The Gun Question

[Erie Warrior]

Well if they send me $3,000 for my AR, $500 for my SKS, and $3 per round I own, I'll toss them into a blast furnace myself. I'm keeping my pistols, shotgun, and bolt actions.

If that's what they cost, fine. Pistols too.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Nope. I'm keeping those. I'm not simply going to kowtow to every absurd demand. I'll keep them and nothing will be done about it.

[Erie Warrior]

We talking revolvers?

[Cerebral_DownTime]

One Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 Magnum (single action, meaning you have to cock it after each shot). One Tokarev TT-33 semi auto (8 rounds). One Beretta PX4 Storm 9mm semi auto (17 rounds).


Edit: My Ruger is .357 not 44 mag. If that makes a difference.

[Erie Warrior]

TCF Gun Control Plan:

All semi-autos, regardless of calibre or configuration, will be collected. You will be reimbursed at current market value.

You can keep rifles, shotguns and revolvers

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I'm not participating in a demand and comply situation. You're not in a position to even be making demands.....

And who are you to declare that the "TCF Gun Control Plan"?

I say I will not comply. Your move.

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

To CDT's point about sales of firearms that are undocumented, that is an area of legit concern and one in which most would be open to new ideas IMO.

But, gun advocates (sane and insane) purchase guns this way all the time, and big brother is one of the reasons why for some of these people. Might not be enough of a reason to continue to allow it as it current is, but it is at least understandable.

I've been looking for a shotgun for about a month, it only took two phone calls to find some people willing to sell theirs.

You know what? Fuck those people. Tough shit.

You want to buy a gun? Fine. Buy one from a store. Wait however long it takes to get your background check so we can be as sure as possible you aren't a nutjob. Pick up your gun in 3 weeks. OR 2. Or 4. However long that takes.

You need your gun by this weekend for the McGuillicuddy Family Fourth of July Watermellon Shoot? You should have ordered it 4 weeks ago. Borrow your cousins gun and split the prize Chris Gaines CD Retrospective collection if you win.

Used to be there was a 24 hr wait period to purchase a hand gun help tone down the over emotional but, you can get a background check completed while you're looking at holsters

...and you can walk into Gander Mountain and buy a shotgun off the shelf any time you want

[Erie Warrior]

I'm not participating in a demand and comply situation. You're not in a position to even be making demands.....

And who are you to declare that the "TCF Gun Control Plan"?

I say I will not comply. Your move.

I, sir, am a problem solver. My position is one notch above you.

Fine, keep your guns. But know the penalty is an involuntary ureteral stent. Better not fall asleep, Dr. Dickstraw is coming for you.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Here's something totally morbid. A gun shop/firing range in Delaware county was having a day where you got meet "Full Auto Santa", you could go in and rent a full auto gun, shoot and get your picture taken with Santa. I'm not sure if it already happened, if not i'd hope they would cancel it and never ever have it again. And maybe fire the guy who came up with it.....

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Here's the add. And yes that is a Gatling Gun next to jolly old Saint Nick.

[e0y2e3]

Just saw this on Twitter:

"NYPD says gun buyback in Brooklyn today yielded:
80 revolvers
31 semi-automatic pistols
4 rifles
3 shotguns
1 sawed-off shotgun"

Also saw that there was a hospital shooting in Bama, a school shooting plan uncovered in Oklahoma and a mall shooting somewhere else.

[peeker643]

I killed a deer today from damn near 120 yards. Thought I missed her. She walked back toward where I shot her initially, laid down and I humanely dispatched her to the processing plant.

Ridiculous shot. Dumb, really. But ultimately delicious and about $1.20/lb for that nutritious deliciousness. Not really sure what that has to do with the thread but it was an obvious place to brag.

Limit the rounds, eliminate the automatics, prosecute the living shit outta the violators. Personally, no need myself for anything other than revolver. If it takes more than 5 or 6 shots to defend my home from some meth head looking for Sinu-tab or Suda-fed Me and my family are dead anyway. Three shells in my shotgun for deer hunting. I'd also be fine with that season being muzzleloader (one shot) or crossbow only.

Compromise.

And please don't lump many if us in here with the freaking crazy militias or the NRA who begs guys like me to buy their publication while taking millions from those militias. For me banning equals criminalizing and establishing an even bigger market. Heroin is illegal, right? Do more die from heroin ODs or school shootings/gun violence each year? I honestly don't know. I do know making most drugs illegal hasn't stopped them from being prevalent.

[Erie Warrior]

FTR, Peeker is pro TCF Gun Control Plan

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I'll give you my pistols if you stick them up your ass.

[Erie Warrior]

Sure. Hand them over.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Well.... I didn't expect that.

[HoodooMan]

I don't have much to add here, but:

-If you're a liberal in favor of more gun control, and in response to this kind of tragedy your natural reaction is to bring up more gun control--THAT, seems to me, right or wrong, an acceptable reaction, since again, right or wrong, this is what you think would prevent future tragedies of this kind. This is not political exploitation; this is heartfelt "we need to fix this, yo."

-If you're a conservative who's strongly opposed to more gun control, and in response to this kind of tragedy (preemptively or "emptively"), your natural reaction is "WE DON'T NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!" Shut. The. Fuck. Up. STFU. THAT is a jump to "me, me, me, me, me politics" and you need to STFU.

^Less a reaction to this board or this thread than to these Internets.

[HoodooMan]

Though, I guess I can add that the 2nd Amendment, along with the 3rd, seems to be unusually concerned with the Founding Fathers' immediate present, and, of the original 10, perhaps should be the most loosely interpreted for the purposes of our present day reality. (Disclaimer: I'm not too up on 2nd Amendment case history, since in general I don't care too much about yinz and yur gunz.)

But then maybe I'm the only guy here who isn't especially concerned with the possibility of the Marines walking in my front door and overstaying their welcome.

[motherscratcher]

Though, I guess I can add that the 2nd Amendment, along with the 3rd, seems to be unusually concerned with the Founding Fathers' immediate present, and, of the 10, perhaps should be the most loosely interpreted to our present day reality.

But then maybe I'm the only guy here who isn't especially concerned with the possibility of the Marines walking in my front door and overstaying their welcome.

No. I'm not overly concerned with that myself.

[Am I Here Again?]

...For me banning equals criminalizing and establishing an even bigger market. Heroin is illegal, right? Do more die from heroin ODs or school shootings/gun violence each year? I honestly don't know. I do know making most drugs illegal hasn't stopped them from being prevalent.

Saw this chart elsewhere from a friend. FWIW drugs kill 2x+ more people than guns, per CDC figures.




Part of the problem with comparing how many are killed which way depends on whether the death is of the individual partaking in the risky behavior or if others are killed because of the individual. In the Newtown shooting it was Perpetrator 1/Innocent 27. Hardly favorable odds. In the case of drug ODs it's usually the individual and, perhaps, others engaged in the same risky behavior. In the case of car accidents the innocent are quite often the casualties. But you can't ban objects because someone might kill an innocent by means of using the object. Ban all guns, a knife will be used. Ban all knives (keep your hands OFF my kitchen Zwilling knives!!!) and someone will use a baseball bat. The people intent on mayhem will find a way.



BTW Peeker, congrats on picking up some nice meals. Our daughter just dressed her first duck. Not sure if she shot it (gun? bow and arrow? She's learning both) but she got to clean one - and was smiling in the pic! Makes a mean venison sausage too. ;-)

[Am I Here Again?]

Living nearer the shooting than most of you (we're about 95 miles away and, in fact, stopped at a diner a mile from the school when we were driving I-84 nine days before the shooting) our local news is carrying information that might not be making it to the cable shows. Since we don't have cable I can't compare.

1) The shooter wasn't so much mentally ill, per se, as being diagnosed with the Autistic condition "Aspberger's syndrome". High functioning intelligence but socially awkward. Can't get less social than shooting people.

2) Friend or neighbor in one interview said the mom was a bit of a gun enthusiast, had a small collection, and would take her boys shooting. Guess right up until Friday she felt comfortable letting him handle guns.

3) The shooter was Adam, the younger son. He lived with his Mom about five miles from the school. He was carrying an ID of his older brother Ryan, who currently lives in NJ and works in NYC. I believe earlier reports said he had lived with his Dad in Stamford, CT.

4) The shooter had an incident at the school earlier in the week. One news blurb mentioned the school actually denied him access when he arrived but he broke the glass in the door to gain entry.

My observations:

5) Wasn't "this is the time to DO something" back when Gabby Giffords, a member of congress, was shot point-blank in the head? If congress didn't get anything done when one of their own was nearly killed, the cynic in me thinks they won't work together any better even though it was elementary children this time. (You know the old joke about what's the opposite of progress...)

6) The news cycle lives for tragedy. THAT is why this story gets so much media time. Random car accident related deaths occur far more frequently. Do they get the same air play? No, because they usually cannot be sensationalized. They'll be on the news when it's because of underage drinking or an illegal with no license and multiple priors. But because they cause far more fatalities I guess we should ban cars and require everyone to travel by bicycle. (Um, my tongue was in my cheek for that one. )

[FUDU]

To further the point about CC, and I'm certain dem can comment on this if he chooses (as I heard this from the mouths of no less than 4 LEOs tonight), CC class is very heavy on the idea that even though a person is CC they do not look to engage in any situation that gives them the opportunity to use their training or show off their "skills". Matter of fact every single LEO tonight told me it is their understanding that CC class is insistent that a graduate DOES NOT get involved in ANY situation. For various reasons not just liability.

[peeker643]

To further the point about CC, and I'm certain dem can comment on this if he chooses (as I heard this from the mouths of no less than 4 LEOs tonight), CC class is very heavy on the idea that even though a person is CC they do not look to engage in any situation that gives them the opportunity to use their training or show off their "skills". Matter of fact every single LEO tonight told me it is their understanding that CC class is insistent that a graduate DOES NOT get involved in ANY situation. For various reasons not just liability.

The first hour of DEM's CCW class was about how carrying a weapon may not be best for you. About the emotional, moral, physical and potentially financial ramifications.

I went with someone to that class. He paid his money, took the class and went to the range.

Decided it wasn't for him to own and carry.

The class helped him reiterate that was perfectly fine. Does everyone teach it like my uncle. I'd bet my life, no.

[British_Pharaoh]

As long as it's not your kids that are dying because of all that out-dated and irrelevant 'freedom' you are enjoying, then I don't expect your absurd attitudes to change...You do understand King George is no longer a threat, right?

[e0y2e3]

You'll have to excuse me for calling BULLSHIT on the chart posted above, but in about six seconds I found FBI data the shows that it is... BULLSHIT.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offens ... le_11.html

Murder circumstances by weapon from the FBI (2009 is the latest year available) shows 9,146 of 13,636 homicides were by firearm. Furthermore it shows that a whopping 800 were by blunt object which makes that "baseball bat" quote really funny.

People should try to do a little research before pushing out BULLSHIT like that chart.

[municipalmutt]

While I enjoy your estrogen fueled tirades as much as anyone, have you addressed the fact that Connecticut already has some of the strictest guns laws in the country?

[e0y2e3]

FWIW: I've never stated that gun laws would have prevented this school shooting. I actually said I tend to agree with lead that someone as fucked up as this kid is going to find a way to get shit done.

My gun law stance is the exact same today as it was a month ago and a year before that, because regardless of what happened in CT Friday, the facts and numbers back me up.

BUT, on the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Scorecard that rates gun control Cali scored an 81 out of 100 and placed tops overall, whereas CT placed fifth but only scored a 58.

[dem425]

Again, the entire discussion should revolve around one concept. What are you doing or are willing to do to protect your family?.

With or without firearms, it is your responsibility to insure the safety of those in your family, some whom may be unable to defend themselves.

To what extent are you willing to go to protect them?......

What could have stopped this whack job (or any of these mass-shooters) from carrying out his plan?....I personally believe these fucking cowards may have given second thoughts if they knew they were going to meet severe resistance of some type (guns or not).

Anyone who claims to own a gun for "personal or family protection" and is unwilling or unable to look someone in the eyes and stop them from the threat they present, please get rid of your guns (sell to CDT)and get yourselves a ball bat or golf club.

[e0y2e3]

I find it very interesting that you think people that end their own lives would find resistance from guns as anything more than a challenge....

[dem425]

EYO:

I really dont know how they would find resistance. If, like you said, they find it a challenge, then we probably face a bloodier incident.

What could be done to give these assholes reason to pause?......

[FUDU]

Again, the entire discussion should revolve around one concept. What are you doing or are willing to do to protect your family?.

With or without firearms, it is your responsibility to insure the safety of those in your family, some whom may be unable to defend themselves.

To what extent are you willing to go to protect them?......

What could have stopped this whack job (or any of these mass-shooters) from carrying out his plan?....I personally believe these fucking cowards may have given second thoughts if they knew they were going to meet severe resistance of some type (guns or not).

Anyone who claims to own a gun for "personal or family protection" and is unwilling or unable to look someone in the eyes and stop them from the threat they present, please get rid of your guns (sell to CDT)and get yourselves a ball bat or golf club.

This is a very important point, and you put it into words in a very good way dem.

To e0y2e3's point about suicide, I think it is imperative to note that most suicides don't end up taking the lives of other innocent people, especially in the manner of these awful school shootings.

I think it has to be acknowledged that a person wanting to take their own life and a person planning an attack like Friday's (while having similar end results of their own life) have very different thought processes of the overall approach and implications of their actions. To which comparisons of anything other than their lives ending are tough to go about.

I'll tell you what though, the fact that these discussions are taking place (again) IS a good thing as perspective is gained from many angles, even if it is in the slightest of manners. I learned a lot and gained a shit ton of it yesterday at a fundraiser talking to a lot of LEOs.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

As long as it's not your kids that are dying because of all that out-dated and irrelevant 'freedom' you are enjoying, then I don't expect your absurd attitudes to change...You do understand King George is no longer a threat, right?

Please spare me from your snotty foreigner attitude of thinking you always know better. Enjoy big brother on every street corner. Enjoy the crazy, Dark Age Muslims flooding your country.

[dem425]

Please spare me from your snotty foreigner attitude of thinking you always know better. Enjoy big brother on every street corner. Enjoy the crazy, Dark Age Muslims flooding your country.

Thanks, CDT..............................+1 fucktillion

[Adverb Harry]

I've stayed out of this whole thing because thinking about what happened absolutely sickens me, and because all of you so eloquently present your thoughts so well that I really have nothing to add that hasn't already been said better. (No sarcasm...I mean that). Such a tricky subject. Restrict gun ownership, and the vast majority of us will follow the law because we don't want to risk the punishment that attempting to procure a gun causes. Of course, the crazies and sickos will once again have no such regard for the law, and will find alternative means as always. I get that.

I'm a high school teacher. Situations like this really hit close to home, because you just never know. Sure, I've got a higher statistical chance of winning the lottery or dying in a plane crash, but the element of randomness is just so disconcerting. I really don't like to think of the fact that my security--and that of my students--is essentially in the hands of a middle-aged woman in my guidance department office with a finger on a buzzer, glancing at a 7-inch grainy black and white security camera feed while performing ten other tasks. Or that our safety depends on a kid NOT letting in a pissed-off classmate, drop-out, or expelled cretin through one of our twelve (!) un-manned, unmonitored other entrances. That shit needs to change, pronto.

[British_Pharaoh]

As long as it's not your kids that are dying because of all that out-dated and irrelevant 'freedom' you are enjoying, then I don't expect your absurd attitudes to change...You do understand King George is no longer a threat, right?

Please spare me from your snotty foreigner attitude of thinking you always know better. Enjoy big brother on every street corner. Enjoy the crazy, Dark Age Muslims flooding your country.

Brilliant

[peeker643]

Perhaps really and truly making it extremely difficult to obtain weapons is the answer.

It certainly prevented this type of disaster (or a bigger one, God forbid) in Norway where gun laws are much tougher.

Same with Finland. No school shootings there either.

It's got to be a compromise of some sort where people agree as to limitations and have incentive to work on the other sides of the issues that cause this stuff.

The mental health issues, the safety issues, the security issues, etc. If it's going to be all or nothing than we're never going to move the ball on this stuff.

[e0y2e3]

No one, anywhere, has stated that sick fucks aren't going to be able to pull off sick crimes Peeker.

The core point in all of this is to go look at the homicide rate in Norway and Finland and then look at the US'. Its disgusting how our "civil" society stands out amongst most any other industrialized nation as the one with the most gun driven violence, by far.

And the Brit has a point, people are free to have all these guns because King George was a dick.

Fuck, just yesterday another 60 year old was busted with a school shooting plot right here in the good ole USA. Guy only had 41 guns....

[exiledbuckeye]

I certainly don't have the answer, though I'm fairly certain that we'll never completely solve the problem and the best solution involves overhaul of our mental health system AND our gun laws.

Just wanted to chime in to relate my own experience here. I work in the higher education field, and a couple of years ago worked at a university where we had an active shooter on campus. After several hours it became clear that it was just a very public and elaborate suicide scheme with no other victims, but until that was clear, for a few hours NO ONE knew how many shooters there were, what was going on, etc. We kept getting reports of two shooters, or three shooters, firing at people on campus. None of it was true. This is what worries me about expanding CCW laws, because I'm willing to bet everything I have that if CCWs had been permitted on that campus, there would have been a lot more casualties that day.

Like I said, I don't have any answers. I'm just fairly certain that the answer isn't MORE guns.

[peeker643]

What do you want to do?

I said I'm fine with harsher penalties, limiting magazines, restricting ARs to LE only, making CCWs and guns in general harder to acquire and listening to reasonable arguments as to how we begin to change the culture and the laws.

But if your plan begins and ends with "Melt down all the currently owned guns and forbid people from acquiring them" then I think that's going to be a non-starter for half the country. Whether it be because they legitimately believe in the right to own and have guns (whether or not domestic and foreign tyranny concerns are their reasons or not)or because they fear such a mandate is the next step in removing even more freedoms.

What's your plan? What's your ideal goal and what's a realistic one?

I'm not dumb. I also understand people HAVING CCWs and access to weapons hasn't stopped the disasters and tragedies in Colorado, Oregon, Paducah, Cahrdon and Newton.


Also, I'm not profound enough (despite being verbose enough) to fully express how I believe there is a tie to criminalizing something (like heroin/crack/etc) and seeing that fail miserably in stopping people from killing themselves or each other with those things.

We can all find/skew numbers or anecdotal evidence that supports our position. We can all yell at each other about how right we are. But at some point there needs to be a plan to put in place. What's yours?

No one, anywhere, has stated that sick fucks aren't going to be able to pull off sick crimes Peeker.

The core point in all of this is to go look at the homicide rate in Norway and Finland and then look at the US'. Its disgusting how our "civil" society stands out amongst most any other industrialized nation as the one with the most gun driven violence, by far.

And the Brit has a point, people are free to have all these guns because King George was a dick.

Fuck, just yesterday another 60 year old was busted with a school shooting plot right here in the good ole USA. Guy only had 41 guns....

[e0y2e3]

Nationalizing California's plan is hell of a start. NYC has a similar plan in place. How about DC? You know, the city that was a war zone in 1990 but is now one of the safer cities in the US? The same city where CC is illegal and that you aren't allowed to have a gun outside of your home? We have plenty of domestic examples to follow for building toward a better future.

Lets be real, the only reason this discussion is even coming up now is because instead of people dying in low income areas and/or people murdering their wife/husband/mother/prostitute/mistress now the victims are suburban white kids, something everyone that has turned a blind eye to the need (and success) of gun control is the US has to acknowledge..... it just so happens that incidents like this are also the least likely to be stopped (whereas the daily homicide rate can be impacted, greatly).

If you want a plan, I'd start with the states and cities here that have had undeniable success and go from there.

And I never said meltdown all the guns, I'm fully aware that making an order like that here would do nothing more than start a civil war. Though I could make a strong argument that a civil war would be in this countries best interests.........

[peeker643]

Pardon Wiki reference but I'm in a hurry:

Thoughts?

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

The gun laws of California[3][4] are some of the strictest in the United States. A Handgun Safety Certificate, obtained by passing a written test, is required for handgun purchases, although there are exemptions to this requirement[5]. Handguns sold by dealers must be "California legal" by being listed on the state's roster of handguns certified for sale. Private sales of firearms must be done through a licensed dealer. All firearm sales are recorded by the state, and have a ten-day waiting period. Unlike most other states, California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[1] The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California's restrictive gun laws are constitutional based on the fact that the state's constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However recent US Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the 2nd Amendment applied to all states within the Union, and many of California's gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.

Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.

California is a "may-issue" state for permits to carry concealed guns. The willingness of issuing authorities in California ranges from No-Issue in most urban areas to Shall-Issue in rural counties. However, concealed carry permits are valid statewide, regardless of where they were issued. California does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states, and non-residents are generally forbidden from obtaining a California concealed carry permit.

California has state preemption for many, but not all, firearms laws. Actual enforcement of California's firearms laws also varies widely across the state. Urban areas, such as the San Francisco and Los Angeles metropolitan areas strictly enforce firearms laws, and some communities within these areas have passed local ordinances that make legally owning a firearm difficult. Meanwhile, some rural jurisdictions are narrowly enforcing the same firearms laws by targeting only those who demonstrate malicious intent, or not enforcing portions of the state's firearms laws at all.

Nationalizing California's plan is hell of a start. NYC has a similar plan in place. How about DC? You know, the city that was a war zone in 1990 but is now one of the safer cities in the US? The same city where CC is illegal and that you aren't allowed to have a gun outside of your home? We have plenty of domestic examples to follow for building toward a better future.

Lets be real, the only reason this discussion is even coming up now is because instead of people dying in low income areas and/or people murdering their wife/husband/mother/prostitute/mistress now the victims are suburban white kids, something everyone that has turned a blind eye to the need (and success) of gun control is the US has to acknowledge..... it just so happens that incidents like this are also the least likely to be stopped (whereas the daily homicide rate can be impacted, greatly).

If you want a plan, I'd start with the states and cities here that have had undeniable success and go from there.

And I never said meltdown all the guns, I'm fully aware that making an order like that here would do nothing more than start a civil war. Though I could make a strong argument that a civil war would be in this countries best interests.........

[dem425]

It could very well be an extremely uphill battle to convince 49 other states to mimic California gun laws. Note in that article that several of their state-specific laws are being challenged in court. A lot of other states don't have the legal deep-pockets that Calif may have to go up against huge money lobbies like the NRA.

Speaking of NRA, Senator Manchin, West Virginia, HUGE NRA supporter and Life-Member is questioning people's ownership of "assault weapons". NRA gave this guy a crap load of money in his last campaign. So, there may very well be significant dialogue taking place.

Lastly, here is a bandaid solution. Triple the price of all "assault" type weapons and require an extra charge for a permit to own them (much like full-auto firearms). Then, taking some of that money and add $60,000 to the budget of EVERY school in America to hire off-duty or HIGHLY qualified security as an in-school response officer.

I know, I know..........too simple.

[e0y2e3]

Well, if our broke ass country that can't afford text books for many schools (not to mention to pay teachers more than shit) is now going to assume the financial responsibility of paying for universal high quality security we might as well just start shutting down schools (like 50% of the existing schools) and give up on finding the money to get our education system to a place where we are actually able to compete with the foreign countries that have passed us.

Because, you know, 2nd Amendment!!

Fuck it, you fucks wants your guns and CCs let's just institute a gun tax where you have to pay 1,000 (per gun) a month for the right to own handgun. You all can pay it and anyone registered as owning a handgun has to pay. Anyone not registered as owning a handgun and caught with one can go to jail for ten years. And the semi-autos and autos, well, I guess you can have those for $5,000 a month per gun. And if you don't want to pay the tax we'll throw in a gun buyback program similar to what NYC did this weekend (of course, all buybacks will be funded by the Death Toy Tax).

You wanted to own toys capable of killing, pay for it. Same concept as the sin taxes, just on an annualized basis since these toys actually kill... well.... others.

[peeker643]

My God, you'd make a terrible politician. About the only value you'd have to the anti-gun movement is to scream and yell and wave your arms all over the place and be a bullet magnet and soon after a martyr for the cause.

Try and think rationally as opposed to just screaming ridiculous crap and non-sensical, emotional drivel.

Look at the mess below. No one's going to shut down 50% of the schools and no one's going to propose anything close to that kind of 'sin tax'.

Can't you come up with something rational and potentially creative to appeal to both sides? The law abiding, empathetic gun owners, hunters, competetion shooters, etc that comprise the vast majority of CCWs and gun ownership in the country who also want to assure that shit like what happened Friday doesn't happen ever again or nearly as often (given haters gonna hate and sickos gonna find a way)?

Or are you just going to rail on and on about anyone owning a revolver or any kind of handgun being inherently evil, selfish and blood thirsty?

Because that ain't gonna get it done any more than screaming just as loudly the dopey "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" or "Outlaw cars!!" crap.

When people figure out that you can't take someone from the opposite side to your very position without moving them to the middle first then maybe there's some hope. Until then it's just loud voices and partisanship.

I'm fine with more restrictictions to get and own a gun. Any gun. You want me to take a course and qualify with a muzzleloader? Okay. You want to limit the weapons I can own as a private citizen? Okay. You want to go so far as to charge an additional $1 or so for every box of every ammo that's out there to fund educational programs and better security? Okay.

I have no issue with that at all. Let's do it. But quit screaming and railing against a sizeable number of people solely because they espouse different values and activities than you do. Like I said, as far as I can remeember, me, CDT, DEM and pretty damn much every single gun owner who frequents this site oown and use the guns responsibly, have satisfied the requirements set up by the governement to procure them and haven't yet wiped out a theater full of people or an elementary school.

Stop acting like that's not the case.

Well, if our broke ass country that can't afford text books for many schools (not to mention to pay teachers more than shit) is now going to assume the financial responsibility of paying for universal high quality security we might as well just start shutting down schools (like 50% of the existing schools) and give up on finding the money to get our education system to a place where we are actually able to compete with the foreign countries that have passed us.

Because, you know, 2nd Amendment!!

Fuck it, you fucks wants your guns and CCs let's just institute a gun tax where you have to pay 1,000 (per gun) a month for the right to own handgun. You all can pay it and anyone registered as owning a handgun has to pay. Anyone not registered as owning a handgun and caught with one can go to jail for ten years. And the semi-autos and autos, well, I guess you can have those for $5,000 a month per gun. And if you don't want to pay the tax we'll throw in a gun buyback program similar to what NYC did this weekend (of course, all buybacks will be funded by the Death Toy Tax).

You wanted to own toys capable of killing, pay for it. Same concept as the sin taxes, just on an annualized basis since these toys actually kill... well.... others.

[e0y2e3]

I've given rational responses.

My last response was exactly as rational as the suggestion of every school in the country paying for highly trained security.

Rational respones yield rational responses, putting that cost on our broke ass school systems gets the exact same irrational response it warrants. The only way to pay for that cost would be an EXTREME tax.

We have proven success in this country in Cali, NYC, DC, etc....

There are models in place. Follow them.

[e0y2e3]

Fuck, NYCs system is hard-lined enough Plaxico ended up in jail for shooting himself.

[dem425]

I apologize if I didn't write clearly. I know that "broke-ass school systems" cannot afford "highly trained security". I simply meant that increasing the price of guns significantly could possibly finance school security. In essence, those that want to pay to own guns would be paying for that security in the schools..


Dude, sometimes you do go off half-cocked............

[peeker643]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... e-us-state\

California seems flat in these numbers.

Arizona is an open-carry state whose numbers are better than California's (on the surface anyway).

DC is down 22% but that may be because everyone there is already dead.

Texas is down 13% and they're not exactly a beacon for gun control. Same with Alaska.

I'm not a numbers guy as you know. But looking at these numbers doesn't tell me what you're telling me they should tell me in each state you reference.

Regardless, something needs to be done and the states and fed have to coordinate that so that you don't have a state like California going one way only to have the federal courts overthrow it.

Is a mixture of more stringent licensing requirements, potentially tax on ammo/weapons and more severe penalties a good place to start (and maybe end)?

[e0y2e3]

Cali should be flat, their aggressive reform started in 1989, not 2005.

DC started in the early 90s.

Same with NYC.

A 2005 - 2009 sample size shows very little. I already provided that data, Cali homocides are down 56% since the passing of the first gun control legislature in 1989. That legislature isn't the only reason, but it is certainly a component.

[e0y2e3]

I apologize if I didn't write clearly. I know that "broke-ass school systems" cannot afford "highly trained security". I simply meant that increasing the price of guns significantly could possibly finance school security. In essence, those that want to pay to own guns would be paying for that security in the schools..


Dude, sometimes you do go off half-cocked............

Increasing prices will absolutely not provide enough income to fund security. It'll just make the secondary market ridiculous. The only way to collect income is to tax existing weapons.