Mass shooting/killing at Connecticut elementary school

[jazyd]

[gladyou are not an elected official as your option is to take away my right to defend myself

Now will you take away fertilizer, ok bombing
How about box cutters, 9-11
Knives, I understand over 20 children slashed to death in China this week
How about cars, 2 white young men from Pearl, Ms ran over a black man last year on purpose
So how do you deal with evil?
He had a entail illness, like the movie killer, used 2 pistols stolen from his mom which were legal

You haven't solution, just take away my right to defend against evil such as this


QUOTE=Badinage;38084]I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.[/QUOTE]

[BigBluePappy]

I pray for those affected by this tragedy.
Just learned of it and I called my grandkids to tell them Pap loves them very much.
I know they should be in bed (the younger ones) but hey, the parents will get over it.

Father touch these families and comfort them, only as you can.

[CitizenBBN]

I cannot help but laugh. A lot of pro gun advocacy, but no one offering solutions. Glad none of you who think this way are elected officials.

Pot meet kettle.

What is your solution? Can't wait to hear it.

[CitizenBBN]

For someone who is not trying to be a smarta$$ ...

Your passion for your gun makes you incapable of having an actual discussion. I know you have a 100 comebacks, but no solutions or real suggestions. We get it. You love your guns.

You'd get laughs from my friends. I'm 44 years old, I hadn't touched a gun from age 16 till about a year and a half ago other than plinking maybe 2-3 times with 22s. Didn't own a handgun.

Yes I got into the business, but honestly that has nothing to do with it. I took these same positions when I hadn't picked up a gun in years.

My analysis is simply objective. I refuse to respond emotionally to single events and make policy action. I feel very strongly about that, not about guns in particular. It's my response to gun laws but also global warming legislation, labor laws, environmental regulation, you name it.

Legislation must have both a) a constitutional basis for authority, and b) a level of effectiveness that justifies action.

I got this from debate. Basic policy making theory: to support an action for change a proposal should meet basic policy reqirements. They include:

1) A "harm": something bad is happening
2) Significance. That harm is severe enough to have risen to a level requiring action a the given level (in this case Federal)
3) Causality. The harm is caused by the area the policy addresses (HUGE on the gun issue)
4) Inherency. the problem should be an inherent situation that will not resolve itself without this action
5) Solvency. The proposed solution must significantly solve the described harm.

My advocacy is for that structure and it applies to guns or whatever.

I'd gladly give up my guns and revoke the 2nd amendment if you present a policy that will workably protect people from criminals and lunatics and the power of the government.

The problem is no one can to date, so I support the solution that is the worse one possible other than the alternatives.

[CitizenBBN]

If you would not mind, I would be very interested to read your possible solutions and then we can all build from there.

This will be the 2nd time I've asked for that, and I doubt I'll get an answer.

The reason isn't an attack on him, it's that there isn't one short of "banning guns", something he has said he isn't proposing.

"Ban Assault rifles". OK, let's say we can agree on what that is (is the M2 Carbine, a WWII collectible, an "assault rifle"? It could be.)

So we magically define the law so that it captures the guns that could do this but only those guns and doesn't miss any. Yeah, dream on, but let's just say.

OK, there are MILLIONS of these guns in circulation. So are we banning their importation and manufacture? That leaves millions of options for these guys so that won't make a difference. Do we ban their resale? OK, that leaves them in the hands of millions of people any one of whom may snap and go on a rampage.

So the only option to really prevent the next such horror is to round them all up. Otherwise you're closing the barn door after 20 million horses got out. Outright prevent their ownership and have them turned in.

Think that's going to happen? Think the laws will be passed and that millions of unregistered guns will get turned in?

Nope, so why pass a useless "ban" that isn't a ban? That's the #1 proposal to stop this and it's beyond laughable. It's not even a "ban", so why restrict ownership of a gun when it has zero chance of keeping such guns out of the hands of a lunatic?

Magazine ban? That's even funnier. Even more of those, even easier to exchange. Feinstein's proposal "fixes" a "loophole" in the Clinton ban if you read carefully which seems to prohibit their transfer.

Yeah, but a) how do you enforce that one, and b) what happens if the lunatic already has them? Again, there is a 100% chance that upon passage of that law we will see another horrible tragedy like this one. Guaranteed. So why are we passing a law that restricts the pursuit of happiness and liberty and goes against the Bill of Rights for a ZERO chance of preventing another incident?


I'm dying to hear the "solution", but what we'll get is some version of "we have to try", as if flailing about with laws is OK and even desirable even though we know it won't solve the problem that has outraged us.

As I said, I'll listen to workable solutions. Have yet to hear one for preventing evil through legislation.

[Badinage]

When did I say I have a solution? I said the discussion was needed and then posters started posting their pro-gun, anti-gun regulation posts and claiming that gun laws are not the answer and wildly suggesting I wanted to ban guns. The answer may not be in gun laws, or it may. I am open. But, I am willing to suggest not all are. And, I find that selfish and sad.

[Badinage]

Pot meet kettle.

What is your solution? Can't wait to hear it.

"Pot calling kettle" - most trite used rebuttal on message boards. Your only position is what you adamantly claim will not work, not what you claim will. I do not think you are a good judge, because you care too damn much about your guns. That is your passion.

[Badinage]

This will be the 2nd time I've asked for that, and I doubt I'll get an answer.

The reason isn't an attack on him, it's that there isn't one short of "banning guns", something he has said he isn't proposing.

"Ban Assault rifles". OK, let's say we can agree on what that is (is the M2 Carbine, a WWII collectible, an "assault rifle"? It could be.)

So we magically define the law so that it captures the guns that could do this but only those guns and doesn't miss any. Yeah, dream on, but let's just say.

OK, there are MILLIONS of these guns in circulation. So are we banning their importation and manufacture? That leaves millions of options for these guys so that won't make a difference. Do we ban their resale? OK, that leaves them in the hands of millions of people any one of whom may snap and go on a rampage.

So the only option to really prevent the next such horror is to round them all up. Otherwise you're closing the barn door after 20 million horses got out. Outright prevent their ownership and have them turned in.

Think that's going to happen? Think the laws will be passed and that millions of unregistered guns will get turned in?

Nope, so why pass a useless "ban" that isn't a ban? That's the #1 proposal to stop this and it's beyond laughable. It's not even a "ban", so why restrict ownership of a gun when it has zero chance of keeping such guns out of the hands of a lunatic?

Magazine ban? That's even funnier. Even more of those, even easier to exchange. Feinstein's proposal "fixes" a "loophole" in the Clinton ban if you read carefully which seems to prohibit their transfer.

Yeah, but a) how do you enforce that one, and b) what happens if the lunatic already has them? Again, there is a 100% chance that upon passage of that law we will see another horrible tragedy like this one. Guaranteed. So why are we passing a law that restricts the pursuit of happiness and liberty and goes against the Bill of Rights for a ZERO chance of preventing another incident?


I'm dying to hear the "solution", but what we'll get is some version of "we have to try", as if flailing about with laws is OK and even desirable even though we know it won't solve the problem that has outraged us.

As I said, I'll listen to workable solutions. Have yet to hear one for preventing evil through legislation.

You are the wordiest poster when it comes to guns.

[CitizenBBN]

I have worked with ATF and local law enforcement. What unenforced laws are you suggesting would stop this chaos?

For purposes of disclosure my data below came from the chief liaison of the FBI NICS background check system to the dealer industry and 3 senior ATF agents now consulting for the NSSF. The data is sound.

1) Eliminate the location restriction on Federal Firearms license to allow FFLs to transact in any location as long as the process is correctly followed re NICS checks and 4473 compliance.

The complaint is many guns are sold without background checks. those are private transactions between non-dealers. We want more checks done yet we put the one group who does background checks at a disadvantage to those who don't do them.

Instead of seeing dealers as the enemy, encourage them to take a bigger percentage of the total gun transactions since they perform background checks.

It took years to even allow dealers to be at gun shows. Huh? Completely backward thinking.

2) Tell the ATF to do their job.

a) Move to the 21st century.

I was told by a senior ATF official that when we send in the multiple handgun forms via fax and it doesn't go through it's b/c the fax is out of paper. I s*** you not. The ATF doesn't have e-fax for processing 1,000s of forms that come in daily. You wonder why they may miss stuff?

b) Focus on felons.

When you buy a gun from a dealer you fill out the form 4473. It has a list of questions like "are you a felon" and you sign the document. Falsifying info on it is a felony.

Yet people do still try it, and the ATF has almost immediate notice of suspects b/c the dealer won't submit a NICS background check unless the form shows they are eligible (i.e. not a felon) yet they get back denials and you know some of them are kicking back b/c they are felons, etc.

so we KNOW for sure those people have just committed a felony trying to obtain a firearm and lying on the 4473.

How many of those people did the ATF even investigate for 4473 falsifications last year? 400.

How many dealers did they review and audit? Thousands.

Do your job: investigate and prosecute the criminals instead of worrying about every detail of every gun recorded by every dealer. First arrest the felons, then worry about the record keeping.

c) clarify rules regarding who is "in the business" of firearms dealing. There is no dollar limit or quantity limit that clarifies who must have a dealer's license versus who is a private citizen just selling his guns. Guys buy guns all the time knowing they will probably resell them but they aren't dealers.

The area is totally gray, based on whether they bought with intent to sell. Try proving that in court. Set a limit. Guns must be owned for x months before transacting again by a non-dealer, or it can't be more than x guns a year or y dollars or you have to at least file something to explain why you did it and the serials of the guns.

See, I'm not just against regulations. I'm just for regulations that work.

d) Allow dealers to move to computer record keeping instead of paper without having to risk losing your license.

The ATF refuses to certify software as "compliant" with their directive that you can use software instead of paper if you meet a series of requirements. There is industry software but technically you're still at risk, and keeping it otherwise is a risk. Yet the ATF when doing a trace woudl benefit greatly from dealers who didn't have to hand research through 4473 forms and stacks of bound books.


3) Reform the NICS system by giving the FBI authority to gather state level information.

Right now the FBI uses 3 basic databases to research a background check request through "NICS", the background check system operated by the FBI.

The dealer calls or submits via web the info and the NICS system issues an "approve" or "deny" or "delay". Delay is b/c they need further human research on the issue. Often just a similar name, those things can be fixed by better database work.

However the problem isn't the FBI. To comply with federal laws they have to gather state judicial record data. You're convicted of a felony at the state level, they then have to compile all that data.

It's further complicated by things like domestic violence provisions in the Gun Control Act as amended. Not all states clearly define that a conviction was related to domestic violence, so they then have to try to contact that state, often at the county level, and ask for details of the case.

So it's massive database undertaking that is largely non-automated and they have to rely on local people to provide missing info, a task they are not required to do at all and which is last on their list as it's not a priority for them and they are already short staffed in most cases.

The FBI liaison said in one case they were told the records were stored in a building out back and it had bees and they weren't going into it. Seriously.


One dealer was told flat out that in a Louisville district the clerks are instructed to do FBI NICS research dead last b/c they have other things they need more urgently.

This makes it very difficult for the NICS check system to not miss things. Change the domestic violence provision to line up with state laws (really does it matter who they beat when it comes time to let them have a gun? Really?), give the FBI more priority by law for compliance, apply the resources to further hone the database to prevent confusion in identities.



THere are a bunch more. I'll do some more later. You'll notice not ONE of these simple, often costless, and effective improvements is on any proposed legislation I've seen.

See that requires understanding by the politicians of what is really going on and their desire to fix things rather than to grandstand with a public not privy to the details of how things work.


Now your turn. What do you suggest?

[CitizenBBN]

"Pot calling kettle" - most trite used rebuttal on message boards. Your only position is what you adamantly claim will not work, not what you claim will. I do not think you are a good judge, because you care too damn much about your guns. That is your passion.

It's not my passion. I've been posting on these boards for more than a decade. I'm passionate about individual liberty. Ask anyone here.

I'm also wordy on every topic. Can't help it, I am a stickler for precise explanations and I type more than 100 words a minute. Bad combination for length. Again that's not about guns. Ask folks here who I email how bad I am about everything.

Now have the decency to answer the question presented to you: what are your solutions to this problem? This isn't the first time you've been asked and your only answer so far is "your'e in love with your guns" and "maybe now we can talk about solutions" yet you present none.

So let's hear it. I've laid out a cogent and detailed case for what will and will not work. Your response is just "you love your guns too much".

It is the most obvious case of an ad hominem logical fallacy I've seen in some time.

[dethbylt]

Sadly, I think that gun control as an argument is moot. The bigger problem is the overall decline of society in America. We treat actors like heros. Prison is no longer a deterrent - it is no longer scary. Parents no longer parent, they let TV and schools do it for them. Government is bloated and far too slow to be effective. I fear for the future of the country if a strong, positive leader doesnt steer us back in the right direction.

[CitizenBBN]

When did I say I have a solution? I said the discussion was needed and then posters started posting their pro-gun, anti-gun regulation posts and claiming that gun laws are not the answer and wildly suggesting I wanted to ban guns. The answer may not be in gun laws, or it may. I am open. But, I am willing to suggest not all are. And, I find that selfish and sad.

I'm open and I'm having a discussion of what we can and can't do to address the problem. Where's your side of that discussion? You don't address anyone's actual points at all, you just say "you love your guns".

is my analysis of how an "assault weapons ban" fails both in definition and in implementation a function of my "loving my guns" or is it simply a matter of obvious policy flaws?

I've presented all kinds of suggestions and debunked popular misconceptions and meaningless policy posturing.

Your contribution has been "we need a discussion" without any suggestions or engagement on the options and then to attack poster's motives who are trying to actually contribute to the world of ideas as to how to respond to this problem.

Selfish? Aren't you the same person who decried those who wanted a discussion as idiots? Yet you now make broad assumptions about motives and attack posters as selfish?

Your point isnt' even that you have a point, just that some aren't open? How are you open? I have yet to see you suggest anything at all other than that those who are suggesting things are not open.

So you have no point other than to discuss, you have no contribution to the discussion of policy options, and then you get off telling me how I feel about guns knowing nothing about me at all?

Does your hubris have any bounds? You know nothing about me at all or why I am passionate about such issues. As I said I'd turn in the few guns I own tomorrow, even though they are family heirlooms, if it was part of a solution that would protect me from crime, protect the People from the State and actually prevent these tragedies.

The reason you get such a stonewalled appearance in responses is it's from those who have thought out their positions and know them and are willing to defend them. That's not being close minded, that's just having a viewpoint. It could be knee jerk or it could be based on a consideration of the data and their experiences.

[CitizenBBN]

Sadly, I think that gun control as an argument is moot. The bigger problem is the overall decline of society in America. We treat actors like heros. Prison is no longer a deterrent - it is no longer scary. Parents no longer parent, they let TV and schools do it for them. Government is bloated and far too slow to be effective. I fear for the future of the country if a strong, positive leader doesnt steer us back in the right direction.

Agreed 100%. if there is an increase in these incidents adjusting for population size etc. the problem is a disturbing trend in our culture IMO. Parents who hand off the raising of their children to government institutions and TV. A culture that embraces the "victim society" that only encourages people to feel they have a right to take what isn't theirs or to feel repressed rather than to look at their own actions and choices.

Also the growing nature of our post-industrial society and how we are building a system of interaction antithetical to our evolution. We evolved in small groups where we knew everyone and were aware of problems. Now we have neighbors we never meet, we move far from our families and friends with regularity, and a society of information overload that bombards us and leads us to edit things as background noise and further isolate us.

I'm not suggesting we all need to move back to our small towns and be happy, but I am suggesting society is changing faster than we can genetically or sociologically evolve to it, and it is creating great strain.

[CitizenBBN]

BTW, I have apologized for my long winded posts many times. But hey, I am equal opportunity. Guns, the welfare state, Libertarianism, whatever. These things require several steps to lay out a position fully. Otherwise we're just repeating slogans to each other.

[Darrell KSR]

I do not think you are a good judge, because you care too damn much about your guns. That is your passion.

How cute.

That is the second time I have seen you attack others by claiming their opinion was biased. The first time, your opinion was one of the most poorly prepared, illogically based, thinly disguised attacks on Larry Vaught.

This time? I thought you might be making a point in this thread, and I was anxious to see it, but instead, it appears your motive was otherwise.

Really, that's enough. If your intent is to pretend to be intellectually superior and play "gotcha," stop now.

If it is engage in meaningful dialogue and discussion, wonderful. Just improve on it.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

[Badinage]

I'm open and I'm having a discussion of what we can and can't do to address the problem. Where's your side of that discussion? You don't address anyone's actual points at all, you just say "you love your guns".

is my analysis of how an "assault weapons ban" fails both in definition and in implementation a function of my "loving my guns" or is it simply a matter of obvious policy flaws?

I've presented all kinds of suggestions and debunked popular misconceptions and meaningless policy posturing.

Your contribution has been "we need a discussion" without any suggestions or engagement on the options and then to attack poster's motives who are trying to actually contribute to the world of ideas as to how to respond to this problem.

Selfish? Aren't you the same person who decried those who wanted a discussion as idiots? Yet you now make broad assumptions about motives and attack posters as selfish?

Your point isnt' even that you have a point, just that some aren't open? How are you open? I have yet to see you suggest anything at all other than that those who are suggesting things are not open.

So you have no point other than to discuss, you have no contribution to the discussion of policy options, and then you get off telling me how I feel about guns knowing nothing about me at all?

Does your hubris have any bounds? You know nothing about me at all or why I am passionate about such issues. As I said I'd turn in the few guns I own tomorrow, even though they are family heirlooms, if it was part of a solution that would protect me from crime, protect the People from the State and actually prevent these tragedies.

The reason you get such a stonewalled appearance in responses is it's from those who have thought out their positions and know them and are willing to defend them. That's not being close minded, that's just having a viewpoint. It could be knee jerk or it could be based on a consideration of the data and their experiences.

You are all about the battle. Rotely so. You say you are about liberty, but you seem to be more about regurgitation. Absent the sycophants, you seem to see nothing but fighting the good fight. That is disturbing. Especially when you finish and then say, "now show me yours." But, I do not think you see it. Your string is pulled and you roar out your show.

I never said I have answers, but you have inspired me to pull together my connections at ATF and other agencies to begin a discussion. I would be all for reasonable minded FFLs coming to that table, but not those who do not want a discussion, but just want to ram their agenda down the throats of others. The Second Amendment does not preclude gun regulation. I agree with Scalia on that point.

Thanks for the inspiration.

[Badinage]

How cute.

That is the second time I have seen you attack others by claiming their opinion was biased. The first time, your opinion was one of the most poorly prepared, illogically based, thinly disguised attacks on Larry Vaught.

This time? I thought you might be making a point in this thread, and I was anxious to see it, but instead, it appears your motive was otherwise.

Really, that's enough. If your intent is to pretend to be intellectually superior and play "gotcha," stop now.

If it is engage in meaningful dialogue and discussion, wonderful. Just improve on it.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

I am confident you know that claiming someone has a bias is not an attack (maybe not, as this seems to be a theme here). Surely, you know that. Right? As a gun owner, I would hope you can discern attacks from facts and opinions.

And, as to Larry, I said my point. Not sure what was thinly disguised about it. I tried to state my opinion about him hiding behind supposed anonymous contributors. You can explain how it was illogical and all the other silly crap you claim, but only if you can learn how to write concisely.

And, I think the opinions of those anonymous contributors were shown to be foolish. Not good journalism. But, then Larry works for a small paper and but for the Internet and a rabid fan base, we would not know who he is. I am sure he is a good guy, but his writing on the coaching search was often crap. That is an opinion, not an attack.

[Badinage]

You'd get laughs from my friends. I'm 44 years old, I hadn't touched a gun from age 16 till about a year and a half ago other than plinking maybe 2-3 times with 22s. Didn't own a handgun.

Yes I got into the business, but honestly that has nothing to do with it. I took these same positions when I hadn't picked up a gun in years.

My analysis is simply objective. I refuse to respond emotionally to single events and make policy action. I feel very strongly about that, not about guns in particular. It's my response to gun laws but also global warming legislation, labor laws, environmental regulation, you name it.

Legislation must have both a) a constitutional basis for authority, and b) a level of effectiveness that justifies action.

I got this from debate. Basic policy making theory: to support an action for change a proposal should meet basic policy reqirements. They include:

1) A "harm": something bad is happening
2) Significance. That harm is severe enough to have risen to a level requiring action a the given level (in this case Federal)
3) Causality. The harm is caused by the area the policy addresses (HUGE on the gun issue)
4) Inherency. the problem should be an inherent situation that will not resolve itself without this action
5) Solvency. The proposed solution must significantly solve the described harm.

My advocacy is for that structure and it applies to guns or whatever.

I'd gladly give up my guns and revoke the 2nd amendment if you present a policy that will workably protect people from criminals and lunatics and the power of the government.

The problem is no one can to date, so I support the solution that is the worse one possible other than the alternatives.

"Single events" that kill 20 little kids and 7 others, one week after a "single event" that killed 2 and injured others, thanks to a jammed gun, a few months after a "single event" that killed ...

Thankfully, we do not have to respond to "single events," but can recognize we have a problem in this country and that problem involves guns. So, I hope people smarter than us can get to real solutions, without the fear of venturing into gun regulation, if the evidence leads such laws.

[CitizenBBN]

I am confident you know that claiming someone has a bias is not an attack (maybe not, as this seems to be a theme here). Surely, you know that. Right? As a gun owner, I would hope you can discern attacks from facts and opinions.

And, as to Larry, I said my point. Not sure what was thinly disguised about it. I tried to state my opinion about him hiding behind supposed anonymous contributors. You can explain how it was illogical and all the other silly crap you claim, but only if you can learn how to write concisely.

And, I think the opinions of those anonymous contributors were shown to be foolish. Not good journalism. But, then Larry works for a small paper and but for the Internet and a rabid fan base, we would not know who he is. I am sure he is a good guy, but his writing on the coaching search was often crap. That is an opinion, not an attack.

I can take the attacks on me, I could care less what you or anyone things, but the 7 time Ky Sportswriter of the Year?

Nope, that's too far. I won't tolerate insulting his status, and I'm tired of your complete lack of knowledge of much of anything including the reputation Larry built nationally before there were even sports message boards.

No doubt you'll see this as a "gun thing" and "biased" b/c in the end that's all you have is to claim people are biased, but I don't really care about that either.

I can handle stupidity, I can handle the inability to engage in a properly reasoned discussion, I can even handle your wild claims about me and my motives despite not having a clue, but I will not tolerate insults and disrespect of people who have earned respect in their professions.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[Darrell KSR]

What an arrogant know it all. My grandmother used to say that she wished she could buy some people for what they were worth and sell them for what they thought they were worth. In this case, she would have made a fortune.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

[CitizenBBN]

What an arrogant know it all. My grandmother used to say that she wished she could buy some people for what they were worth and sell them for what they thought they were worth. In this case, she would have made a fortune.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

He's a know it all who manages to couch it by only attacking other's views without having to have any ideas or contributions of his own. He should run for office. Sadly, he has a good chance of winning.

that's a brilliant turn of phrase by your grandmother. Hope you don't mind if I borrow that from time to time. I love when a whole pound of wisdom is tied up in a neat little sentence.

[CattyWampus]

What an arrogant know it all. My grandmother used to say that she wished she could buy some people for what they were worth and sell them for what they thought they were worth. In this case, she would have made a fortune.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

I hope you don't mind me responding to this comment. I lurked on this board for at least two years before I decided to start posting myself. You are one of a number of posters here who seem to always be in control of your emotions when it comes to your comments and I don't remember very many times that you have been the least bit confrontational. This post is the exception, and rightly so. I think it takes a lot to "push your button" and obviously this poster accomplished that. Good on ya, mate.

[CattyWampus]

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

- Rahm Emanuel, 2/9/2009

As a country we have been through this too many times, whether it’s been an elementary school in Newtown, a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago, these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods and these children are our children. We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.-

- Barack Obama, 12/14/2012

This terrible tragedy for twenty-seven families, their friends and extended families, the kids and parents of the kids who attend Sandy Hook, as well as the community of Newtown, CT, will be used as a bludgeon by the liberals to bolster their argument against the 2nd Amendment rights of all law-abiding citizens. The blood from these precious children had not even become tacky by the time the liberal media launched their assault. The lefties in Congress and Mike Bloomberg quickly joined the chorus.

This tragedy has accomplished what Obama and the media have been trying to do and have mostly succeeded in doing. They want to push serious issues off the table and this tragedy accomplishes that for them. Fast & Furious? History. Benghazi? Never heard of it. Health insurance costs sky-rocketing? Oh, did we say your rates would go down? We meant "go up necessarily". No federal budget for three years? Mere technicality. Fiscal Cliff? Pfft! All attention for the media and the politicians will go to solving what they think caused this problem- my guns, your guns, your neighbor's guns. You better hang on. You better get locked and loaded. This time, they're coming after your guns and anyone who thinks otherwise isn't paying attention.

[bubbleup]

I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-fr..._b_845590.html

[badrose]

I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-fr..._b_845590.html

Guns with high capacity magazines can be replaced with more lower capacity guns. A little more cumbersome, but the argument remains...a criminal doesn't care if high capacity guns are banned. If they're banned, then if anyone has them it will be criminals and law-abiding citizens will have inferior weaponry to defend themselves. You could call "timeout" but I'd hate to have to depend on that.

[CattyWampus]

I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-fr..._b_845590.html

I suspect this article from Lautenberg and McCarthy, written in 2011, was actually composed by the Brady Campaign. It's just another example of selective outrage, using only data that supports its campaign to ban guns.

A skilled gunman can eject an empty clip, insert a full clip, and advance a round into the chamber of a pistol in three seconds or less. In the case of what happened yesterday, it sounds like the shooter was pretty deliberate in his shooting. It doesn't sound like he was firing as fast as the gun's mechanism would allow. Otherwise, there would have been many more non-fatal injuries than there were. Regardless of what you see on TV, most shots from a shooter firing in haste are not kill-shots. If a shooter in a closed room took careful aim at each one of his victims, he could use one pistol with two clips and kill 15-20 people inside of a minute. Outlawing high-capacity clips won't change that. This shooter had two pistols, according to the media reports. If he had expended a standard clip in each of the two guns, the difference in casualties wouldn't be much different.

I own more than a half dozen pistols. I do not own a high-capacity clip. If I didn't much care about obeying laws and decided I wanted high-capacity clips, I could buy them even if they were "illegal". If they were illegal, I wouldn't buy one because I believe in obeying laws, even those I disagree with. People who want to do others harm, don't obey laws. That will never change. Ban guns, the lawbreakers will own them. Ban high-capacity clips, the lawbreakers will get them. Ban marshmallows, and every person who wants to do others harm via marshmallows will have a stash of marshmallows hidden on the top shelf of their cupboard.

Banning anything doesn't result in stopping those who ignore the laws. Never has, never will.

[badrose]

FWIW every cop I've ever talked to said they wish every law-abiding citizen had guns. They simply can't protect us all. We have to protect ourselves.

[CattyWampus]

I'm really one of those somewhere in the middle on this issue. I have two brothers who both have concealed carry permits but I don't own a gun. It's complicated and I can't claim to be an expert but I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with this proposal http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-fr..._b_845590.html

It's not the guns. It's not "high-capacity magazines". It's the people.

[Darrell KSR]

I hope you don't mind me responding to this comment. I lurked on this board for at least two years before I decided to start posting myself. You are one of a number of posters here who seem to always be in control of your emotions when it comes to your comments and I don't remember very many times that you have been the least bit confrontational. This post is the exception, and rightly so. I think it takes a lot to "push your button" and obviously this poster accomplished that. Good on ya, mate.

I'm not real proud of the product of my frustration.

Sent using Forum Runner. All typos excused.

[CattyWampus]

Can we learn from the Swiss?

fta:

Of course the more that U.S. governments can do to make gun use in America even more responsible, the better. Switzerland shows how successful governments can be in promoting responsible gun use.

Elementary schools in America should have gun safety classes which teach children never to touch a gun unless a parent is present, and they should be taught to tell an adult if they see an unattended gun. The NRA actively promotes this idea, and the National Association of Chiefs of Police endorses it. But Handgun Control opposes this reasonable, sensible safety measure. Has HCI gone off the deep end?

High schools and colleges wishing to offer target shooting as a sport should be allowed to do so. Unlike football or swimming, scholastic target shooting has never resulted in a fatality. The anti-gun groups oppose the sensible step of allowing the schools to offer students the safest sport ever invented. Have they gone off the deep end'? Finally, local governments should enact reasonable zoning laws, which allow the construction of indoor shooting ranges (properly ventilated and sound insulated) in urban areas. In some cases, governments should subsidise the building of ranges. At target ranges, Americans can take lessons in gun responsibility, and practice safe gun handling skills. As you might expect, the anti-gunners oppose this simple safety measure too. They've gone off the deep end.

What have we learned from Switzerland?' Guns in themselves are not a cause of gun crime; if they were, everyone in Switzerland would long ago have been shot in a domestic quarrel.

Cultural conditions, not gun laws, are the most important factors in a nation's crime rate. Young adults in Washington, D.C., are subject to strict gun control, but no social control, and they commit a staggering amount of armed crime. Young adults in Zurich are subject to minimal gun control, but strict social control, and they commit almost no crime.

America-with its traditions of individual liberty-cannot import Switzerland's culture of social control. Teenagers, women, and almost everyone else have more freedom in America than in Switzerland.

What America can learn from Switzerland is that the best way to reduce gun misuse is to promote responsible gun ownership. While America cannot adopt the Swiss model, America can foster responsible gun ownership along more individualistic, American lines. Firearms safety classes in elementary schools, optional marksmanship classes in high schools and colleges, and the widespread availability of adult safety training at licensed shooting ranges are some of the ways that America can make its tradition of responsible gun use even stronger.