed in the debate between sides is this POV from the gun rights advocates that if you use a term they don't agree with or think is technically wrong in some minute aspect re: firearms there is this tendency to then dismiss anything else that is said.

So are you saying that term definitions and technical accuracy are not relevant for a discussion on laws? That seems odd to me. Just curious for an example of "a term they don't agree with"?

[packs]

So are you saying that term definitions and technical accuracy are not relevant for a discussion on laws? That seems odd to me. Just curious for an example of "a term they don't agree with"?

Assault Rifle for example. The term seems to matter to gun advocates but in my opinion its semantics. I think people are really saying they have an issue with a type of weapon, let's say AR-15 since it has a history of being used in these types of situations, and it doesn't truly matter if Assault Rifle is the definitive term. They're saying they see a pattern of abuse of a certain weapon, that is the true point. But that is sometimes lost in an endless loop of definition.

[tschock]

Assault Rifle for example. The term seems to matter to gun advocates but in my opinion its semantics. I think people are really saying they have an issue with a type of weapon, let's say AR-15 since it has a history of being used in these types of situations, and it doesn't truly matter if Assault Rifle is the definitive term. They're saying they see a pattern of abuse of a certain weapon, that is the true point. But that is sometimes lost in an endless loop of definition.

Well, it's very important if the facts either don't support the claim or your intention for banning/restriction is unclear. So let's use your definition for sake of argument. Assault Rifle = AR-15. Why do you or others want assault rifles (AR-15s) banned (or restricted)? Is it because of the amount of damage they can do based on the magazine capacity? That would be my guess, but facts and technical details don't back up the claim.

"One of the Columbine shooters used 10-round magazines, and the Virginia Tech shooter used mostly 10-round magazines. The shooter from the recent Florida school shooting, although he had an AR-15-style rifle, used 10-round magazines to commit the crime. And Maryland, where the most recent school shooting occurred, already has laws banning the purchase of “high-capacity” magazines." - http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/21/10-common-arguments-gun-control-debunked/

Many other weapons have this capacity (or more) including handguns. If your real reason for wanted these types of weapons banned (or restricted) is something other than capacity, then please correct me.

Hopefully with the above you can understand it's not just semantics.

[packs]

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Many other weapons have this capacity (or more) including handguns. If your real reason for wanted these types of weapons banned (or restricted) is something other than capacity, then please correct me.

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

[vintagetoppsguy]

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

Most handguns are semi-automatic. A lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do you even understand the difference in the action of a gun - automatic, semi-automatic, pump, lever action, bolt action, etc.?

So you want to ban handguns and hunting rifles?

[packs]

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.


That's not totally true though. In some states handguns are met with stricter restrictions than rifles. In Colorado for example, you need to have a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun but you don't need one for a long gun. You could conceal your rifle lawfully but not your glock.

[tschock]

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

And what's even more rare? That these people tend to carry out these type of shootings in zones that aren't "gun free" zones. So banning all "assault rifles", what's next in the gun free zones? I mean, since most shootings occur with handguns. Care to venture a guess?

The conversation likely devolves because "people" are reacting more with 'feelz' rather than facts and logic. I'm not imply you are, and I appreciate the discussion.

And I'm not proposing the silly argument that handguns kill more people so mass shootings aren't 'important' (bad choice of words, but at times seems suggestive on the gun rights side). Both are a problem, but the solution isn't further restriction.

[packs]

Most handguns are semi-automatic. A lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do you even understand the difference in the action of a gun - automatic, semi-automatic, pump, lever action, bolt action, etc.?

So you want to ban handguns and hunting rifles?

I didn't say anything about handguns and hunting rifles have not been semi-automatic since their inception so I see no logical reason why you couldn't hunt with one that wasn't semi-automatic.

[tschock]

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

I live in NC now, but yelled out Holy Sh*t so loud the other day when I saw something on the news, that my wife thought something happened to me. I am now the proud alumni of the school district in PA that wants to put buckets of rocks in the schools to throw at someone with a gun. I hope they decide to issue fake beards so that the girls can throw them as well. :D

[barrysloate]

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

[bnorth]

I didn't say anything about handguns and hunting rifles have not been semi-automatic since their inception so I see no logical reason why you couldn't hunt with one that wasn't semi-automatic.

Hunting is not about feeding anybody anymore it is a sport(hobby) done for recreation. Semi-automatic guns make hunting more fun.:)

[vintagetoppsguy]

I live in NC now, but yelled out Holy Sh*t so loud the other day when I saw something on the news, that my wife thought something happened to me. I am now the proud alumni of the school district in PA that wants to put buckets of rocks in the schools to throw at someone with a gun. I hope they decide to issue fake beards so that the girls can throw them as well. :D

I heard that as well. I thought it was a joke at first.

[vintagetoppsguy]

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

Barry, I don't have the answer. When I asked you the same question, you didn't have the answer either. Guess what? There are many problems in America that we just don't have answers to. If we had all the answers, why is there still a drug problem in America? Why is there still a gang problem in America? Why is there still a (fill in the blank) problem in America?

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the tools are in place to try and prevent the whackos from getting the guns, but the information isn't being disseminated. Look at the church shooter in San Antonio. He received a dishonorable discharge from the military, but the military failed to report that. That should have kept him from purchasing the weapon. And look at the Florida shooter. The cops were called to his house thirty-something times. He was reported to the FBI more than once. But, once again, the information wasn't disseminated.

[barrysloate]

I certainly agree that better information would be one way to make things safer. And I didn't dodge your question, but like you said I didn't have an answer. I'm smart enough to know that you know a whole lot more about gun culture than I do. I didn't grow up in that environment, never owned a gun, and never knew anyone who had one where I lived. So it's silly for me to pretend I have all the answers. I don't. I would rather listen than preach.

[steve B]

Look at the source: Fox News.

Nothing more has to be said.

Mike

And CNN.... Any better?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html

[steve B]

We do in fact have background checks, and have for a few years.

Without the "semantics" I can only assume the 37 states mentioned don't require then for intrastate transfers. Interstate transfers have to go through a federally licensed dealer, and that dealer has to file the proper forms and get the background check done.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

[clydepepper]

HEY!!!!!


Let's stop all this garbage and go back to the original request:


What idea do you support that could reduce the number of mass shootings?

GETTING SUGGESTIONS AND SHARING REAL IDEAS IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REQUEST.

Please stop all this other @#$%& and try to contribute possible life-saving ideas!

So far, this is a microcosm of why nothing this important gets changed!






.

[tschock]

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

It's not an either or. See Post 54 ("two of the biggest deterrents would be not declaring schools as gun-free zones and not providing 24/7 coverage to these events."). Those will be the biggest deterrents (IMO), though I acknowledge the second one would be much harder to do. There are other factors as well (social media, violence accepted as part of the culture, lack of respect for others, lack of responsibility for ones actions, et al).

I question all those asking for changes in gun laws to show me were this has worked. Gun laws and access to guns including semi and fully automatic weapons are more restrictive now than in the 40s-60s, yet there are more mass shootings now. The AR-15 was introduced in the mid '50s (I believe), yet has only recently become the 'weapon de jour'.

The problem I have with ANY laws is they are useless if not or capriciously enforced.

[packs]

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

[clydepepper]

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.



So, what's your idea to reduce mass shootings?

[barrysloate]

Taylor- if you want schools not to be gun free zones, who do you see as having the guns? The teachers? The students? I just don't know how that could possibly work.

[packs]

Form a national registry of firearms, which I think will promote more accountability from owners. It would also help law enforcement to monitor stockpiling of weapons, report stolen weapons, and connect weapons to crimes outside of local jurisdiction, which could prevent an attack, perhaps.

Require anyone buying ammo to present a current license to own a firearm. That way a person can't purchase ammo for an illegal firearm, or a firearm that belongs to someone else that they may have access to.

Close all loopholes that enable someone to purchase a weapon without a waiting period or background check or official registration. You can make private purchases of firearms in many states and at gun shows without any type of oversight, especially in states that don't require a license at all.

Make rifle and handgun legislation mirror each other. That way if it's illegal in your state to carry a concealed handgun, it would be similarly illegal to conceal a long gun.

These are just some of my own ideas.

[tschock]

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

Not sure of the point, but would like a citation, please.

The authorities were quick to praise the school resource officer at Great Mills High, Deputy Blaine Gaskill, who they said responded almost immediately to the gunman and fired his weapon. Deputy Gaskill was unharmed in the exchange.

“He pursued the shooter, engaged the shooter,” Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron of St. Mary’s County said. The officer, he said, then “fired a round at the shooter; simultaneously the shooter fired a round as well.”

That would lead me to believe that he fired at the SRO as well. He probably didn't mean to though, right?

[packs]

Not sure of the point, but would like a citation, please.

The authorities were quick to praise the school resource officer at Great Mills High, Deputy Blaine Gaskill, who they said responded almost immediately to the gunman and fired his weapon. Deputy Gaskill was unharmed in the exchange.

“He pursued the shooter, engaged the shooter,” Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron of St. Mary’s County said. The officer, he said, then “fired a round at the shooter; simultaneously the shooter fired a round as well.”

That would lead me to believe that he fired at the SRO as well. He probably didn't mean to though, right?

He shot the shooter in his hand while the shooter was shooting himself in the head. The officer's shot came after the shooter fatally injured his target and turned his weapon on himself:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-great-mills-shooting-update-20180326-story,amp.html

[vintagetoppsguy]

Not sure that I would call the Maryland incident a school shooting. It was a different situation and could have happened anywhere.

[tschock]

Taylor- if you want schools not to be gun free zones, who do you see as having the guns? The teachers? The students? I just don't know how that could possibly work.

Anyone who can legally possess a firearm should be allowed, but not required. The real key is you don't advertise somewhere as a gun free zone.

There was a psych study done a while back that I can't remember who/when/where or find it now. Maybe not pre-internet but a WHILE ago and I read it non-electronically somewhere. Some interesting results, not just on guns. They had people answer a few sets of questions anonymously. It had to do how they want others to see them and what they might want or not want strangers to know about them. Some 'hot button' topics (abortion, guns, sex, religion) mixed in with normal stuff (sports, movies, etc).

The premise was whether they would want a sign posted on their lawn for each item they claimed (if I remember correctly). In one (of a number) of sets of questions the sign had to be true. In another set (of a number) it could be a lie. One of the fascinating things I remember is how many people claimed they owned or used guns and did (the true signs), however even more interesting were those who lied about owning or using a gun but did not. Very few lied the other way (claiming they did not own/use a gun but really did). Of course, sex was another interesting one. LOL

I think it makes for a good thought experiment today, if you want to be honest with yourself. If you had publicly claim you did or did not own or use a gun, and provide your address on the internet with that statement, what would you do?

[tschock]

He shot the shooter in his hand while the shooter was shooting himself in the head. The officer's shot came after the shooter fatally injured his target and turned his weapon on himself:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-great-mills-shooting-update-20180326-story,amp.html

Thanks for the link. Even with all the sources, it's hard to find things at times when you are looking for specific details (assuming anything reported is correct, of course).

So it wasn't an intended mass shooting then either. And assault weapon ban wouldn't have mattered. I get your point about an SRO not preventing the incidents, but are you really trying to use this as an example of how an SRO (or anyone for that matter) could have prevented a single intended victim incident?

[packs]

Thanks for the link. Even with all the sources, it's hard to find things at times when you are looking for specific details (assuming anything reported is correct, of course).

So it wasn't an intended mass shooting then either. And assault weapon ban wouldn't have mattered. I get your point about an SRO not preventing the incidents, but are you really trying to use this as an example of how an SRO (or anyone for that matter) could have prevented a single intended victim incident?

No, just a larger point that having an armed presence isn't always a deterrent. I don't know for a fact because I'm not local to the shootings, but I would think students are aware there is an armed presence at their school.

[tschock]

No, just a larger point that having an armed presence isn't always a deterrent.

Couldn't agree more.:)

[clydepepper]

Form a national registry of firearms, which I think will promote more accountability from owners. It would also help law enforcement to monitor stockpiling of weapons, report stolen weapons, and connect weapons to crimes outside of local jurisdiction, which could prevent an attack, perhaps.

Require anyone buying ammo to present a current license to own a firearm. That way a person can't purchase ammo for an illegal firearm, or a firearm that belongs to someone else that they may have access to.

Close all loopholes that enable someone to purchase a weapon without a waiting period or background check or official registration. You can make private purchases of firearms in many states and at gun shows without any type of oversight, especially in states that don't require a license at all.

Make rifle and handgun legislation mirror each other. That way if it's illegal in your state to carry a concealed handgun, it would be similarly illegal to conceal a long gun.

These are just some of my own ideas.



EXCELLENT! I hope everyone reads every bit of your response. BRAVO!

[bravos4evr]

That is an interesting point but because it's an inalienable right doesn't mean there can't be laws regarding the right. There are many laws that relate to firearms. I'm in favor of a registry. A registry does not suggest repossession or surveillance in my mind.



a registry by it's nature is potentially something to be abused by govt.

you may think govt is this wonderful thing designed to take care of you and rub your head while you go to sleep. I happen to know it isn't, it's generally a terrible way to solve most anything.

there will never be a gun registry because we shall never allow it. It really is that simple.

[bravos4evr]

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes :)

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.


bolded mine


Gun owners, and 2nd amendment advocates, have given and given on this issue, from 1934 to the stupid assault weapons ban of 1994 (that was dropped because they discovered it did zero to stop gun violence) and we are not giving one more inch without a fight.

The problem is, if you give up one thing, then it becomes the foundation for them to move on to the next thing, and the next thing. If you don't think the agenda of the "gun control" movement is abolition then you are either delusional or in cahoots with them. (and the "you" is rhetorical not directed at you Leon personally)


"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


not to mention that these people know zero about guns, what right do they have to attempt to take away the rights of law abiding citizens when they aren't even willing to take the time to understand what they are fighting against?

[bravos4evr]

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

they banned them because of ignorant, panicky politicians not because of any threat to society.

and you can still possess an automatic weapon, it just costs more and requires giving more $$$ to the govt.

semi-automatic rifles are not the most often used weapon in a mass shooting, handguns are

you don't get to take my rights away because you want safety. anyone who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither.

any individual who thinks that gun laws stop violence must also think that prohibition stopped drinking

[bravos4evr]

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

I gave a large list a few pages back on what could be done.

and no, more gun laws will make no difference at all. They never have and they never will. Not only that, but they are morally abhorrent.

Not one anti-gunner has been able to demonstrate that gun laws stop violence. Why might that be?

[bravos4evr]

Form a national registry of firearms, which I think will promote more accountability from owners. It would also help law enforcement to monitor stockpiling of weapons, report stolen weapons, and connect weapons to crimes outside of local jurisdiction, which could prevent an attack, perhaps.

Require anyone buying ammo to present a current license to own a firearm. That way a person can't purchase ammo for an illegal firearm, or a firearm that belongs to someone else that they may have access to.

Close all loopholes that enable someone to purchase a weapon without a waiting period or background check or official registration. You can make private purchases of firearms in many states and at gun shows without any type of oversight, especially in states that don't require a license at all.

Make rifle and handgun legislation mirror each other. That way if it's illegal in your state to carry a concealed handgun, it would be similarly illegal to conceal a long gun.

These are just some of my own ideas.

hahha, so tyranny, oppression, govt intrusion and oversight of my inalienable rights?
never will happen, NEVER "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

[packs]

hahha, so tyranny, oppression, govt intrusion and oversight of my inalienable rights?
never will happen, NEVER "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

How can you say that when it already exists? Convicted felons can't purchase a firearm and are barred from owning one. So that would be an infringement and an oversight. That's just one example. You’re protective of your rights and you should be, but an inalienable right can still be regulated and your rights preserved.

[clydepepper]

maybe enforcing the gun laws we already have?

maybe actually following through when agencies get reports of strange and dangerous behavior ?

maybe securing schools and eliminating "gun free zones?"

why is a courthouse and other govt buildings riddled with armed security (and our politicians) but not schools?

why not deal with the problems instead of trying to take away the rights of citizens.

you may not believe that this is the goal, but it's obvious to any defender of our constitution that abolition is the long term goal of those who oppose the 2nd amendment.


ETA: once again you use the word "assault weapon" please define what it is, in detail

ETTA: why is it surprising that I don't own guns yet defend the rights of my fellow americans? are you only interested in the bill of rights when it applies to you?



Nick- I totally agree with you on the need to enforce existing laws. There is a possibility that doing so would, by itself, resolve the problem...yes, there is a chance.

This is why it is important that more people registered to vote. With incumbents being so tied to Special Interest Groups and Lobbyists, it is going to take a great deal of folks interested in the common good to even get existing laws enforced, the prospect of passing more enforceable versions of those laws would be even harder.

Your second point is a very important one...everyone should be alert to any strange or dangerous activities. Any follow-up on such reports, IMO, should be tempered with the fact that those folks being observed could still be completely innocent of what is 'perceived' to be dangerous and strange, in itself, is not a threat.


The time has come for a new generation to select leaders and representatives who are not only sincerely interested in their needs, but are actually tied to them, body and soul.


Thanks, Nick - for expressing yourself...I hope we are producing something here.

[bravos4evr]

How can you say that when it already exists? Convicted felons can't purchase a firearm and are barred from owning one. So that would be an infringement and an oversight. That's just one example. You’re protective of your rights and you should be, but an inalienable right can still be regulated and your rights preserved.

but they din't even enforce the laws we DO have, I see no reason to think that more will do better "this time ,you watch, we will enforce the laws!"

and just because you regulated before does not mean you get to again. I am not willing to make the mistakes of 1934 and 1994 again.


ETA: we aren't talking about convicted felons, we are talking about your attempts to besmirch the rights protected by our constitution for law abiding citizens.

[bravos4evr]

Nick- I totally agree with you on the need to enforce existing laws. There is a possibility that doing so would, by itself, resolve the problem...yes, there is a chance.

This is why it is important that more people registered to vote. With incumbents being so tied to Special Interest Groups and Lobbyists, it is going to take a great deal of folks interested in the common good to even get existing laws enforced, the prospect of passing more enforceable versions of those laws would be even harder.

Your second point is a very important one...everyone should be alert to any strange or dangerous activities. Any follow-up on such reports, IMO, should be tempered with the fact that those folks being observed could still be completely innocent of what is 'perceived' to be dangerous and strange, in itself, is not a threat.


The time has come for a new generation to select leaders and representatives who are not only sincerely interested in their needs, but are actually tied to them, body and soul.


Thanks, Nick - for expressing yourself...I hope we are producing something here.


term limits would help, no reason that federal politician should be a career


enforcing the laws,as I said, including follow ups on felons, harsh penalties for prior felons caught with guns and being firm on "straw purchases" (when a non-felon buys a gun for a felon to subvert the law)

when law enforcement gets told about troubled people, maybe they should look into it. not use it as a catch all to strip gun rights without due process or anything, but at least take a gander? maybe?

[bravos4evr]

All this being said, there is no law to stop mass shootings. Not in a nation this free, this vast and this populated. Norway has strict laws and that Andres Brevik guy killed 70+ in one day .....

The truth is, mass shootings are a tiny part of gun violence, but the one most feasted in by the media. why no outrage over black on black violence in our inner cities via guns? after suicide they are the #1 category of gun violence in the nation!

ETA: top 3 categories of gun deaths are suicide, gang/criminal on criminal violence, and domestic violence. the rest are a very tiny part of our nation's crime (and semi-auto rifles are a tiny part of that)

[chlankf]

The issues with gun control are not the guns but with the was children are raised, desensitization of minds and the media.

I have been an avid shooter and sportsman since 5 years old. I was raised with guns in the open in my home. Difference is I was educated on safety, use and history. I was the state championship in marksmanship with a rifle at 11 and then again with a shotgun for trap and skeet at 13. My family takes opening day of pheasant and deer season off each year. BTW, hunting is not just sport. I do fill a freezer and feed my family for a year with my harvests, and yes at times I use a semi-automatic shotgun.

Families don't sit down for dinner each night, play board games or spend the quality time together as in the past. We see horrible images in pop culture that would have shocked our grandparents. The media makes sure that they get the highest ratings by replying over and over again tragedies across the globe. Here is the root of the problems that plague our country. The gun issues are not global but local. Why? Family values and upbringing. Unfortunately, we can't parent all the children that have a lacking home life but small steps can help. Turn off or disconnect the cable/dish TV, shut off the Xbox and power down the PC. Buy a firearm, learn to safely use and teach your children the same and finally get a permit to carry. These sick humans wouldn't think of harming our children if the entire lawful community was armed.

I know this is a pipe dream that Americans way of life will de-evolve to a simpler way but one can hope.

Sorry for the long rant.

Craig

[bravos4evr]

Hey Craig, legit question from someone who has never done shotgun shooting.

what is the difference between trap and skeet?

thanks, and thank you for your support of the 2nd Amendment!

[chlankf]

Trap:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/beginners-guide-to-trap-shooting

Skeet:
https://mynssa.nssa-nsca.org/skeet-basics/

[clydepepper]

term limits would help, no reason that federal politician should be a career


enforcing the laws,as I said, including follow ups on felons, harsh penalties for prior felons caught with guns and being firm on "straw purchases" (when a non-felon buys a gun for a felon to subvert the law)

when law enforcement gets told about troubled people, maybe they should look into it. not use it as a catch all to strip gun rights without due process or anything, but at least take a gander? maybe?



More Good Stuff, Nick. Very Much Appreciated!

[steve B]

So, what's your idea to reduce mass shootings?

Disabling giant fonts?

[clydepepper]

Disabling giant fonts?



Thanks Steve- We can all use a little chuckle here and there.

[bravos4evr]

Trap:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/beginners-guide-to-trap-shooting

Skeet:
https://mynssa.nssa-nsca.org/skeet-basics/

well I'll be! all this time what I thought was skeet was trap!

I thought that the clay targets high in the air was skeet, but that is when they are low to simulate low bird flight right?

[chlankf]

well I'll be! all this time what I thought was skeet was trap!

I thought that the clay targets high in the air was skeet, but that is when they are low to simulate low bird flight right?


The high house only angles up slightly and the low house rises a bit more.

[JustinD]

Not going to launch any volleys either way but will tell you that the if the op was impressed by the school walkouts many were a sham.

Many schools have an agenda to push on this topic. I can tell you with 100% certainty that my sons school made this walkout nonsense required of students and invited the local news to broadcast. My family is historically sportsmen and I was a competitive marksman until tremors caused by chemo kept me from continuing.

My son did not wish to participate because of his thoughts but was told there was not a choice. This was a common issue with many local schools.

Knowing this, I have no faith in the whole nonsense.

[bravos4evr]

not a choice? boy I would sue those commie xxxxers for $10m

[clydepepper]

Not going to launch any volleys either way but will tell you that the if the op was impressed by the school walkouts many were a sham.

Many schools have an agenda to push on this topic. I can tell you with 100% certainty that my sons school made this walkout nonsense required of students and invited the local news to broadcast. My family is historically sportsmen and I was a competitive marksman until tremors caused by chemo kept me from continuing.

My son did not wish to participate because of his thoughts but was told there was not a choice. This was a common issue with many local schools.

Knowing this, I have no faith in the whole nonsense.



This reply is not by the official OP, I'm just the guy who 'hijacked' the thread.


Justin- I'm not that naïve...I was just trying to keep the discussion positive and productive.

I agree with you that neither school walkouts nor (IMO) any social-related group expressions should be mandatory...that defeats the entire purpose and automatically invalidates any results if there are any.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and your experience.

-Raymond

[vintagetoppsguy]

I, too, am proud of our youth...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/31/students-at-florida-high-school-stage-walkout-in-support-second-amendment.html

[vintagetoppsguy]

I, too, am proud of our youth...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/31/students-at-florida-high-school-stage-walkout-in-support-second-amendment.html

And other one in Colorado yesterday...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/05/colorado-students-feeling-silenced-by-pro-gun-control-activists-hold-second-amendment-rally.html

[barrysloate]

Both sides are free to march for whatever position they support. No student should be forced to march for something he doesn't believe in.

[Jim65]

My son did not wish to participate because of his thoughts but was told there was not a choice. This was a common issue with many local schools.

Knowing this, I have no faith in the whole nonsense.

Why isn't the ACLU all over these schools for this? One can only guess lol

[vintagetoppsguy]

Let's all support our youth this morning...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/05/02/pro-second-amendment-students-hold-nationwide-school-walkout.html

[gopherfan]

Oh boy- I am going to have to give myself a warning after this.....but let's try to keep it constructive and professional. Here goes :)

That is not the way the vast majority of liberals (95+%?) feel, from what I have seen. But it is the way many conservatives keep trying to provide a false narrative of the other side. They lump all opposing their view into an ALL or Nothing category and it's simply not that way. Almost all liberals, and conservatives too actually, want guns but they want gun reform. I am on that side. It's really all that can be done to try to lessen the amount of these catastrophes we have. Kudo's to the kiddo's for speaking up. That said they might give some ideas on what to do, while they are at it. I have seen very few saying exactly what would be better except for the background checks and outlawing a few weapons.
.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.145a78c0fb93

Sorry Leon, but you need to get out and talk to more liberals.:)

[Leon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/?utm_term=.145a78c0fb93

Sorry Leon, but you need to get out and talk to more liberals.:)

I was being nice, no thanks.

ps..I should add that many of my best hobby friends are very left and we get along great. I will compromise so we both win!!

and from the article, even though it says the percent might have decreased...

In 1999, for instance, a Hearst Newspapers poll found that 59 percent of respondents said they did not know the purpose of the Second Amendment.

lastly I am a giving myself an informal infraction as there shouldn't be politics talk on the board. :) The gun debate shouldn't be politicized, as said many times.
.

[Snapolit1]

I won't take a position here . . . having stupidly interjected politics into a few posts out of frustrations and immediately regretted it. . . . .

but I will say I have ZERO respect for anyone who criticizes anyone, young or old, black or white, smart or not so smart, from getting off their azzes and turning the TV set off and protesting something they are not happy about. Citizens of the US should be involved and actively voicing their views. That's what people have fought for. Freedom of speech, expression, and association. If you have a problem with PEACEFUL protests, I'd be happy to send you a one way ticket to Cuba or Iran.



I was being nice, no thanks.

ps..I should add that many of my best hobby friends are very left and we get along great. I will compromise so we both win!!

and from the article, even though it says the percent might have decreased...

In 1999, for instance, a Hearst Newspapers poll found that 59 percent of respondents said they did not know the purpose of the Second Amendment.

lastly I am a giving myself an informal infraction as there shouldn't be politics talk on the board. :) The gun debate shouldn't be politicized, as said many times.
.

[Jim65]

Hell, if I choose to criticize people who are trying to take away my rights, nobody will ever tell me I have to leave my country for doing so.

[EvilKing00]

so much wrong with this post, time to break it down:



and they will be just as ineffective, protests are a tired monument to the delusional wasteland of the 60's that is half of our nation's issues today



please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.

They aren't prevalent , not at all, of the 36k annual gun deaths in the USA 20k of those are suicide, and the majority of the remaining are the result of gang violence, only a tiny % are due to "mass shootings" gun control has been proven to show it won't do one tiny thing to that % either, as anyone determined to kill a lot of people is not going to be stopped by a gun law

why isn't the media reporting this accurately? hmmmm?




A- no mass shooting in the history of the USA has been done by an automatic weapon, semi-auto sure, but not a fully automatic, so ,by proxy, not one single "assault weapon" has been used in a school shooting either.

B- fully automatic weapons are expensive to buy (grandfathered in relics that cost tens of thousands) and require a year's wait and more $$$ in tax stamps and fees.

C- AR-15 is not high powered, nor fully automatic, nor a military weapon, nor an assault rifle, it's a moderate to low powered semi-automatic, varmint and home protection weapon. It looks scary because of it's cool tactical garb, but underneath the weapon itself is just a hunting rifle with a magazine

D- did the founding fathers plan for the computer and mass media ? so does your first amendment rights to freedom of speech end with the quill and ink? that's a fallacious and silly argument, (and btw, they knew of gatlin gun type weapons and the early attempts at semi-auto)





times may change, but my natural rights to protect myself with firearms does not, neither does the power of my constitution, want to change it? fine, follow the rules and pass an amendment, get it through 2/3rds of Congress and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Something tells me you KNOW this will never happen as 100m+ gun owners would oppose you 100%.





You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

Perfect post A+++

[KMayUSA6060]

Son of a gun (see what I did there? :rolleyes:). I get busy outside of the hobby, visit this site less often over the past couple of months, and I miss the start of this thread. Let's dig into the entire picture here, boys. :D


so much wrong with this post, time to break it down:

and they will be just as ineffective, protests are a tired monument to the delusional wasteland of the 60's that is half of our nation's issues today

please explain how a bunch of dumb children marching is going to stop one angry, crazy person from killing a lot of people in the future. please, I'd love to hear it.

They aren't prevalent , not at all, of the 36k annual gun deaths in the USA 20k of those are suicide, and the majority of the remaining are the result of gang violence, only a tiny % are due to "mass shootings" gun control has been proven to show it won't do one tiny thing to that % either, as anyone determined to kill a lot of people is not going to be stopped by a gun law

why isn't the media reporting this accurately? hmmmm?

A- no mass shooting in the history of the USA has been done by an automatic weapon, semi-auto sure, but not a fully automatic, so ,by proxy, not one single "assault weapon" has been used in a school shooting either.

B- fully automatic weapons are expensive to buy (grandfathered in relics that cost tens of thousands) and require a year's wait and more $$$ in tax stamps and fees.

C- AR-15 is not high powered, nor fully automatic, nor a military weapon, nor an assault rifle, it's a moderate to low powered semi-automatic, varmint and home protection weapon. It looks scary because of it's cool tactical garb, but underneath the weapon itself is just a hunting rifle with a magazine

D- did the founding fathers plan for the computer and mass media ? so does your first amendment rights to freedom of speech end with the quill and ink? that's a fallacious and silly argument, (and btw, they knew of gatlin gun type weapons and the early attempts at semi-auto)

times may change, but my natural rights to protect myself with firearms does not, neither does the power of my constitution, want to change it? fine, follow the rules and pass an amendment, get it through 2/3rds of Congress and have it ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Something tells me you KNOW this will never happen as 100m+ gun owners would oppose you 100%.

You need to learn about guns before you make one more statement about them as you come off as woefully ignorant of the issue and are making naive and embarrassing cliche'd arguments.

First, let's start with this post, as it is phenomenal. I do have a few things/details to add...

- AR (as in AR15 or AR10) stands for ArmaLite, not Assault Rifle. Assault is an action, not a tangible item.

- AR15s can be powerful if chambered in something bigger than the traditional 5.56 or .223. I know Alexander Arms has a 50 Beowulf AR15, there is a .458 SOCOM AR15 - those are both hard hitting, powerful rounds. However, to my knowledge, no shooting in the US has ever utilized those rounds, or any round bigger than the 5.56/.223. Those larger-caliber AR15s and AR10s - chambered in 7.62/.308 - are more powerful than the traditional AR15, but are also more expensive, thus the use of the 5.56/.223. I mention this because AR15s can definitely be higher powered, but the mass shootings everyone points to use the lower-powered calibers.

- The estimated number of civilian-owned firearms in this country is over 300 million. That's estimated to be around 42% of the world's civilian gun ownership total. America rocks. If guns were a problem, this country and the world would know it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now for my thoughts...

- I am not proud of our youth for their sheepish protests; the majority are following, ignorantly following to boot. I'm even more disappointed in our "educators" for not pressing them on the issues. I emailed my high school's principal and superintendent when I heard that they allowed a walkout. I challenged them to challenge the students, because that is their job. The students have the right to protest, but as educators, they should be challenging the students to prevent protest in ignorance. I asked them if they challenged the students to research the group Empower (the one who started the mass school walkout protests) and its origins. I asked if they questioned the students on what AR stands for, and what a semi-automatic rifle is and how it functions compared to a bolt-action rifle and fully automatic rifle. I asked if they were challenging the kids on the type of legislation they are pushing for and how it would prevent any previous mass shootings, and any future mass shootings. I asked if they were questioning the kids on the details of the Parkland shooting.

- It has been 1.5-2 months since the Parkland shooting, and we're finding out more and more about the negligence of our government which enabled the shooting to occur. Cruz and his brother had been known to law enforcement over 40 times (I think the number is up to 60), including a YouTube comment under Cruz's name literally stating that he wants to become a professional school shooter. Cruz was then permitted into the PROMISE program, a program designed to limit the number of arrests of youth, to lower the uneven number of minorities vs. white youth in jail or whatever. I believe the superintendent of the school system down there implemented the program; he is from politically-corrupt Chicago. Had Cruz been properly documented and not protected by law enforcement and such a program, he never would have been able to purchase a firearm. Strike 1 against our government.

- We now know that the school resource officer AND the law enforcement that arrived on scene failed to engage Cruz during the shooting. In fact, they stayed outside the building, and didn't arrest Cruz until he had left school grounds. Strike 2 against our government.

- The most common denominator/factor of most - if not all - mass shootings is medication. Cruz and nearly - again, if not all - mass shooters have been on some sort of anti-depressent/anxiety medication. Who is in charge of our healthcare system? The government. However, I have yet to see a protest against the over/improper prescription of these medications. Strike 3.

I mentioned 3 issues with the shooting, not one of which was the firearm itself. Someone has to pull the trigger on a firearm for a projectile to be fired.

We have common sense gun laws in this country already. It's up to the government officials to properly enforce those laws, which they did not with Parkland.

Additionally, to direct the attention back onto our youth, I believe they are being used as puppets by the establishment and the media to push an agenda. They won't give pro-2A-Parkland-survivor Kyle Kashuv the time of day, but will parade David Hogg and pro-Cuba Emma Gonzalez onto their networks 24/7.

Also, who is challenging these youth "protesters" how their proposed legislation will actually work and prevent mass shootings? They're just letting them spew ignorant talking points.

Here's what I propose...

- Hire former law enforcement and military veterans to be armed guards at schools.

- Arm the teachers in a voluntary manner, while providing proper training. Cut funding elsewhere, most likely athletically, to balance the expenses and not burden taxpayers any further.

- Overhaul the education system to get back to the fundamental essentials that used to be taught - i.e. life lessons, skilled labor education, and basic morals - instead of the social justice indoctrination and bloated emphasis on "testing" currently found in our school systems (again, run by government).

- Target drug smugglers and dealers HARD to get drugs off the streets. This should help prevent addiction problems at an early age, as well as stabilize the traditional family.

- Keep improving the economy, measuring our welfare programs by the number of people coming off. Again, this should help stabilize the traditional family, thus giving our youth a more stable upbringing.


I'm not a Republican, I'm not a Democrat; I am an American, and a proud one at that. Therefore, my beliefs center around the Constitution, a blessing from our Founding Fathers and God Himself in response to a war for freedom against a tyrannical government. That's why the Second Amendment is written, that's why it's so high on the list, and that's why it includes the phrase "shall not be infringed".


I didn't read all of the posts in this thread, so I apologize if any of this has been stated before.

[packs]

The federal government and local government are two separate entities and your post is blurring the lines between them in several areas. Our government is not the government of Florida unless you live in Florida. People aren't corrupt by default because of where they come from (Chicago, for example) and you don't really give any credit to high school students being able to think for themselves. You are simultaneously suggesting these kids are victims of group think while also suggesting they should think the way you do. That's a contradiction.

[KMayUSA6060]

The federal government and local government are two separate entities and your post is blurring the lines between them in several areas. Our government is not the government of Florida unless you live in Florida. People aren't corrupt by default because of where they come from (Chicago, for example) and you don't really give any credit to high school students being able to think for themselves. You are simultaneously suggesting these kids are victims of group think while also suggesting they should think the way you do. That's a contradiction.

- Not sure where I blurred the lines between the two. Both the FBI and local law enforcement were aware of Cruz.

- Not sure what your point is about our government not being Florida's government. So are only people from Florida allowed to comment on this matter?

- You're right, people aren't corrupt by default because of where they are from. However, context clues, a track record of corruption, and common sense tells us not to trust politicians, let alone from Chicago. By the way, Chicago is a perfect example of gun control being not only ineffective, but detrimental to the public's safety.

- I refuse to give credit for their ability to think for themselves when the original school walkout was organized by Empower, not individual students. I've also seen many interviews that suggest they are very uneducated on the subjects they are bringing attention to.

- They are absolutely victims of group think, but I do not want them to think like me. I want them to have all of the facts, something I know for a fact they aren't provided with in school, and simply for them to think. If they end up thinking like me in the end, fine, but I just want them to think.


Instead of trying to (incorrectly) nit-pick any sort of semantics in my post and try to demean me politically, do you have any comments on my suggestions to prevent future mass shootings?

[packs]

I wasn't demeaning you at all. I just thought it's important to distinguish between generalities. For example, you had said our government gets a strike because the guard on duty and local law enforcement didn't enter the school. That's not a strike against our government, that's a strike against two individuals who work for local law enforcement.

[KMayUSA6060]

I wasn't demeaning you at all. I just thought it's important to distinguish between generalities. For example, you had said our government gets a strike because the guard on duty and local law enforcement didn't enter the school. That's not a strike against our government, that's a strike against two individuals who work for local law enforcement.

This just single-handily ended this entire debate (albeit with an incorrect statement since there were more than 2 security/law enforcement individuals that did not enter the building).

Blame the individual, not the government, which could also be re-worded for this discussion.

Blame the individual, not the gun.

[packs]

I wasn't debating. I was pointing out generalities in your post, like the one referenced above, a person being corrupt by default because of where they're from, and you not giving people credit for their own thoughts.

I guess I wasn't clear either: "our government" isn't the government of Florida, which is who those enforcement agents work for. So our government played no role in the local officials failing to enter the building, who are part of Florida's state and local government agencies.

[tiger8mush]

... do you have any comments on my suggestions to prevent future mass shootings?

"Arm the teachers in a voluntary manner, while providing proper training. Cut funding elsewhere, most likely athletically, to balance the expenses and not burden taxpayers any further".

While I do like your suggestions, in general, I personally place a very high value on youth athletics. I know my town does spend a lot of money on youth sports, but a lot of it is also parents volunteering (coaching/concession stand/running the leagues/maintaining fields) and donations from sponsors. I rank kids being active higher than arming the teachers, if I was in charge of portioning money.

And I'm also torn on whether to arm the teachers. Good points have been made for/against it, so while I'd be open to it, I wouldn't "pull the trigger" (bad pun, sorry) if I were in charge of making the decision.

[KMayUSA6060]

I wasn't debating. I was pointing out generalities in your post, like the one referenced above, a person being corrupt by default because of where they're from, and you not giving people credit for their own thoughts.

I guess I wasn't clear either: "our government" isn't the government of Florida, which is who those enforcement agents work for. So our government played no role in the day's failings of local officials who are part of Florida's government agencies.

I actually never stated that he was corrupt. I inferred it based on the corruption in Chicago, but that's well known and documented. Again, these aren't the thoughts of individuals, but rather the thoughts of a group being followed by the students, largely in a blind manner. I can't in good conscious give credit for that.

The FBI is the FEDERAL Bureau of Investigation, and were tipped off on Cruz. They were well involved, and failed to do their job. Whether it be a Florida office location or not, they are still part of the federal government. Additionally, again speaking in a general sense, I talked about the flaws in our education system, which stem from the Department of Education, a federal department.

"Arm the teachers in a voluntary manner, while providing proper training. Cut funding elsewhere, most likely athletically, to balance the expenses and not burden taxpayers any further".

While I do like your suggestions, in general, I personally place a very high value on youth athletics. I know my town does spend a lot of money on youth sports, but a lot of it is also parents volunteering (coaching/concession stand/running the leagues/maintaining fields) and donations from sponsors. I rank kids being active higher than arming the teachers, if I was in charge of portioning money.

And I'm also torn on whether to arm the teachers. Good points have been made for/against it, so while I'd be open to it, I wouldn't "pull the trigger" (bad pun, sorry) if I were in charge of making the decision.

I agree on finding other ways in the budget or other ways in general to fund the training for teachers, as I like school athletics as well. I only said athletics because it's the least detrimental to the academics side of school.

I'm not for arming all teachers. Like I said, it would have to be done in a voluntary manner. There are many teachers that are military veterans, and with others being gun enthusiasts (see Hickock45 on YouTube). I think those are the type of people who would make a great second line of defense.

[clydepepper]

It ALL comes down to personal responsibility and accountability.

THAT, IMO, covers the entire discussion!


I cannot believe that anyone would argue against that, but you probably will.


...and, that, is the world we live in...

[KMayUSA6060]

I wasn't debating. I was pointing out generalities in your post, like the one referenced above, a person being corrupt by default because of where they're from, and you not giving people credit for their own thoughts.

I guess I wasn't clear either: "our government" isn't the government of Florida, which is who those enforcement agents work for. So our government played no role in the local officials failing to enter the building, who are part of Florida's state and local government agencies.

http://abc7chicago.com/politics/report-chicago-most-corrupt-city-in-us/3478310/

[packs]

Again I really have no idea what you're trying to say. So if you're just some guy born in Chicago it's totally acceptable to make pre-conceived judgments about your character?

[ALR-bishop]

Maybe, if that person is a Cub fan :)

[Touch'EmAll]

Friday morning 5/18 news - "At least 8 dead at a Texas high school this morning." Gasp!

[KMayUSA6060]

Absolutely horrific news. Not to mention it's still very much an active scene, despite suspects in custody, due to explosives at the school and off school grounds.

[vintagetoppsguy]

This one hits really close to home. I grew up in the next town over. I just checked MapQuest from my mom's house to the high school - 8 minutes, 6.3 miles. Very sad.

[barrysloate]

Sorry for those such as David who live so close to this tragedy. I feel terrible for kids today who have to deal with something that was unimaginable when I was in high school.

[Kenny Cole]

If you're speaking for the opposition, then I have a question. You tell us what they don't want (abolition of the 2nd Ammendment), but how about telling us what the do want? All I hear from the left are vague terms like "gun control measures." What does that even mean?

I think that's what makes a lot of gun owners nervous. When the left isn't specific about what they want, then how is the right supposed to interpret that, other than a total gun ban? Again, if that's not what they want, then tell us what they do want. Be specific.

I don't know if I'm right or left anymore. I am registered as a Republican, although I never vote that way because I think that, at least in my state, they have moved too far right. I consider myself to be a moderate and here, that means you vote Dem and know that you are going to lose. It is what it is. Leon, that isn't really political. It's just a statement of how I view things.

I have guns, although not so many as I used to since I don' do much but bird hunt any more, Don't even own a handgun anymore. Just a couple of shotguns and deer rifles, I can tell you one thing I want though. I want the gun show loophole to be closed. I don't think anyone should be able to walk in to a gun show, buy a gun, and walk out with it right then without any scrutiny. That is ridiculous in my opinion So are bump stocks and banana clips. That isn't for self-defense and it isn't for hunting. That's just for killing folks. There is no other reason than to shoot faster and with more bullets.

Irrespective of party or viewpoint on guns, it is a fact that our kids are getting killed in the schools they go to. As of today, 22 school shootings in 20 weeks. That is way fucked up. Kids, and parents, should be able to expect that when they leave for school, they will actually be able to come back alive. That isn't happening. Then we offer our prayers and forget about it two days later. That is simply wrong. Period. I get that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Right, But people with guns can kill other people far more quickly and far more effectively. Therein lies the problem.

Just like every constitutional provision, the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you absolute right to own any weapon you want. For example, you don't get to own nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. Explain how your second amendment rights guarantee you that right as you are being cuffed and carted off to jail by the FBI or ATF. I don't think you can. Nor do I think you will be exonerated. Why do you need an AR? I have hunted all my life and have never owned, used, or felt I needed, an AR. Obviously I'm missing something.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be repealed, although if you look at the historical basis for its passage, it seems pretty clear that the primary reason it was passed no longer exists . Be that as it may, I'm certainly not advocating that. I am advocating that we do stuff, like serious background checks, getting rid of the gun show loophole, and that we restrict bump stocks and huge clips. Unlike the NRA, I don't think that's unreasonable. I just want my kids to be safe.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Even the NRA wasn't always anti gun-control. In most of our lifetimes the NRA advocated FOR gun control.

In the 1930s, the NRA helped pass bills that regulated submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns, banned some gun buyers and made gun dealers register with the government. Its cooperation continued following the political and racial assassinations of the 1960s.

In the 1970s, the NRA’s public image began to change after a law-breaking member was killed by an ATF agent. In 1977, it adopted a policy opposing all forms of gun control. Despite this, after the attempt on NRA member President Ronald Reagan’s life, the NRA reluctantly supported the 1994 Brady Bill, which required a waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases. The bill included a 10-year ban on assault weapons. When the ban expired in 2004, the NRA had gained enough political clout to prevent its renewal.

Do a search on the worst mass shootings in US history. Take note of how many occurred after those key dates. Namely 1977 and 2004 the results might or might not shock you.

The NRA being bought and paid for by big business, which is in turn buying and paying for our politicians is the problem, and frankly I don't see that as a political opinion, but maybe I'm being naive.

I'll leave you with this thought, from a former president of the NRA Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship:

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

So where does the modern NRA attitude come from???

Probably a dumb post to make for someone in business, and my intent isn't to piss off one side or please the other. Merely to call attention to the fact that games are being played and our children are apparently the expendable pawns on the board.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I don’t understand what the NRA has to do with any of this? Until the REAL problem is addressed, these mass shootings – at schools, at movie theaters, at malls, wherever – will continue to happen.

The REAL problem is the individuals involved – not the guns. Reasonable gun owners like myself have been saying for a long time that you don’t need to have an assault rifle to carry out these types of horrific tragedies. The kid yesterday didn’t have an assault rifle. He had a shotgun (just like Kenny has, just like I have) and a .38 revolver (the SAME gun my 89 year old grandmother has for home defense - seriously).

Drunk drivers kill way more people than mass shooters. But when we hear about a drunk driver killing an entire family, we don’t blame the alcohol, we blame the driver. We don’t try and put restrictions on the alcohol, we make the DWI penalties more strict to try and prevent it.

So what’s next? Ban shotguns and .38 revolvers too? Blame the NRA some more? Like I said, these things will keep happening and we’ll all send our thoughts and prayers to the victims and their families over and over and over again. Flags will be lowered to half staff for a few days and then people will forget about it until the next time. Nothing will change. The change will only come when we stop trying to blame the guns and start blaming the individuals who commit these tragedies

Y’all can just keep making your same old talking points, blame the NRA, ban this or that and one day you may even get your way. But that doesn’t get rid of the 300 million guns that are already out there. People who want to commit these types of tragedies will find a way. Again, until the REAL problem is addressed, nothing will change no matter what guns laws are imposed.

Deal with the ones that have mental health issues. They're the REAL problem. When the cops are called to a house 30+ times, there is a mental health issue there. When some kid posts a “Born to Kill” t-shirt on Facebook (the kid yesterday), there is a mental health issue there. These people aren’t hard to spot. They’re quite easy. The problem is nobody wants to do anything about it because we’re too afraid we'll infringe on their rights. Bull crap! Find the ones with mental health issues – no treatment facilities – just lock them up until the day the die.

[Kenny Cole]

David,

I don't disagree with much of what you said, but I sure disagree with some of it. I disagree about the NRA not having anything to do with what's going on. It has a lot to do with it IMO. The NRA leads the charge against closing the gun show loophole, which is the exception that swallows the rule. You go to the right gun dealer at a gun show and you can be a felon, convicted of murder or any other heinous crime, and walk away with a gun THAT DAY. You can be crazy as a run over dog and get a gun that day too. And, of course, anytime that someone who is viewed as a "liberal" gets elected, gun sales go up because the NRA and the gun dealers do their best to exploit what I view as the irrational fear that the government is going to come take all the guns away. None of that makes any sense at all to me.

If you allow your underage kid and his friends to drink at your house and one of those drunk kids leaves your house and kills a family on the way home, its your ass. And it should be. However, if you leave your guns accessible to your kids or their friends, even if you know that they may have mental heath issues, its OK. You are good to go. The NRA is instrumental in letting negligent gun owners get off without repercussions. Legislation can't get passed because the NRA gets it killed. Nothing happens. That doesn't make sense to me either.

I agree that mental illness is a huge problem. Its a problem that we as a society have never addressed very well. In nearly every state, the mental health agencies are among the most underfunded. They don't have the resources or the capacity to address the problem. Here, the "solution" is to dump them out on the street in some city other than the one they came from and let someone else deal with them. That isn't much of a solution.

I disagree that those with a mental illness are always easy to spot. The shooter yesterday had no past history that would put him on the radar screen of either mental health professionals or law enforcement He was part of a church dance group for goodness sake. Sometimes you can spot someone with a problem, but not always. Even the friends of yesterday's shooter didn't see the signs. And if the government overtly starts monitoring everyone's social media posts (which I suspect it already does covertly) and then tries to take action against those who it deems problematic, you have very big First Amendment and Second Amendment issue. Do you or should you lose your right to own a gun because you make disturbing social media posts?

I don't have the answers. But something has to be done. We have to do better by our kids. They shouldn't have to worry about dying when they go to school. The very fact that our kids now have to go through active shooter drills at school is nearly beyond my ability to comprehend.

We can't outlaw cars because they are necessary in nearly every facet of life. But we regulate them. If you speed and get caught you get a ticket. If you don't belt up and get caught, you get a ticket. If you drive drunk and get caught you go to jail. In fact, unlike years past, there is now a great emphasis on publicizing and preventing drunk driving precisely because we, as a society, finally got to the point where we said enough is enough. Do those regulations infringe on my rights? Maybe. But they also make a lot of sense. They hopefully remind not to be a dumbass when I drive and help protect both me and the other drivers on the road. I'm OK with that.

I'm not advocating outlawing guns. Never have, never would. But for God's sake, there is no reason I can think of why we shouldn't at least try to do a better job of regulating both them and the people who own them. Just like voting, I have always thought that gun ownership was both a right AND a responsibility. Particularly now, I feel like the argument about the right to own guns far outweighs the responsibility part. In my estimation, it should be the other way around.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I'm at work today, but I wanted to make some quick comments.

You go to the right gun dealer at a gun show and you can be a felon, convicted of murder or any other heinous crime, and walk away with a gun THAT DAY..

As far as the gun show loophole, I've honestly never heard of what you're describing. A licensed gun dealer isn't going to risk losing their license for a few dollars under the table. On the other hand, a felon (or anybody) can go into a gun show and buy a gun from an individual attending the show without any paperwork. If that's what you meant instead, then I agree that needs to be stopped.

The shooter yesterday had no past history that would put him on the radar screen of either mental health professionals or law enforcement.

As I already stated, this guy posted a pic of a t-shirt (I don't know if he was wearing the shirt or not) on his Facebook page that said "Born to Kill". That is a red flag. He was known for wearing a trench coat. A trench coat in the Texas summer? It was hot as hell here yesterday! That's not a red flag too? Guess who else wore trench coats in the summertime? Sure, he had no past history, but do we wait for them to have a "history" to do something about them?

Do you or should you lose your right to own a gun because you make disturbing social media posts?

YES!

[KMayUSA6060]

*Cracks knuckles in preparation to type... a lot*

I want the gun show loophole to be closed. I don't think anyone should be able to walk in to a gun show, buy a gun, and walk out with it right then without any scrutiny. That is ridiculous in my opinion So are bump stocks and banana clips. That isn't for self-defense and it isn't for hunting. That's just for killing folks. There is no other reason than to shoot faster and with more bullets.

But people with guns can kill other people far more quickly and far more effectively. Therein lies the problem.

Just like every constitutional provision, the 2nd amendment doesn't guarantee you absolute right to own any weapon you want. Why do you need an AR? I have hunted all my life and have never owned, used, or felt I needed, an AR. Obviously I'm missing something.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the 2nd Amendment be repealed, although if you look at the historical basis for its passage, it seems pretty clear that the primary reason it was passed no longer exists . Be that as it may, I'm certainly not advocating that. I am advocating that we do stuff, like serious background checks, getting rid of the gun show loophole, and that we restrict bump stocks and huge clips. Unlike the NRA, I don't think that's unreasonable. I just want my kids to be safe.

- Most if not all firearms dealers at gun shows are licensed, meaning to purchase a firearm, you have to fill out a 4473, go through the NICS background check process, etc. Also, what mass shooting has been carried out using a gun legally purchased at a gun show? And what is a "serious" background check, compared to the very thorough background check system that is currently in place? What is a banana clip? Do you mean an AR magazine? Would banning those "banana clips" (AR magazines) have prevented Santa Fe? Bump stocks aren't a problem, either. They're incredibly inaccurate, can destroy the guns they're attached to, and can be mimicked very easily using your thumb or household items.

- Yeah, just like an assault buggy (I mean vehicle) plowing through a crowd, or a knife attack against defenseless people, or a bomb attack using an assault pot (I mean a pressure cooker), or a plane using an assault bird (I mean plane). Boston Bombings, 9/11, NYC Home Depot Truck, London's knife attack problem & vehicular terrorism problem, etc.

- What's so bad about an AR15? Mine has never killed a single living thing. I must have gotten lucky and purchased an already-well-trained AR15. In all seriousness, would banning AR15s have prevented Santa Fe? What about the AR15's mechanical components and functionality differs it from any other semi-automatic weapons? You have the freedom to choose not to on an AR15, and I will not advocate to take that freedom away from you. But why, in return, do people advocate to take my RIGHT to own an AR15? Heck, I actually want an AR10 here soon. Helluva lot of fun to shoot, and WAY more powerful than an AR15. Then again, I'm a lawful individual, and would only ever shoot someone or a living thing in self defense with it (unless I take it hunting, but I prefer a classic bolt action for hunting; just a personal preference).

- Actually, you're wrong. There have been several political figures and celebrities who have come out against the 2nd Amendment altogether, pushing for its repeal. The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to protect its citizens against a tyrannical government. That is a timeless purpose, proven true over and over again by people like Hitler, Mao, Kim Jung Un, Stalin, Castro, etc. And please don't bring the NRA into this. Not one single individual that has committed a mass shooting has been a NRA member. The background check system that's currently in place was proposed by the NRA.

Even the NRA wasn't always anti gun-control. In most of our lifetimes the NRA advocated FOR gun control.

In the 1930s, the NRA helped pass bills that regulated submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns, banned some gun buyers and made gun dealers register with the government. Its cooperation continued following the political and racial assassinations of the 1960s.

In the 1970s, the NRA’s public image began to change after a law-breaking member was killed by an ATF agent. In 1977, it adopted a policy opposing all forms of gun control. Despite this, after the attempt on NRA member President Ronald Reagan’s life, the NRA reluctantly supported the 1994 Brady Bill, which required a waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases. The bill included a 10-year ban on assault weapons. When the ban expired in 2004, the NRA had gained enough political clout to prevent its renewal.

Do a search on the worst mass shootings in US history. Take note of how many occurred after those key dates. Namely 1977 and 2004 the results might or might not shock you.

The NRA being bought and paid for by big business, which is in turn buying and paying for our politicians is the problem, and frankly I don't see that as a political opinion, but maybe I'm being naive.

I'll leave you with this thought, from a former president of the NRA Karl T. Frederick, a 1920 Olympic gold-medal winner for marksmanship:

“I have never believed in the general practice of carrying weapons. I do not believe in the general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under licenses.”

So where does the modern NRA attitude come from???

Probably a dumb post to make for someone in business, and my intent isn't to piss off one side or please the other. Merely to call attention to the fact that games are being played and our children are apparently the expendable pawns on the board.

- Proof that they can be reasonable. Sawed-off shotguns are somewhat legal now, with variations being used as home protection weapons. You still have to be 21 to purchase one, though.

- Interestingly enough, the Department of Education was formed in 1979. Mass/School shootings have increased since, if I'm not mistaken. Coincidence?

- The NRA has donated $200M to politicians in the last 20 years. For comparison, unions donated (mostly to Democrats) $1.7B in 2016 ALONE. Planned Parenthood said they are committing, what, $30M to political campaigns this fall ALONE?

- You're right, games are being played, but it isn't by the NRA. None of the proposals spewed by the pro-gun control crowd would have prevented any school shootings. In fact, the proposals by the pro-2A crowd HAVE proven to be effective and preventative - more armed security and the overall hardening of soft targets. Look at the school shooting that occurred in Illinois last week or so. Oh wait, there wasn't one, because an armed resource officer confronted the would-be-school-shooter.

David,

I disagree about the NRA not having anything to do with what's going on. It has a lot to do with it IMO.

I agree that mental illness is a huge problem. Its a problem that we as a society have never addressed very well. In nearly every state, the mental health agencies are among the most underfunded. They don't have the resources or the capacity to address the problem. Here, the "solution" is to dump them out on the street in some city other than the one they came from and let someone else deal with them. That isn't much of a solution.

The very fact that our kids now have to go through active shooter drills at school is nearly beyond my ability to comprehend.

I'm not advocating outlawing guns. Never have, never would. But for God's sake, there is no reason I can think of why we shouldn't at least try to do a better job of regulating both them and the people who own them. Just like voting, I have always thought that gun ownership was both a right AND a responsibility. Particularly now, I feel like the argument about the right to own guns far outweighs the responsibility part. In my estimation, it should be the other way around.

- The NRA has nothing to do with any of these shootings. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada. None of the shooters are NRA members, and every single one of the shooters is unlawful, when the NRA advocates for lawful and responsible gun ownership.

- Mental health is a massive problem, but why now? What has changed in society to cause so many kids/people to be diagnosed with mental disorders? My theory is there's a breakdown in our education system. What is taught in schools is detrimental to society. Actual skills such as Home Economics and Woodshop have been scrapped to shove testing subjects down the throats of our youth in order to "beat China". Life lessons and morals have been removed from our schools, with the PC culture taking over. American patriotism is frowned upon. Kids aren't taught to think for themselves, and what's worse, some of the subjects are taught incorrectly to begin with. Some of these kids come from broken families, a problem that stems from failures in government policy (shocker). The cycle is perpetuated over and over again. Not to mention the drug epidemic in this country, which enhances the problem. I believe most if not all the mass/school shooters have been on some sort of anti-depressent/anti-anxiety medicine. Our healthcare system blows (government ran), and is very prescription-happy.

- This is a bit off-topic, but kids back in the day went through nuclear bomb drills. I understand fully that our kids shouldn't have to go through either, but multiple generations have gone through some sort of attack preparation. It never hurts to be prepared. The issue is, action isn't taken to harden the schools in the process nowadays.

22 school shootings in 20 weeks.

- Also, this is false. Did you get this number from CNN?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look, blaming the NRA or guns isn't going to prevent the next school shooter. That's a fact. These criminals, by definition, do not follow the laws on the books. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and that is first and foremost what needs to be done - putting more good guys with guns in our schools.

After that, the next step is to look at where the breakdown is in our society that is causing the mental issues. I stated the basics of my opinions above, and will refrain from going into anymore detail as I've already probably exhausted Leon's patience enough. ;)

There are 300+ million guns in this country. If they were the problem, we'd know. Blaming them only takes time away from working on actual, effective solutions to protect our kids.

[Runscott]

I was out at the shooting range today and got to thinking "I wonder how many others in my various hobbies enjoy shooting?" I was just curious. I searched on 'firearms' and this was the most interesting thread I found. I am pretty much only interested in antique .357's that are shooters, so I look for rare collectible guns and then enjoy using them. I'm the same way with pool cues, old Stetsons, etc. - I just like collecting old stuff, and old guns fit in with old baseball equipment, etc., the difference being that I can use the guns.

Also, I love the above post. I would love to add comments to some of the other posts in this thread, but I've had every argument you can imagine regarding guns, and none of them were fun or interesting (my gf hates guns :))

[bnorth]

I was out at the shooting range today and got to thinking "I wonder how many others in my various hobbies enjoy shooting?" I was just curious. I searched on 'firearms' and this was the most interesting thread I found. I am pretty much only interested in antique .357's that are shooters, so I look for rare collectible guns and then enjoy using them. I'm the same way with pool cues, old Stetsons, etc. - I just like collecting old stuff, and old guns fit in with old baseball equipment, etc., the difference being that I can use the guns.

Also, I love the above post. I would love to add comments to some of the other posts in this thread, but I've had every argument you can imagine regarding guns, and none of them were fun or interesting (my gf hates guns :))

I have not shot them in years but I have a 1954 Beretta 32 ACP and a 1972 Walther PPK/S. I have the original box for the Walther along with the original target they used to test fire the gun at the factory with the guns serial # on it.

[vintagetoppsguy]

For me, it's the Winchester 94 lever action - the gun that won the west. I own many of these - 30-30s, 44 magnums, long barrels, short barrels, you name it. A true American classic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_1894