Feinsteins Gun Control Bill [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

hydrashok

12-16-2012, 20:09

While I'm all for preventing more shootings, I don't know why it has to come at the detriment of law-abiding citizens. The following is a post from another board where I am a member, I find it quite accurate.

"But, there is a bigger gorilla in the room that no one is talking about. Why do they want to "ban" guns. To save the "children"? To prevent murder? To lower the crime rate? No...

The political class of the other side sees the same facts and statistics to which we all have access. While your average cognitively impaired leftist hippy might actually believe banning guns will reduce crime, the average intelligent authoritarian statist does not. They KNOW banning guns will have no significant impact on violence. That's NOT why they want guns banned, and we all know it. They'll never publicly state why they really want guns banned.

They believe in the "virtue" of authoritarian statism, morality to them is set by "authority" and authority is not perfected without power. Total power is perfect "authority", perfect morality. As uncomfortable as it might make some people feel the 2nd amendment is there so citizens can defend themselves from the state. Our founding fathers were wise men. This makes authoritarian statist very, very uncomfortable. It doesn't fit the long-term plan. An armed citizenry is a potential challenge to authority, and that simply won't do.

It's the gun in the room.

Which is why I don't give a rat's ass whether YOU are personally "conservative" or "liberal" anymore. The only thing I care about is your position on statism. Your stance on authoritarian government. If you believe "legal" = "moral", that laws make any action "right". Then I believe you are sadly mistaken, and a statist. Frankly, you're part of the problem. Singing patriotic songs, flying the flag, knowing all the worlds to the Star Spangled Banner, loving apple pie, and Ronald Reagan does not automatically redeem you."

Streck-Fu

12-16-2012, 20:28

Very good article from the Canada Free Press....But then, we already knew this: LINK (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51805)

If you’re the biblically minded sort, then the trouble began when a jealous Cain clubbed Abel to death, but if you’re evolutionarily minded, then it’s a ‘chicken and egg’ question. Violence had no beginning, except perhaps in the Big Bang, it was always here, coded into the DNA.

If people are just grown-up animals, more articulate versions of the creatures who eat each other’s young, and sometimes their own young, there is as much use in wondering about the nature of evil as there is in trying to understand why a killer whale kills.

But debating how many devils can dance on the head of a pinhead is largely useless. We are not a particularly violent society. We are a society sheltered from violence. No one in Rwanda spends a great deal of time wondering what kind of man would murder children. They probably live next door to him. For that matter, if your neighborhood is diverse enough, you might be unfortunate enough to live next door to any number of war criminals, all the way from Eastern Europe to Asia to Africa.

The issue isn’t really guns. Guns are how we misspell evil. Guns are how we avoid talking about the ugly realities of human nature while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia.

The obsession with guns, rather than machetes, stone clubs, crossbows or that impressive weapon of mass death, the longbow (just ask anyone on the French side of the Battle of Agincourt) is really the obsession with human agency. It’s not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of social control that the killing sprees imply.

Mass death isn’t the issue. After September 11, the same righteous folks calling for the immediate necessity of gun control were not talking about banning planes or Saudis, they were quoting statistics about how many more people die of car accidents each year than are killed by terrorists. As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy; three thousand deaths can always be minimized by comparing them to some even larger statistic.
The gun issue is the narrative. It’s not about death or children; it’s about control

The gun issue is the narrative. It’s not about death or children; it’s about control. It’s about confusing object and subject. It’s about guns that shoot people and people that are irrevocably tugged into pulling the trigger because society failed them, corporations programmed them and not enough kindly souls told them that they loved them.

Mostly it’s about people who are sheltered from the realities of human nature trying to build a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone where everyone is a target and tries to live under the illusion that they aren’t. A society where everyone is drawing unicorns on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall.

After every shooting there are more zero tolerance policies in schools that crack down on everything from eight-year olds making POW POW gestures with their fingers to honor students bringing Tylenol and pocket knives to school. And then another shooting happens and then another one and they wouldn’t happen if we just had more zero tolerance policies for everyone and everything.

But evil just can’t be controlled. Not with the sort of zero tolerance policies that confuse object with subject, which ban pocket knives and finger shootings to prevent real shootings. That brand of control isn’t authority, it’s authority in panic mode believing that if it imposes total zero tolerance control then there will be no more school shootings. And every time the dumb paradigm is blown to bits with another shotgun, then the rush is on to reinforce it with more total zero control tolerance.

Zero tolerance for the Second Amendment makes sense. If you ban all guns, except for those in the hands of the 708,000 police officers, the 1.5 million members of the armed forces, the countless numbers of security guards, including those who protect banks and armored cars, the bodyguards of celebrities who call for gun control, not to mention park rangers, ambulance drivers in the ghetto and any of the other people who need a gun to do their job, then you’re sure to stop all shootings.

So long as none of those millions of people, or their tens of millions of kids, spouses, parents, grandchildren, girlfriends, boyfriends, roommates and anyone else who has access to them and their living spaces, carries out one of those shootings.

But this isn’t really about stopping shootings; it’s about controlling when they happen. It’s about making sure that everyone who has a gun is in some kind of chain of command. It’s about the belief that the problem isn’t evil, but agency, that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop. Or if it doesn’t stop, then at least there will be someone higher up in the chain of command to blame. Either way authority is sanctified, control or the illusion of it, maintained.
We’ll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious

We’ll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious. We’ll never know how many were killed by Obama’s regime change operation in Libya, with repercussions in Mali and Syria. But everyone involved in that was following orders. There was no individual agency, just agencies. No lone gunman who just decided to go up to a school and shoot kids. There were orders to run guns to Mexico and the cartel gunmen who killed people with those guns had orders to shoot. There was nothing random or unpredictable about it. Or as the Joker put it, “Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying.”

Gun control is the assertion that the problem is not the guns; it’s the lack of a controlling authority for all those guns. It’s the individual. A few million people with little sleep, taut nerves and PTSD are not a problem so long as there is someone to give them orders. A hundred million people with guns and no orders is a major problem. Historically though it’s millions of people with guns who follow orders who have been more of a problem than millions of people with guns who do not.

Streck-Fu

12-16-2012, 20:29

cont......

Moral agency is individual. You can’t outsource it to a government and you wouldn’t want to. The bundle of impulses, the codes of character, the concepts of right and wrong, take place at the level of the individual. Organizations do not sanctify this process. They do not lift it above its fallacies, nor do they even do a very good job of keeping sociopaths and murderers from rising high enough to give orders. Organizations are the biggest guns of all, and some men and women who make Lanza look like a man of modestly murderous ambitions have had their fingers on their triggers and still do.
Gun control will not really control guns, but it will give the illusion of controlling people

Gun control will not really control guns, but it will give the illusion of controlling people, and even when it fails, those in authority will be able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves.

We live under the rule of organizers, community and otherwise, whose great faith is that the power to control men and their environment will allow them to shape their perfect state into being, and the violent acts of lone madmen are a reminder that such control is fleeting, that utopia has its tigers, and that attempting to control a problem often makes it worse by removing the natural human crowdsourced responses that would otherwise come into play.

The clamor for gun control is the cry of sheltered utopians believing that evil is a substance as finite as guns, and that getting rid of one will also get rid of the other. But evil isn’t finite and guns are as finite as drugs or moonshine whiskey, which is to say that they are as finite as the human interest in having them is. And unlike whiskey or heroin, the only way to stop a man with a gun is with a gun.

People do kill people and the only way to stop people from killing people is by killing them first. To a utopian, this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything, but to everyone else, it’s just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word.

Anyone who really hankers after a world without guns would do well to try the 14th Century, the 1400 years ago or the 3400 years ago variety, which was not a nicer place for lack of guns, and the same firepower that makes it possible for one homicidal maniac to kill a dozen unarmed people, also makes it that much harder to recreate a world where one man in armor can terrify hundreds of peasants in boiled leather armed with sharp sticks.

The longbow was the first weapon to truly begin to level the playing field, putting serious firepower in the hands of a single man. In the Battle of Crecy, a few thousand English and Welsh peasants with longbows slew thousands of French knights and defeated an army of 30,000. Or as the French side described it, “It is a shame that so many French noblemen fell to men of no value.” Crecy, incidentally, also saw one of the first uses of cannon.

Putting miniature cannons in the hands of every peasant made the American Revolution possible. The ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would have meant very little without an army of ordinary men armed with weapons that made them a match for the superior organization and numbers of a world power.

At the Battle of Bunker Hill, 2,400 American rebels faced down superior numbers and lost the hill, but inflicted over a 1,000 casualties, including 100 British commissioned officers killed or wounded, leading to General Clinton’s observation, “A few more such victories would have shortly put an end to British dominion in America.”

This was done with muskets, the weapon that gun control advocates assure us was responsible for the Second Amendment because the Founders couldn’t imagine all the “truly dangerous” weapons that we have today.

And yet would Thomas Jefferson, the abiding figurehead of the Democratic Party, who famously wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants”, really have shuddered at the idea of peasants with assault rifles, or would he have grinned at the playing field being leveled some more?

The question is the old elemental one about government control and individual agency. And tragedies like the one that just happened take us back to the equally old question of whether individual liberty is a better defense against human evil than the entrenched organizations of government.

Do we want a society run by the flower of chivalry, who commit atrocities according to a plan for a better society, or by peasants with machine guns? The flower of chivalry can promise us a utopian world without evil, but the peasant with a machine gun promises us that we can protect ourselves from evil when it comes calling.

It isn’t really guns that the gun controllers are afraid of, it’s a country where individual agency is still superior to organized control, where things are unpredictable because the trains don’t run on time and orders don’t mean anything. But chivalry is dead. The longbow and the cannon killed it and no charge of the light brigade can bring it back. And we’re better for it.

Evil may find heavy firepower appealing, but the firepower works both ways. A world where the peasants have assault rifles is a world where peasant no longer means a man without any rights. And while it may also mean the occasional brutal shooting spree, those sprees tend to happen in the outposts of utopia, the gun-free zones with zero tolerance for firearms. An occasional peasant may go on a killing spree, but a society where the peasants are all armed is also far more able to stop such a thing without waiting for the men-at-arms to be dispatched from the castle.

An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control. Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their lords to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the agency of the killer in being free to kill, rather than their own lack of agency for being unable to stop him.

Streck-Fu

12-16-2012, 20:46

I do not like the President's statement: LINK (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/16/15948998-obama-reassures-newtown-you-are-not-alone-at-vigil-for-victims-of-connecticut-school-shootings?lite)

Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is the price of our freedom?"

He vowed to "use whatever power this office holds to engage our citizens ... to save another child or another parent or another town" the anguish of Newtown.

Roguish Lawyer

12-16-2012, 20:50

I thought the guy left his Bushmaster in the trunk of his car and used two pistols . . .

The Reaper

12-16-2012, 20:57

I thought the guy left his Bushmaster in the trunk of his car and used two pistols . . .

Let's not confuse the leftist hyperbole with facts.

TR

afchic

12-16-2012, 21:03

As I am sure most of you have, my husband and I have been talking about this a lot this weekend. We have included our kids living at home in the discussion. They are aged 28, 24, and 15.

The problem never has been and never will be guns. Unfortunately it is crazy people having access to guns. And the reason that is possible is that it has been decided institutionalizing sick and crazy people is inhumane, and too expensive. So many of the institurions that used to do this have been closed. There is no place to put them, and sadly no one willing to say someone needs to be placed in such an institution.

We are never foing to be able to plan for every eventuality when trying to protect our kids. But as parents we can begin to be honest enough with ourselves to understand when our kids needs help. Apparently there is enough evidence that has been gathered at the mother's house that expalins why this young man did what he did. How did the mother not see there was a problem, or why did she chose to ignore it? I am sure more will come out in the next few days.

Pay attention to your kids. Stick your nose in their business. Know what is going on with them. And above all love them.

Paslode

12-16-2012, 21:09

I thought the guy left his Bushmaster in the trunk of his car and used two pistols . . .

Most of the stories I have read corroborate the 2 pistols and the Rifle in the car story line. But I also read somewhere he may have had as many as 4 pistols and there were .223 casing found on the school premises.

And Reuters is now reporting that he had hundreds of rounds in Hi-Caps, he carried the rifle into the school and left his shotgun in his car.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/17/us-connecticut-towns-idUSBRE8BD0U120121217

The news on this appears to be heading to the journalistic dump.

GratefulCitizen

12-16-2012, 21:15

The problem never has been and never will be guns. Unfortunately it is crazy people having access to guns.

I disagree.
Given certain circumstances, a lunatic in an SUV could wreak significant havoc.

The problem is cultural rot and lack of moral restraint.
Lunatics are a symptom.

PSM

12-16-2012, 22:10

If Frisco (they hate us calling it that) was as gun free as DiFi would like, nobody would know her name.

Pat

hydrashok

12-16-2012, 22:47

The fact that children were killed changes the entire scenario. While I don't disagree that this was a truly horrible incident, it also allows the dims to paint anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda as someone who does not care about the welfare of children. The effort needs to be focused on the reform of mental treatment not guns.

trvlr

12-17-2012, 00:17

Virginia Tech: Pistols
Most of the Elementary School Shooting: Pistols

Sen Feinstein's Response: 'We're moving forward with the assault weapons ban...'

It's laughable. Unfortunately, passed bill or no we will see more of these incidents. I'm just glad they're not trying to blame it all on "violent videogames" this time.

Badger52

12-17-2012, 07:35

FBI monograph (http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter), a backdrop to a current BAU quick-ref guide being circulated that cites 10-13 year old information. (Reno was the AG at the time, sorry for that image.)

The monograph seems to take a wider examination and discusses contributors, e.g., the kid rules the roost at home, denial by those close to the shooter, other community factors, etc.

In the following regard, from its opening, it would appear not much has changed in what people write:

News coverage magnifies a number of widespread but wrong or unverified impressions of school shooters. Among them are:
• School violence is an epidemic.
• All school shooters are alike.
• The school shooter is always a loner.
• School shootings are exclusively revenge motivated.
• Easy access to weapons is THE most significant risk factor.

A wide-range of issues may foster the initial situation. As seen in Clackamas, OR (and VA Tech) the first appearance of resolute armed push-back seems to hasten the shooter to their end-game and, in my estimation, saves lives.

Richard

12-17-2012, 08:32

The problem is cultural rot and lack of moral restraint.
Lunatics are a symptom.

YGSM.

Richard :munchin

swatsurgeon

12-17-2012, 10:00

I disagree.
Given certain circumstances, a lunatic in an SUV could wreak significant havoc.

The problem is cultural rot and lack of moral restraint.
Lunatics are a symptom.

This was the exact topic discussed during a state debrief in AZ after the Tucson shooting: more damage would have been done had the shooter been in an SUV and run right into the crowd.....more dead, more injured was the expectation.

There are more deaths by motor vehicles and drugs in a week than by guns in a month or two but sensationalism carries the headlines. Sad state of affairs and our legislators refuse to hear our explanations as Trauma professionals 'experts' in the field of injury management and prevention.:munchin

Dozer523

12-17-2012, 10:04

This was the exact topic discussed during a state debrief in AZ after the Tucson shooting: more damage would have been done had the shooter been in an SUV and run right into the crowd.....more dead, more injured was the expectation.i don't know if I should be happier he found a parking space or that he had a gun. Maybe part of that perception is that auto deaths seem somewhat proportional to the number of cars on the road, the miles/ hours driven and the perception that the primary purpose of driving a car is deemed beneficial and or productive. Perhaps also that there is a perception that as much as can reasonably be done to balance the benefits and the risks is being done through road engineering, laws governing vehicle operation, designation of areas where driving is allowed and forbidden, vehicle inspection and registration, aggressive enforcement of traffic laws . . . On and on . . . .

These types of arguments are not going to be effective in the near future.

Team Sergeant

12-17-2012, 10:36

i don't know if I should be happier he found a parking space or that he had a gun. Maybe part of that perception is that auto deaths seem somewhat proportional to the number of cars on the road, the miles/ hours driven and the perception that the primary purpose of driving a car is deemed beneficial and or productive. Perhaps also that there is a perception that as much as can reasonably be done to balance the benefits and the risks is being done through road engineering, laws governing vehicle operation, designation of areas where driving is allowed and forbidden, vehicle inspection and registration, aggressive enforcement of traffic laws . . . On and on . . . .

These types of arguments are not going to be effective in the near future.

proportional huh, how about the 300 million American guns that stood idle the same day of the AZ shooting? The socialists dems will not make that argument or take that into consideration.

BryanK

12-17-2012, 11:37

One might think, that in order to write a bill of such importance, one might need to educate themselves on the topic. However, she still is unable to call it a magazine.

She's not the only one: Senator Manchin calls to open AW debate (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/nra-member-sen-manchin-says-newtown-shooting-open-141440511--election.html)

He has an "A" rating with the NRA as well :confused:.

Snip:
Manchin issued criticism of assault weapons, saying, "I don't know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle. I don't know anybody that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about."

Be that as it may, the 2nd Amendment wasn't for sportsman/hunters. It was for the Americans Right to defend themselves against all enemies; Foreign and domestic. I may as well move to Germany and get it over with. The beer is better.

Richard

12-17-2012, 13:11

Friday’s horrific national tragedy has ignited a new discussion on violence in America. In blogs, kitchens and Starbucks' across the country, we are now debating the many faces of violence in America: gun culture, media violence, lack of mental health services, overt and covert wars abroad, religion, politics and the way we raise our children. Liza Long, a writer based in Boise, says it’s easy to talk about guns...but now it’s time to talk about mental illness.

I've seen this in families of learning different (LD) children, and found Ms Long's blog to be a compelling read and something to think about with these issues.

Richard :munchin

Thinking The Unthinkable

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They are navy blue,” I told him. “Your school’s dress code says black or khaki pants only.”

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

A few weeks ago, Michael pulled a knife and threatened to kill me and then himself after I asked him to return his overdue library books. His 7 and 9 year old siblings knew the safety plan—they ran to the car and locked the doors before I even asked them to. I managed to get the knife from Michael, then methodically collected all the sharp objects in the house into a single Tupperware container that now travels with me. Through it all, he continued to scream insults at me and threaten to kill or hurt me.

That conflict ended with three burly police officers and a paramedic wrestling my son onto a gurney for an expensive ambulance ride to the local emergency room. The mental hospital didn’t have any beds that day, and Michael calmed down nicely in the ER, so they sent us home with a prescription for Zyprexa and a follow-up visit with a local pediatric psychiatrist.

We still don’t know what’s wrong with Michael. Autism spectrum, ADHD, Oppositional Defiant or Intermittent Explosive Disorder have all been tossed around at various meetings with probation officers and social workers and counselors and teachers and school administrators. He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work.

At the start of seventh grade, Michael was accepted to an accelerated program for highly gifted math and science students. His IQ is off the charts. When he’s in a good mood, he will gladly bend your ear on subjects ranging from Greek mythology to the differences between Einsteinian and Newtonian physics to Doctor Who. He’s in a good mood most of the time. But when he’s not, watch out. And it’s impossible to predict what will set him off.

Several weeks into his new junior high school, Michael began exhibiting increasingly odd and threatening behaviors at school. We decided to transfer him to the district’s most restrictive behavioral program, a contained school environment where children who can’t function in normal classrooms can access their right to free public babysitting from 7:30-1:50 Monday through Friday until they turn 18.

The morning of the pants incident, Michael continued to argue with me on the drive. He would occasionally apologize and seem remorseful. Right before we turned into his school parking lot, he said, “Look, Mom, I’m really sorry. Can I have video games back today?”

“No way,” I told him. “You cannot act the way you acted this morning and think you can get your electronic privileges back that quickly.”

His face turned cold, and his eyes were full of calculated rage. “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. “I’m going to jump out of this car right now and kill myself.”

That was it. After the knife incident, I told him that if he ever said those words again, I would take him straight to the mental hospital, no ifs, ands, or buts. I did not respond, except to pull the car into the opposite lane, turning left instead of right.

“Where are you taking me?” he said, suddenly worried. “Where are we going?”

“You know where we are going,” I replied.

“No! You can’t do that to me! You’re sending me to hell! You’re sending me straight to hell!”

I pulled up in front of the hospital, frantically waiving for one of the clinicians who happened to be standing outside. “Call the police,” I said. “Hurry.”

Michael was in a full-blown fit by then, screaming and hitting. I hugged him close so he couldn’t escape from the car. He bit me several times and repeatedly jabbed his elbows into my rib cage. I’m still stronger than he is, but I won’t be for much longer.

The police came quickly and carried my son screaming and kicking into the bowels of the hospital. I started to shake, and tears filled my eyes as I filled out the paperwork—“Were there any difficulties with… at what age did your child… were there any problems with.. has your child ever experienced.. does your child have…”

At least we have health insurance now. I recently accepted a position with a local college, giving up my freelance career because when you have a kid like this, you need benefits. You’ll do anything for benefits. No individual insurance plan will cover this kind of thing.

For days, my son insisted that I was lying—that I made the whole thing up so that I could get rid of him. The first day, when I called to check up on him, he said, “I hate you. And I’m going to get my revenge as soon as I get out of here.”

By day three, he was my calm, sweet boy again, all apologies and promises to get better. I’ve heard those promises for years. I don’t believe them anymore.

On the intake form, under the question, “What are your expectations for treatment?” I wrote, “I need help.”

And I do. This problem is too big for me to handle on my own. Sometimes there are no good options. So you just pray for grace and trust that in hindsight, it will all make sense.

I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.

According to Mother Jones, since 1982, 61 mass murders involving firearms have occurred throughout the country. Of these, 43 of the killers were white males, and only one was a woman. Mother Jones focused on whether the killers obtained their guns legally (most did). But this highly visible sign of mental illness should lead us to consider how many people in the U.S. live in fear, like I do.

When I asked my son’s social worker about my options, he said that the only thing I could do was to get Michael charged with a crime. “If he’s back in the system, they’ll create a paper trail,” he said. “That’s the only way you’re ever going to get anything done. No one will pay attention to you unless you’ve got charges.”

I don’t believe my son belongs in jail. The chaotic environment exacerbates Michael’s sensitivity to sensory stimuli and doesn’t deal with the underlying pathology. But it seems like the United States is using prison as the solution of choice for mentally ill people. According to Human Rights Watch, the number of mentally ill inmates in U.S. prisons quadrupled from 2000 to 2006, and it continues to rise—in fact, the rate of inmate mental illness is five times greater (56 percent) than in the non-incarcerated population.

With state-run treatment centers and hospitals shuttered, prison is now the last resort for the mentally ill—Rikers Island, the LA County Jail and Cook County Jail in Illinois housed the nation’s largest treatment centers in 2011.

No one wants to send a 13-year old genius who loves Harry Potter and his snuggle animal collection to jail. But our society, with its stigma on mental illness and its broken healthcare system, does not provide us with other options. Then another tortured soul shoots up a fast food restaurant. A mall. A kindergarten classroom. And we wring our hands and say, “Something must be done.”

I agree that something must be done. It’s time for a meaningful, nation-wide conversation about mental health. That’s the only way our nation can ever truly heal.

God help me. God help Michael. God help us all.

http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/

Here's a counter-blog to Ms Long's blog post by Sarah Kendizor.

Want the Truth Behind “I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother”? Read her blog.

http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/16/want-the-truth-behind-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-read-her-blog/

And here's "A Joint Statement From Sarah and Liza" after Sarah Kendzior wrote the counter to Ms Long's original blog.

http://sarahkendzior.com/2012/12/17/a-joint-statement-from-sarah-and-liza/

Badger52

12-17-2012, 13:24

Thanks Richard. Had seen that last night but couldn't get to the link from the verdammte mil filter. A heartfelt perspective indeed.

Dohhunter

12-17-2012, 13:31

[COLOR="Lime"]Friday’s horrific national tragedy............

Thank you for posting this.

Eye opening.

Trapper John

12-17-2012, 13:34

Richard- This is the most moving piece that I have read. Thank you for posting this and with your permission, I would like to copy it and send it to all of the educators I know. Very, very moving and absolutely the right perspective on the problem.

Thank you {Salute}

Old Dog New Trick

12-17-2012, 15:06

Dianne and Nancy are going to be voted the NRA's women of the year for their collective efforts to out sale any previous politician in history!

Gun and ammo sales going through the roof!

Dad

12-17-2012, 15:29

According to the Harris County Sheriff's Office, the largest mental health facility in Texas is the Harris County Jail.

Team Sergeant

12-17-2012, 15:49

Yeah nice article but a couple of things irk me to no end. I love how the entitlement crowd will pay 200k for a house, 40k for a car but refuse to buy their own health insurance and just complain that the "healthcare" system is "broken". I ain't buying or drinking that koolaide.

There is no way to stop these mass killings unless you place armed security in every school in the nation. Even then some schools are so big that campus security could/would take several minutes to get to the scene. We can't stop bank robberies, we'll never stop automobile accidents and we'll never stop evil, we'll just react to it.

We all forgetting 9/11? With all the security available and all the technology 20 armed bad guys still got aboard our planes. And we reacted.

We've already seen what happens in gun-free zones and in gun free cities. Entire nations have banned guns and their gun violence is on the rise by very large percentages.
I don't have the answer but I do know targeting the guns and not the individuals that use them in crimes is the wrong approach.

After 9/11 we allowed pilots to carry guns on planes, why can't we allow teachers carry concealed weapons at school?

Cake_14N

12-17-2012, 16:02

why can't we allow teachers carry concealed weapons at school?

Right after the Columbine shootings I was a HS Science teacher as well as an AF Security Policeman in the Guard. My principal tried to get the school board to purchase a gun vault and both a 9mm and an AR-15 to put into my classroom. It almost worked until I asked for a lot more than $22,500 a year to both teach and become the security team for a 1300 person high school.

Felix87

12-17-2012, 16:08

Destrier

12-17-2012, 16:14

[QUOTE=Cake_14N;478908 It almost worked until I asked for a lot more than $22,500 a year to both teach and become the security team for a 1300 person high school.[/QUOTE]

Not to be an ass: I would have been happy to simply teach and be able to protect should need arise. Being a sheepdog has never been about getting better bones.

Razor

12-17-2012, 23:40

Maybe part of that perception is that auto deaths seem somewhat proportional to the number of cars on the road, the miles/ hours driven and the perception that the primary purpose of driving a car is deemed beneficial and or productive.

Sure, I mean there were only 1300 kids that died in vehicle accidents in 2009, and they tend to die singly or in small groups, so it's not such a big deal, right? Certainly not newsworthy or deserving of a national period of mourning. Same with the 700 that die each year from drowning, many in backyard pools and hot tubs. Those things are far too relaxing and convenient to strictly regulate, I hope.

miclo18d

12-18-2012, 06:02

There was an interesting article on PoliceOne referencing a speech by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman. He makes the point that we have over lapping methods of mitigating risk relevant to fires in schools, fire alarms, extinguishers, fire drills, fire resistant materials, etc. The result being that there have been no school related fire deaths in 50 years. We do not train for an active shooter scenario and are in denial about it happening.

The other statement he makes that I agree with is that an unarmed person is not Security.

Article here.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/
It can be funny how we come full circle to other subjects on this forum. In the article you have referenced about Grossman, he references John Giduck's book Terror in Beslan, which we all know to be a crock. Grossman makes some good points but his credibility is on shaky ground when he quotes fakes.

Richard

12-18-2012, 08:10

An interesting piece on mass killers - self-loathing, perceived injustice, location.

Richard :munchin

Why Spree Killers Kill Themselves
Wired, 18 Dec 2012

With the Sandy Hook shooter dead, we may never fully understand why he gunned down 26 random strangers at a public school. Even when such killers have survived, their self-explanations have done little to shed new light on acts the rest of us can only grasp as psychotic. Inevitably, we are left with the bare facts of the attacks themselves to frame our understanding.

Such facts may be bare. But they are far from silent.

I recently conducted a study (currently in review) using binary logistic regression statistical tests and data from the 2010 NYPD report of all identity-known active shooter incidents (n=179) in the U.S. between 1966-2010.

Here’s what I found: In about half of the “rampage” incidents (more than two casualties), the shooters killed innocent victims … and then committed suicide.

Why are some mass shooters more likely to kill themselves? If we go beyond the armchair psychology and diagnostic labels in the coverage of this horrific tragedy, the data from past rampage shootings (see also this paper and this related paper) may partially reveal some motivations.

It’s about self-loathing and perceived injustice. And location matters.

Psychologists have long theorized that there’s a connection between rage against others and rage against the self.

According to my findings, the shooter’s likelihood of committing suicide or suicide by cop appears to be 1.16 times higher (controlling for the attacker’s age and sex) for each additional victim that is killed. This suggests that those who have the most rage toward others – and therefore end up killing the most victims – would also feel the most guilty and ashamed about their crimes. They are therefore more likely to engage in “self-punishment” via suicide or suicide by cop. After the initial explosion of rage causes them to open fire, active shooters who see many dead or dying victims around them may feel a correspondingly higher need for self-punishment than shooters with fewer victims.

Besides killing more victims, active shooters who arm themselves with more weapons are possibly fueled by a more powerful sense of “injustice” and hopelessness than other active shooters. For each additional weapon a rampage shooter brings to the crime scene, his or her likelihood of dying is 1.76 times higher. This would also explain why they’re more likely to end up killing themselves.

Criminologist Jack Gibbs’s theory of social control suggests that when an individual commits murder, he or she does so because the social system is perceived to have failed in its responsibility to control the behavior of others and thus protect that individual’s rights. Unable to rely on broader instruments of social control, the murderer tries to “correct” past injustices by employing his or her own direct control over others, which manifests itself through violence.

Anecdotal evidence supports the theory’s application to many active shooters, who indeed claimed to have attacked in response to past injustices. Perhaps the same offenders who have the least hopeful perception of social control mechanisms – and thus need to exercise the most direct control themselves – also feel like they have the least to live for, because society is so terribly unjust. This interpretation would dovetail with previous theories of suicide that suggest that hopelessness is one of the most common reasons why people seek death.

These same concepts help explain why active shooters who attack in open commercial locations are particularly likely to end up dead. Because attack location makes a difference: Shooters who struck at sites such as shopping malls, department stores, and restaurants were 4.19 times more likely to die as a result of their attacks (compared to those in the NYPD’s “other” location category).

The biggest difference between attacking at open commercial sites and attacking at other locations is the nature of one’s victims: at open commercial sites, victims tend to be far more random and representative of a cross-section of society.

Gibbs’s theory of social control applied here suggests that offenders who attack random victims at open commercial sites are responding to perceived failures of social control at a societal level, and are thus the most universally hopeless about their future. In contrast, offenders who target victims at schools or office buildings would be responding to failures of social control at a much smaller level, and would not be as hopeless about society at large and therefore would have less desire to die.

The guilt, shame, rage, and self-loathing generated by active shooters who kill random victims may be even more overwhelming than the feelings experienced by offenders who kill a subset of victims at a specific location they view as particularly oppressive and corrupt.

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/why-spree-killers-kill-themselves/

Dozer523

12-18-2012, 08:21

Sure, I mean there were only 1300 kids that died in vehicle accidents in 2009, and they tend to die singly or in small groups, so it's not such a big deal, right? .
I did not raise the motor vehicle comparison, I replied to it pointing out it isn't really a valid comparison. As you do too. And I disagree with your claim that children dying in autos, private swimming pools or any way deemed Preventable does not garner attention, alarm and review. In my observation of a preventable child's death the ultimate aim is to hold "someone accountable". And we see legislation.

For example: a child wanders into a neighbors yard, and enters a swimming pool and drowns. Although the child is trespassing the pool is deemed an attractive nuisance (assistance please, legal pros). As a result, Homeowners are required to have a fence and post signs. Insurance companies require separate coverage for pools in exsisting policies. Industry changes are mandated (as in the case of kids (few) who got trapped on the filtration systems at the bottom of pools and spas). Innovations such as trampoline like pool covers and floating alarms go on the market. After a 911 call about a kid drowning there is full response by emergency and law enforcement. And it is all over the news.

You are right though that kids die indivually and in small groups in most unintended situations. Which raises the question: with the exception of weapons (particularly guns) are there other instruments of unintended death (that being unintended by the manufacturer) similar to guns?

I don't think so.

I am not for banning guns no matter what some may say. I am also not for being a Swiss cheese messenger either. But, I think things have changed (as they did following the Reagan shooting) and I think that change in the public perception of the problem and desire for change will be demanding and long lasting.
I think falling back on the tried and true pro-gun arguments will not be effective in the future. Second Amendment Advocates, the NRA, you need to bring a solution to the conversation or get left behind.

Streck-Fu

12-18-2012, 08:30

I think falling back on the tried and true pro-gun arguments will not be effective in the future. Second Amendment Advocates, the NRA, you need to bring a solution to the conversation or get left behind.

Has the actual problem really been identified and is it really gun related?

The more recent mass shootings were perpetrated by individuals with documented psychological issues. Why not question the manner in which the mental health industry is regulated to default patient privacy over public safety?

Why does the NRA have to offer a solution rather than the American Psychological Association?

Guy

12-18-2012, 09:31

It can be funny how we come full circle to other subjects on this forum. In the article you have referenced about Grossman, he references John Giduck's book Terror in Beslan, which we all know to be a crock. Grossman makes some good points but his credibility is on shaky ground when he quotes fakes.Grossman endorsement of John Giduck...:rolleyes:

Anyways, here's an interesting blog post:

Now I’ll ask you to put yourself in the shoes of an intended victim of an active shooter.

You’re having lunch with your family at a mall food court. It’s a pleasant afternoon, no different than any other day you’ve visited the mall. Bored, unarmed security guards on Segways patrol the walkways. You barely notice them as your family discusses your son’s upcoming school play.

Suddenly you hear a scream. You look toward the sound and see a woman running in terror. At first you’re just curious; you aren’t sure what’s happening. Then you hear gunshots. Rapid gunshots, six or seven in a row. Dozens of people are suddenly on their feet, running and screaming.

You follow your first instinct and drop to the floor with your family. The gunshots keep coming. You hear the high-pitched crash of tables and chairs being knocked over by fleeing shoppers. Looking under tables, you see motionless bodies strewn about the floor. Everyone you see who’s still on their feet is running. Everyone, except one person.

One pair of legs is walking slowly, with determination, turning back and forth. You can’t see the upper body above the tables, but with every gunshot, a shell drops by the pair of legs. You’re looking at the shooter. Your breath catches in your throat as you have a sick realization: he’s moving toward you. Toward your family.

Adrenaline saturates your blood. You force yourself not to panic because you know your family needs you now, more than ever. You grab your children and pull them close. A desperate thought crosses your mind, and you know it’s fantasy even as you think it.Is someone making a movie or something?

Ten feet away, a woman and child are huddled under their table. The woman screams, “We’ve got to get out of here! Oh my God, we’ve got to get out of here!”

You look toward the shooter’s legs. They’re closer now, maybe thirty feet away. You stay silent, not sure if the woman is right. Should you get up and run, or stay where you are?

Near the shooter, a shrill voice shrieks, “No, please! Don’t shoot me!” The man answers with gunshots. Another body falls to the floor.

The woman ten feet away grabs her child’s hand, lurches to her feet and runs. A voice yells “Bitch!” and more shots are fired, four or five in no more than two seconds. You hear something heavy and soft slam to the linoleum floor. A child’s voice screams in terror. Another shot is fired, and the scream is silenced.

You look to the shooter. Less than twenty feet away. He takes another step in your direction. You don’t know if he’s seen your family yet, but if he hasn’t, he will soon. You close your eyes, say a prayer to your God, and make your decision.

Cowards, Mass Murders And The American Public (http://chrishernandezauthor.com/2012/12/17/cowards-mass-murders-and-the-american-public/)

Stay safe out yonder folks.

Destrier

12-18-2012, 09:33

A responsible response would be to allow educators, with concealed permits, additional training, and willing to accept the added responsibility to carry in schools. Or to have armed law enforcement at each school. Even with such measures, the best you will accomplish is to reduce reaction time to assaults. You will never be able to stop a determined individual from harming others regardless of the tool-method used. You can only limit the time it takes to react to them and thus reduce the time the criminal has to harm others.

Until you can look into a mans soul and determine if he is going to commit such acts.

I for one would rather our citizens have a chance to defend themselves compared to the alternative.

Dozer523

12-18-2012, 09:43

Has the actual problem really been identified and is it really gun related?

The more recent mass shootings were perpetrated by individuals with documented psychological issues. Why not question the manner in which the mental health industry is regulated to default patient privacy over public safety?

Why does the NRA have to offer a solution rather than the American Psychological Association? Well there are a lot of dead people.
We've eliminated cars and swimming pools as the proximate cause.
Guns that did not belong to the alleged shooter were found at the scene
The owner of the guns was found dead at the alleged shooters residence

So I think guns played a part. I think gun security played a part, I think mental illness diagnosis and treatment played a part.

I think, in the coming sea-change in the conversation about guns, rights and violence all interested parties need to bring some part of a solution to the conversation,
Those who don't are going to be left out.

And, your post IMHO, reflects a continued reliance on the old tried and true . . . which I think a growing number of Americans will not consider as true anymore.

Richard

12-18-2012, 09:45

A responsible response would be to allow educators, with concealed permits, additional training, and willing to accept the added responsibility to carry in schools. Or to have armed law enforcement at each school.

Public schools in Dallas had a police officer on campus during school hours and many of the private schools had security officers on campus. The JHS and HS campuses had assigned officers - the elementary schools always had an officer parked in their vehicles on campus, not assigned but the police departments had their patrol officers take scheduled breaks by parking in the school parking lots and providing continuous and visible coverage.

There are many small, rural communities and schools which cannot afford this level of security and I can see allowing one or two staff/faculty CCW.

The petitions showing up at The White House now want educators to be allowed CCW like airline pilots. Based upon my experiences with the education community, that is - in general - one scary thought.

During my tenure as a teacher and high school principal, I was involved in having to physically remove two teachers who had gone bonkers - ranting and screaming about, making threats and scaring the hell out of the students and their peers, throwing and kicking stuff - one of them took police intervention to remove - and if they had been allowed CCW... :eek:

Richard :munchin

Badger52

12-18-2012, 09:59

Has the actual problem really been identified and is it really gun related?IME, only as it relates to being the tool at hand. Are lofty thinkers - on any side - willing to go deep enough into dark places to understand the reality that is:

- the medical community cannot guarantee protection from unstable individuals doing harm to innocent people in supposedly safe places.

- a government at whatever level (Fed, local LE) cannot guarantee protection from unstable individuals doing harm to innocent people in supposedly safe places. (In fact case law has shown they have no obligation to do so*.)

- attempts to legislate behavior (e.g., gun-free zones) have failed to alter the behavior meant to be mitigated.

Regardless of the duration or nature of "the conversation" against what are results measured, and can that be known except over time? Or is the measurement to be that something/anything was done, measured against an electoral clock or the next SOTU address?

MSM has no self-serving interest in reporting on a true conversation even were it to occur so, as Dozer suggests, some folks better get the wax outta their ears and arm themselves with facts.

___________________________
* DeShaney v. Winnebago County: (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0489_0189_ZS.html) "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services."

afchic

12-18-2012, 10:57

I read the Daily Beast every morning, just like I read NRO. I found this article to pretty much sum up how I feel about what happened last week.

It is a little lengthy, but worth the read.

BLUF: There is NOTHING we can do to prevent this type of tragedy. The things that could prevent this are UnConstitutional, and only effect people that are going to follow the law anyway. If someone wants to do harm to a large gorup of people, they are going to do it, regardless of the precaustions we choose to implement.

The author states that just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/17/there-s-little-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

booker

12-18-2012, 12:30

There are many small, rural communities and schools which cannot afford this level of security and I can see allowing one or two staff/faculty CCW.

Richard :munchin

I live in a small, rural community that cannot afford the security you spoke of for the larger Dallas schools. However, the local law enforcement, most of whom have kids on one or more of the local schools, have always taken it upon themselves to have a presence, even if it is sitting in their cars doing paperwork during the school day. This occurred before the Virginia Tech incidents, which only served to reinforce the trend. However, we are of a different mindset than the next county over, where the parents complained of the cops being on site (liberal college professors...). I don't know of any police that would complain of such a duty, and as illustrated above, most take it upon themselves to do it. Is this the answer for all schools? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

BKKMAN

12-18-2012, 13:05

98G

12-18-2012, 16:37

Reuters On Tuesday, the National Rifle Association made its first comments after the Newtown, Conn. elementary school shootings.

The National Rifle Association said on Tuesday it is "prepared to offer meaningful contributions" to prevent future massacres like the Connecticut shooting on Friday, marking a sharp change in tone for the nation's largest gun rights group.

"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of four million moms and dads, sons and daughters - and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement sent to reporters.

The NRA plans a news conference on Friday after staying silent out of respect for families in Newtown, Connecticut, and as a matter of common decency, the statement said.

koz

12-18-2012, 16:59

The petitions showing up at The White House now want educators to be allowed CCW like airline pilots. Based upon my experiences with the education community, that is - in general - one scary thought.

During my tenure as a teacher and high school principal, I was involved in having to physically remove two teachers who had gone bonkers - ranting and screaming about, making threats and scaring the hell out of the students and their peers, throwing and kicking stuff - one of them took police intervention to remove - and if they had been allowed CCW... :eek:

Richard :munchin

Airline pilots who "CCW" are actually credentialed federal law enforcement officers under the FFDO (Federal Flight Deck Officer) program. The gun used is issued to the pilot. Before even being admitted into the program, the pilot has to see a shrink. Also recurrent training is also required, unlike a CCW.

Like any group there are some bad seeds. But at every PD, Secret Service , FBI, etc... there are people who shouldn't be in that position. Give the teachers the proper screen and training.

trvlr

12-18-2012, 17:01

koz

12-18-2012, 17:02

Two other things-

Why is no one talking about the video games that this (and many other shooters) are addicted to? Kids are being indoctrinated that killing is easy and there is no consequence.

Also why does the Gov't give tax credits for energy efficient windows, doors, A/C, etc... but gives nothing to secure your firearms. If they truly cared about children, they would give a tax credit for people to secure their guns.

Ape Man

12-18-2012, 17:07

1. Mental health in this country is more messed up than many of you can imagine.

To give you just one example, pedophiles are frequently locked up in mental health hospitals if they are deemed at risk of offending again. In New York, recent ward closures has lead facilities to look into releasing these creatures into outpatient treatment programs as that is where the state wants mental health treatment to go. I have been told by clinical people that pedophiles being treated in outpatient treatment programs are not subject to most of the notification and exclusion rules governing pedophiles. This came up because an objection was raised on the ground that many of our outpatient treatment programs are near areas with lots of children.

2. Most Americans don't pay much attention to world news and so don't understand that these thing happen even with very restrictive gun laws.

Of the top 5 gun massacres committed by one person, only one happened in the United States. (http://www.top5ofanything.com/index.php?h=db8a4490) All the countries had stricter gun laws then the US. One of the worst massacres was carried out by a man with a .32 revolver. Countries like China that have almost no guns at all don't have large scale gun massacres. But that does not mean they don't have problems with people attacking kids in school. The main difference is that people use knives instead.

3. For some reason, the gun control crowd exempts itself from having to be rational and yet they demand that the pro-gun crowd be fact based and rational.

I can understand people who think if we had the level of gun ownership that Japan has that we would be a safer place. But I can't understand people who think that 10 rounds in an AR style rifle is so much safer than 20 rounds in an AR style rifle. I can't understand people who think that a pump action shotgun is so much safer than a semi-automatc shotgun. Round count may make a difference when trying to suppress an armed opponent. But I fail to see how having to reload a couple of more times makes much of a difference when you are killing little kids. I tried to point that out to someone today but all I got in response is "tell me one good reason someone needs a 20 rounds in gun?" So they need a good reason to have one but you don't need a good reason to take it away?

DDD

12-18-2012, 17:10

abc_123

12-18-2012, 17:56

The other problem that no one has talked about is "Non Competitive Soccer". That is not in pink and my point is they were raised by a society where they were always winners (trophys for everyone) and never learned how to lose. When life gets hard, they don't have the skills to deal with it because they've always been "winners".
Of course this is MOO and I could very well be wrong.

I went down that very same "soccer" road in this thread a while back, however you did specify "non-competitive" where I did not.

http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21934

...it caused a bit of discussion. :)

trvlr

12-18-2012, 19:13

Conn has very strict gun control laws. Assault weapons are illegal. Having a gun in your vehicle even if yours and legal is illegal except under very strict circumstances. Also murdering children is illegal. Didn't stop the idiot. Look no further than Mexico and look at the gun violence there where firearms are illegal yet the criminals have select fire AK-47's M-16's and RPG's. Criminals don't follow the laws that is why we call them criminals. They don't care what is illegal they do it anyway. Making more will not stop them. What about the guy in China that used a knife on 22 school children. Think it through. BTW there are more homicides non firearm related than with firearms every year according to the FBI.

You left out the part where I said "->enforced<-" Mexico does not have the crime prevention/law enforcement success rate of a developed nation right now.

The China incident resulted in 0 deaths.

In this case, the idiot's mother (who I'll assume was a law abiding citizen since she purchased her guns legally) would not have had the weapons for him to steal from her. Could he have found another way? Almost certainly, but my point is, saying it would have no affect on mass shootings doesn't make any sense.

I'll reiterate that I want to keep all of my weapon systems. That being said, some of the arguments we make don't make sense.

dollarbill

12-18-2012, 20:15

http://www.americaspartynews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=3621
DARRELL SCOTT'S SPEECH TO CONGRESS?

ThinAir

12-18-2012, 20:39

Several pro gun arguments just don't add up.

- every teacher getting a CCW (not enough money/interest)
- make guns more available (not enough money/interest)
- more cops at school (not enough money)
- developed countries with ->enforced<- tough gun laws have high rates of gun violence
(Using any region in the UK or any other high population developed country)

I really want to keep all of my weapon systems, however, can we really make the argument that tough gun laws will have 0 effect on these types of crimes? I don't think so.

IMO, a better argument would be that the amount of money/heartache associated with very tough gun laws would not be worth the predicted drop in these types of crimes. Now if someone could predict roughly what that drop would be...

Your last point, regarding developed countries: How about OVERALL rates of violence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The UK is sucking when it comes to violent crime. Apologists for the UK GOV will make all the excuses they want, but the data is still the same. I could certainly argue that control would have zero effect on overall levels of violent crime. What effect did the previous AWB have on gun violence? If the Anti-2A logic is to be taken at face value, then Chicago and NYC should be a safety utopia, yet the opposite is true. Why? Are the laws not enforced well enough?

Finally, do you believe that 2A is for hunting purposes?

trvlr

12-18-2012, 21:11

Your last point, regarding developed countries: How about OVERALL rates of violence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

The UK is sucking when it comes to violent crime. Apologists for the UK GOV will make all the excuses they want, but the data is still the same. I could certainly argue that control would have zero effect on overall levels of violent crime. What effect did the previous AWB have on gun violence? If the Anti-2A logic is to be taken at face value, then Chicago and NYC should be a safety utopia, yet the opposite is true. Why? Are the laws not enforced well enough?

Finally, do you believe that 2A is for hunting purposes?

I don't know how it would affect overall levels of violent crime. In the UK most people switched to knives. If that happened here, then I'm guessing the number of mass killings with semi automatic weapons would decrease.

I do not believe government gun purchasing/confiscation is a high priority in the NY or Chicago areas. Most of the LEOs are IMO busy trying to stay in front of the high priority crimes.

That being said, many of these mass shooters have used guns that were purchased legally by themselves or someone they knew. They aren't going to high crime areas to buy the throwaways that are used there. This lends credence to the thought process that extremely tough gun control laws would lead to less of these mass killings.

I believe the 2nd amendment was written to keep an armed and free populous in the US. I think they were right with banning the M2 for civilian use, but I fear that the planned end state for some of these politicians is an America where all guns but flintlocks are outlawed. Today it's bushmaster, tomorrow it's glock because "any semi-auto can be used to help a mass shooter."

I don't think any new legislation will stop enough of these shootings to warrant me losing my weapons, but I do think it would have some effect.

Badger52

12-18-2012, 21:30

IMO, a better argument would be that the amount of money/heartache associated with very tough gun laws would not be worth the predicted drop in these types of crimes. Now if someone could predict roughly what that drop would be...
Toward the end of the last AWB the Clinton admin had lots of studies done; MOO they wanted to prove the shining efficacy of their actions, which didn't quite work out. Here's one, (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab) which looks to be a study of the studies.
It appears to me as if the CDC didn't find that - after 6 to 8 YEARS - of the AWB they were willing to find anything conclusive, other than flawed studies. A couple of extracts from the table at the bottom past the footnotes (apologies Sigaba, end notes :D) caught my eye:

Intervention: Bans on specified firearms or ammunition.
Task force finding: Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness.
Intervention description: Prohibit acquisition or possession of certain categories of firearms (e.g., machine guns or assault weapons) or ammunition (e.g., large-capacity magazines). Can also include prohibitions on the manufacture of the specified firearms. Often "grandfather" guns acquired before the ban.
Key findings: Evidence insufficient because of small numbers of studies, inconsistent evidence of effectiveness, and limitations in execution of available studies. Studies of Washington, D.C. handgun ban produced conflicting results that could not be resolved. Bans may lead to pre-ban increases in sales of firearms to be banned. (my Captain of the Obvious award)

Intervention: Zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools.
Task force finding: Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness.
Intervention description: Require that participating schools expel for at least 1 year students found carrying a gun in school. Local modifications possible for individual students.
Key findings: Evidence insufficient because of absence of relevant studies; no studies evaluated violent outcomes of zero-tolerance laws. Possible violent and other harmful consequences of expulsion.

Here's another hit from the archives. ( http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf) Done for the DoJ, by all means enjoy the Summary findings for each section.

Should we not assume the best motives of these academic efforts? Are their reports to be believed? Is it immeasurable, or did no one in the administration that fostered such a ban really actually give a shit whether it accomplished anything down the road or not? Especially taking the last reference done for the DoJ, does anyone think that - 10 years being insufficient to arrive at real conclusions - that any policy maker or even someone of the purist motive is willing to wait 20 years to see if something works?

To an AWB specifically: Same circus, newer mix of clowns.

Streck-Fu

12-19-2012, 08:20

Two other things-

Why is no one talking about the video games that this (and many other shooters) are addicted to? Kids are being indoctrinated that killing is easy and there is no consequence.

It does get discussed but I don't think it holds much water. There are millions of kids and young adults that play video games and do not go on shooting rampages.
The more common element of several more recent shooters has been some sort of psychological condition. The Colorado shooter was seeing a college therapist whom thought him dangerous.
The Virginia Tech shooter had seen a therapist for some sort issue not defined in the media.
Laughner in Arizona had known issues.

Most of the people doing these shooting may have played games, but they all had psychological or developmental issues. For the games to be a more primary cause, there would have to be cases of game players with no history of other issues rushing out and shooting people.

That isn't happening.

Also why does the Gov't give tax credits for energy efficient windows, doors, A/C, etc... but gives nothing to secure your firearms. If they truly cared about children, they would give a tax credit for people to secure their guns.

Not a bad idea at all. I'm not really a fan of tax credits ( I just want a much smaller government requiring far fewer taxes) but I can support most plans that allow people to keep more of their money.

Paslode

12-19-2012, 08:40

That being said, many of these mass shooters have used guns that were purchased legally by themselves or someone they knew. They aren't going to high crime areas to buy the throwaways that are used there. This lends credence to the thought process that extremely tough gun control laws would lead to less of these mass killings.

Or maybe extremely tough gun laws will lead to a change in the methods for mass killings.

In 1927 a school administrator killed 37 elementary school children with explosives. In 1990 Julio Gonazalez used a gallon of gasoline and killed 87 people. David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz was also an arsonist who had a log of starting over 1400 fires. The 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama bombing killed 4 children. Charlie Manson......

How about a suicide vest...

Evil will continue to raise it's ugly head with or without more gun laws.

I had a person, a none gun owner tell me this week that no one, except for the LE and the Military needs to have hi-cap mags or automatic guns. People should only have guns to hunt with and the Government needs to do something about it.

On the other hand this person is up in arms that the her Government is going to penalize them because they make too much money. They are up in arms about ramming Obama Care down our throats and they are up in arms about Obama forcing Catholics to accept abortion....and the Government has no right to do that. I pay my fair share, I should be able to practice my religion as I want, I should not have abortion forced on me, I shouldn't have to pay healthcare for others and I shouldn't be penalized for being successful.

In either case, I find it is little more than a divisive tactic that demonizes a segment of society to achieve a political agenda.....and it doesn't come close in getting to the root of the problem.

MR2

12-19-2012, 09:05

Prohibition Never Works

trvlr

12-19-2012, 09:06

Should we not assume the best motives of these academic efforts? Are their reports to be believed? Is it immeasurable, or did no one in the administration that fostered such a ban really actually give a shit whether it accomplished anything down the road or not? Especially taking the last reference done for the DoJ, does anyone think that - 10 years being insufficient to arrive at real conclusions - that any policy maker or even someone of the purist motive is willing to wait 20 years to see if something works?

To an AWB specifically: Same circus, newer mix of clowns.

The heavy reading you linked supports everything you said. Which is interesting seeing as they'll be trying to push for a more stringent law without their own studies supporting a major benefit coming from the new law.

Many of our citizens are afraid though, and they definitely want to see something done no matter how miniscule the positive result may be.

Badger52

12-19-2012, 09:34

Many of our citizens are afraid though, and they definitely want to see something done no matter how miniscule the positive result may be.Quite true. They want to see something done (by someone else), not understanding that taking personal action is a choice also available to them. One is more liberating than the other.

So long as their state of reality is defined by the slothful 8 seconds in a day they devote to information gathering, sourced by whatever channel the TV was left on when it was turned off, it'll happen again, they'll wring their hands again, etc.

Wait till EO guidance to ATF making grandfathered items not covered in Feinstein-II into NFA items comes along...
:rolleyes:

JimP

12-19-2012, 10:03

grigori

12-19-2012, 10:11

Does anyone think it funny (not ha-ha funny) that Fine-swine HERSELF has a permit to carry while she denies her constituents the same protection...??? Why does SHE get to carry and denies it the "unwashed masses"?? (Rhetorical question going to the heart of the debate. i expect no actual answer from the spring-butts here).

The politicians, super rich and celebrities love to deny us common folk that right on every occasion. They may have their bodyguards for their protection, for us self-defense is our own responsibility and arming ourselves for that is not wrong in any way. These pricks will never understand that, for themselves they might say " Hey!! We are important people and have enemies that might hurt us, who do you have to guard yourself from??". I am very angry at what happened in Newtown meanwhile 2 days back something happened in the National Capital of my country where in an empty bus around midnight 5 guys gang-raped a medical student, beat her and her male friend with an iron rod, then shoved that rod in her vagina and threw her almost naked on the street , you can read more about it here:

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/girl-gangraped-in-delhi-bus-cops-ready-sketches-govt-goes-for-cctvs/1046394/0

In countries where the law allows citizens to own guns, especially in cities where gang culture exists and crime is high, licenses should be given to citizens for self-defense. The police and government in India loves to show the middle finger to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, I wish the US where self-defense and RKBA is respected doesn't have to go through this.

ddoering

12-19-2012, 10:18

Also why does the Gov't give tax credits for energy efficient windows, doors, A/C, etc... but gives nothing to secure your firearms. If they truly cared about children, they would give a tax credit for people to secure their guns.

Now that would be a good way for them to find out who owns guns and what type of guns. Perhaps you might want to rethink this......:confused:

DJ Urbanovsky

12-19-2012, 11:00

1) Both Schumer and Feinstein, two of the most vocal proponents of anti-gun legislation, have or had concealed carry permits. And both have armed security. So it's alright for them, but not the rest of us...

2) They didn't even wait for the bodies to cool, did they? I heard on the radio on the morning of the 16th, Feinstein talking about trundling out her legislation on the backs of the dead. Something to the effect (I'm paraphrasing here) of having it waiting in the wings for situations like this. Which strikes me a ghoulish and disgusting.

3) While Columbine has been mentioned once in this thread, what I don't believe has been mentioned is when it occurred: in 1999. Right in the midst of the 1994 Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, which didn't sunset until 2004. So historically, we already know that such legislation does nothing to curtail violent crime. What's the definition of lunacy? Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.

4) Statistically, the data shows that most gun crimes tend to be committed with cheap, small caliber handguns, such as the Kel-tec .32 (to name just one brand). Assault weapons account for only a limited number of gun crimes. So if it's a public safety issue, why is nothing being done to curtail the sale of cheap, small caliber handguns?

5) So if bans not only don't curtail crime, but also don't target the types of weapons typically used in crimes, what purpose could possibly be served by such bans? What is the real agenda?

6) You want to stop school shootings? Vet, train, and arm teachers. It's worked just fine in Israel and UT.

7) While this data hasn't been released yet on the shooter, I'll bet you green money that Psychiatric meds were involved. Either he was on them, or he'd just recently quit taking them. Not sure if this has been posted already, but check this out. Sort by incidents containing the world school: http://www.ssristories.com/index.php

lath_hoy

12-19-2012, 11:15

Feinstein is 79 years old, yet her hair color is as dark if not darker than my 2 year old nephew's. If she can't be honest with herself, she certainly cannot be honest with us.

Richard

12-19-2012, 12:01

Doesn't matter what the laws say, this will always be an issue.

Richard :munchin

Green Beret’s Puyallup Home Targeted By Burglars
FoxNews, 18 Dec 2012

Burglars clean out the Puyallup home of a Green Beret away at training. Police say, if the valuables weren’t screwed down, they were gone. Some of the items include guns, rifles, credit cards, even a washer and dryer.

The two female suspects and one male suspect were caught on surveillance cameras shortly after the house was ransacked at Macy’s in the South Hill Mall and at 7/11. So far, police haven’t been able to track them down. One of the Green Beret’s guns was seized in a traffic stop. Police say that means the guns, some family memorabilia may have already been sold.

“An M14 rifle which is a very powerful and expensive rifle,” Lt. Michael Lusk of the Puyallup police department said. “Two handguns, one of them has already been recovered and two shotguns. One a 12-gauge, the other a 16-gauge that were actually handed down by a father and grandfather to him.”

The victim said he’d been gone just ten days when he found out nearly everything he owned had been hauled away and stolen. He says knowing his body armor and guns may be out on the street, in the wrong hands, has made him more and more uneasy.

“What happened on the east coast and at a mall in Portland,” the victim explains, “I hope no one would use them to commit a crime. It’s out of my control at this point.”

http://q13fox.com/2012/12/19/green-berets-puyallup-home-targeted-by-burglars/

Panamazach

12-19-2012, 12:07

Another point to add to this conversation is that the proposed "new" Ban would Grandfather in all items which had been previously purchased...

With all of these tragedies, the Shooters already owned the Guns or used Guns that had been purchased for some time.

And as stated before, a Pistol or a Revolver is much easier to hide on your person than a AR style Rifle. I don't know anyone that can comfortable conceal a rifle on their body as well as a Pistol or a Revolver.

So first a ban on AW, then a ban on Handguns???

Pete

12-19-2012, 12:53

Those bayonet lugs are real dangerous.

Badger52

12-19-2012, 13:12

Those bayonet lugs are real dangerous. I'll see your bayonet lugs & raise you an evil-intent birdcage FH.

Ret10Echo

12-19-2012, 13:48

Those bayonet lugs are real dangerous.

Oh yeah.. Watch out there...

Pete

12-19-2012, 13:57

Oh yeah.. Watch out there...

That evil thing will put your eye out.

MR2

12-19-2012, 16:10

I do not own any "Assault Rifles"; I own "Defense Rifles"!

Sometimes the best Defense is a good Offense...

PedOncoDoc

12-19-2012, 18:34

I do not own any "Assault Rifles"; I own "Defense Rifles"!

Sometimes the best Defense is a good Offense...

That's along the same lines as why I refuse to attend any event my division refers to as a "retreat". I explained we're not French, and I'm not one to run away from problems - I confront and fix them. We now have "extramural faculty meetings".

hijack over...:D

GratefulCitizen

12-19-2012, 21:28

They'll take another AWB if they can get it, but I think it's just a distraction.
What issues are they conveniently avoiding?

The antihero

12-20-2012, 00:58

I am confused. Did Lanza used that rifle or not? I'm finding contradictory statements online. Some say he left it in the car, other that he shot it, other that he shot handguns with frangible ammo. Anything definitive about this?

abc_123

12-20-2012, 01:23

They'll take another AWB if they can get it, but I think it's just a distraction.
What issues are they conveniently avoiding?

BINGO!

Why waste a perfectly good crisis?

Bengazi? What is that? Those aren't the droids we're looking for...and as a bonus maybe a win for the anti-gun fruitcakes who are part of the Dim voting block.

Get ready for AWB #2.

Richard

12-20-2012, 09:18

In a bold move, top Pentagon officials announced that the military will be leading by example when it comes to dealing with Assault Weapons in America.

From the Pentagon came breaking and historic news today as top officials announced that the military will be taking the lead in dealing with the Assault Weapons issue in America by banning all Assault Weapons from all branches of the service.

COL B. S. Talker from the Office of the Joint Chiefs told reporters, “there is no reason why our military needs weapons capable of firing 900 rounds per minute when our foes are stuck using archaic relics from the Cold War era.”

The move comes amid a growing domestic debate about the role of Assault Weapons in America and whether the Constitution makes room for them within the limits of the 2nd Amendment. Many within the media have declared that such weapons belong only on the battlefield, but after today’s announcement, even that is being questioned.

Talker elaborated, “essentially, continuing to improve military weapons only serves to escalate the level of violence in warfare. Since the advent of firearms there has been a tremendous growth in the amount of deaths on the battlefield. While we don’t hope to get rid of all firearms, it is our hope that limiting the amount of damage potential we can decrease the amount of deaths from firearms experienced during conflict.”

Response from service members has been mixed with a LCpl serving at Camp Lejeune telling our reporters, “man, I really hope them Mayans were right…”

{US Infantry Satirical News 19 Dec 2012}

http://us-infantry.com/military-to-lead-by-example-with-assault-weapons-ban/

:munchin

7624U

12-20-2012, 09:45

cetheridge

12-20-2012, 09:51

"Col B.S. Talker"......LMAO!:D

Quote....“essentially, continuing to improve military weapons only serves to escalate the level of violence in warfare. Since the advent of firearms there has been a tremendous growth in the amount of deaths on the battlefield. While we don’t hope to get rid of all firearms, it is our hope that limiting the amount of damage potential we can decrease the amount of deaths from firearms experienced during conflict.”......

(Sounds like something that would come from the mouth of Joe "B.S." Biden.) :p

Streck-Fu

12-20-2012, 13:45

Holder claims that "Executive" actions will be considered. LINK (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-usa-shootings-connecticut-holder-idUSBRE8BI13720121219)

(Reuters) - The Obama administration will consider executive actions and specific proposals for legislation as part of its gun policy response to the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.

Holder, who has been a vocal proponent of a new ban on certain semiautomatic rifles, told reporters that a range of options need to be considered in the coming weeks.

Those options will have to include a "strong and robust" Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the chronically under-funded agency that enforces federal gun laws, he said.

"It's clear that we need to do more," Holder said. He did not specifically call on Wednesday for a return of the assault weapon ban.

Mycroft

12-20-2012, 14:30

Public schools in Dallas had a police officer on campus during school hours and many of the private schools had security officers on campus. The JHS and HS campuses had assigned officers - the elementary schools always had an officer parked in their vehicles on campus, not assigned but the police departments had their patrol officers take scheduled breaks by parking in the school parking lots and providing continuous and visible coverage.

There are many small, rural communities and schools which cannot afford this level of security and I can see allowing one or two staff/faculty CCW.

The petitions showing up at The White House now want educators to be allowed CCW like airline pilots. Based upon my experiences with the education community, that is - in general - one scary thought.

During my tenure as a teacher and high school principal, I was involved in having to physically remove two teachers who had gone bonkers - ranting and screaming about, making threats and scaring the hell out of the students and their peers, throwing and kicking stuff - one of them took police intervention to remove - and if they had been allowed CCW... :eek:

Richard :munchin

I'd like to add my 2 cents on this. A bit of background: I've done a lot of research on this subject going through every bit of statistical data I could find: WISQARS (CDC), FBI crime stats, State by State crime stats, revoked CCW stats where availble publicly, etc.

The person that gets a CCW permit is incredibly less likely to be the teacher going bonkers than the non-teachers with a CCW permit, if the general population vs the CCW population is any indicator.

More importantly, if I can't trust a man to act responsibly with a gun, I'd have severe reservations about that same man being near children.

Likewise, I trust my airplane pilot already with my life, why wouldn't I trust him with a gun?

Pete

12-20-2012, 14:47

[QUOTE=Mycroft;479316]........The person that gets a CCW permit is incredibly less likely to be the teacher going bonkers than the non-teachers with a CCW permit, if the general population vs the CCW population is any indicator......................../QUOTE]

Are you saying that teachers who take the time to get a CCW are more stable than the general CCW population or just more stable than the general teacher population?

Taken as a whole, the CCW crowd is pretty stable and law abiding.

Mycroft

12-20-2012, 15:38

........The person that gets a CCW permit is incredibly less likely to be the teacher going bonkers than the non-teachers with a CCW permit, if the general population vs the CCW population is any indicator........................

Are you saying that teachers who take the time to get a CCW are more stable than the general CCW population or just more stable than the general teacher population?

Taken as a whole, the CCW crowd is pretty stable and law abiding.

CCW population is more stable and law abiding than the general population. It was one of those things I thought was obvious, but after a few arguments with people I had to throw the Texas CCW revocation list in their face repeatedly.

Richard

12-20-2012, 18:01

More importantly, if I can't trust a man to act responsibly with a gun, I'd have severe reservations about that same man being near children.

Likewise, I trust my airplane pilot already with my life, why wouldn't I trust him with a gun?

I've been in touch with my old faculty and asked the History Dept Chair to ask them what they thought of arming teachers. He said 1 of the 75 thought it a good idea and "most" (his words, whatever "most" meant) were strongly against having weapons on campus. Period.

My brother-in-law is an excellent pilot; I would trust him with my life at the controls of an aircraft - however - for a number of reasons, I have never trusted him with a weapon.

Q: After the Hassan shootings at Fort Hood, are service members now carrying all the time? :confused:

Richard :munchin

Richard :munchin

Pete

12-20-2012, 18:20

....Q: After the Hassan shootings at Fort Hood, are service members now carrying all the time? :confused:

Richard :munchin

Richard :munchin

NO

Destrier

12-20-2012, 18:36

The Reaper

12-20-2012, 19:33

Q: After the Hassan shootings at Fort Hood, are service members now carrying all the time? :confused:

Richard :munchin

Richard :munchin

Carrying weaponsa is illegal for any other than military police unless specifically required by duty or in training.

A CCW is no good on post.

TR

dollarbill

12-20-2012, 21:44

My brother is a teacher in Gwinnett County, just outside of Atlanta. He says this would be his biggest fear. Sure you could take a group of teachers to the range and teach them to hit a paper target. However, the large majority would not be able to pull the trigger on another person. Also, with all the gang/thugs activity he could see several teachers being disarmed at a precise time. This would just save them the trouble of bringing in a firearm themselves. Even if the weapon was locked in a class room with the teacher having the key, it would only be a matter of time before the location of the key would be known. As one would have to agree, its not just about getting a CCW and strapping on a weapon. You must also have weapon retention and the will to fight.

The Reaper

12-20-2012, 22:02

Would it be easier to make a warrior into a teacher, or to try and make the teacher a warrior?

Many schools have SROs and JROTC departments.

TR

SomethingWitty

12-20-2012, 22:16

dollarbill

12-20-2012, 22:23

Toaster

12-20-2012, 23:26

I wonder what could be done in the means of passive security measures at schools.

Short of having a police officer at every school, better doors/windows could be a solution. It seems to me that the shooter was able to break the glass in the window, and open the door from the inside.

If we accept the fact that police response time is the largest factor in how many casualties there are, the longer it takes for the shooter to access the school, the better the outcome will be.

One of the schools I went to had doors that closed whenever the fire alarm was pulled; Maybe something similar could be utilized to make it harder for someone to force their way into a school.

This does not take into account the shooters who are students, IIRC Jonesboro had one of the shooters pull the fire alarm and the school doors locked students outside in an ambush.

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

Replacing school glass windows with something bullet resistant would be expensive and beyond many schools price ranges, even using metal grating.

The evil person who wants to conduct a rapid mass murder, will have to have put some level of thought into it before hand to be "successful". Every rapid mass murder I am aware of, the shooter had been to the location previously. I would also say they have noticed the security measures in place... I will stop since I think I am venturing into the realm of TTPs and it doesn't need discussion.

I remember all the school shootings happening when I was in middle school, I think even in elementary school I remember in Boys' Life there was an article of a student or group of students tackling a gun man in their school.

I believe the best solution is to instill good moral values into people. The Boy Scouts is a great method, not a substitute for parents. The only Eagle Scout I am aware of becoming a mass murderer is Charles Whitman of the University of Texas Tower in 1966.

It seems to me that the problem lies in the person's actions. Which actions are determined by thoughts. Thoughts derive from what goes into one's mind...? What is the solution a thought police?

Dozer523

12-20-2012, 23:31

Excellent question. IMO, a warrior is a teacher. He's already demonstated the ability to not only learn, but to teach as well. It's just a matter of having that thing called a degree and certification. The one thing my brother did mention was he would mind seeing the school property fensed off with one access gate. All personnel had to go through with vehicles and personal searches. No exception. Would it be a big delay getting in, yes it would. Would people complain, probably. Would they get use to it, yes. After all look how we adapted to the airports. He made the comment, "make it look like a f'ing prison!"Yeah, piece of cake. Two or three years, $25,000 (assuming you already have a BA or BS otherwise double the cost and time). . . easy as pie. . .

That's not gonna happen and it's not necessary. Ever dropped a kid off? It's like pulling into the pit at Indy. And, in our district (and it's been mentioned elsewhere) in the mornings and afternoons we have a police officer in a patrol car inn the parking lot. Recently he has not been prominent or visible -- now he tucks into a space where we don't notice him but he has a clear view of the entryway.

The newer ones are pretty secure. Narrow windows, limited number of exterior doors (many alarmed if opened from the inside) cameras etc.

MR2

12-20-2012, 23:52

The newer ones are pretty secure. Narrow windows, limited number of exterior doors (many alarmed if opened from the inside) cameras etc.

Yup, looks kinda like SuperMax but without the concertina wire.

Guy

12-21-2012, 03:42

Excellent question. IMO, a warrior is a teacher. He's already demonstated the ability to not only learn, but to teach as well. It's just a matter of having that thing called a degree and certification.Just because you were a Soldier, Sailor, Air-person :D or Marine does not mean you have the "innate" ability too teach.:cool:

Stay safe.

Paragrouper

12-21-2012, 07:00

Just because you were a Soldier, Sailor, Air-person :D or Marine does not mean you have the "innate" ability too teach.:cool:

Stay safe.

Does that make the NCOIC an 'Airhead?'

Richard

12-21-2012, 07:17

Apparently the school your referencing Sir is populated and led by sheep. Sheep then need be guarded by sheep dogs. With large, sharp, no cavity, 'TEETH'.

a. baaah

b. aaaawhooooo

c. ruf ruf ruf

c, yes definetly c

Apparently such blanket, unsourced statements from someone who knows nothing about the school - its location and security of the neighborhood (both public and private), environment, culture, personnel and their training for such situations, design and built-in security measures, policies and SOPs - are the order of the day now.

FWIW - I led the school for 13 years and would agree with their personal assessment of their particular situation.

I also taught in South Dallas and the situation there, even with a policeman on campus full-time, was/is much different.

Richard :munchin

Destrier

12-21-2012, 07:30

I've been in touch with my old faculty and asked the History Dept Chair to ask them what they thought of arming teachers. He said 1 of the 75 thought it a good idea and "most" (his words, whatever "most" meant) were strongly against having weapons on campus. Period.

My brother-in-law is an excellent pilot; I would trust him with my life at the controls of an aircraft - however - for a number of reasons, I have never trusted him with a weapon.

Sir, my comment was in reaction to this post. If 'most' will not, can not, or are unable stand up for themselves, then they need a sheep dog to protect them.

BryanK

12-21-2012, 07:30

We could always hire a few out of work "Mercenaries" to "Substitute" :D. Anybody ever see that movie? The Substitute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rDokiFU9w)

Hand

12-21-2012, 07:58

Isnt Holder supposed to be tied up with some angry-quick... mad... furious! Yeah, furious and fast or something?

I think that America is being reactive, as usual, and dealing with the last tragedy thinking naively that their actions will avert the next one. Securing elementary schools? Ok, so now kids feel like they are going to a training camp instead of an institution that is supposed to teach them how to think. Check.

What about movie theaters? Anybody remember that tragedy? Will turning schools into bunkers avert future theater massacres? What about colleges? Shopping malls?

The last election and subsequent events have left me numb. I'm starting to come to the realization that modern society is exactly as we see it on the news. Because that's what we have let it become. Violent, cold and selfish. Now that it is that way, because we've let this generation grow up on a steady diet of violence and without boundaries, suddenly we are amazed that little Johny videogamefreak has become exactly what we all knew he would. And we naively assume that if we take away his guns, or all guns, that suddenly little Johny videogamefreak will be a good boy again.

Personally, I would prefer being attacked by a crazy with a gun. At least there's some visual and lots of aural indication that somethings wrong. Getting blowed up would suck worse IMO.

Dozer523

12-21-2012, 07:59

Yup, looks kinda like SuperMax but without the concertina wire.
Schools that look like Super-Max prisons? In addition to keeping bad people in aren't prisons supposed to be an unpleasant place?
Why should my kid or any other kid or any teacher or administrator or staff or volunteer have to suffer that sort of environment for the sake of safety?We could always hire a few out of work "Mercenaries" to "Substitute" :D. Anybody ever see that movie? The Substitute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rDokiFU9w)
Or Marine recruiters can send Privates in their dress uniforms to stand at parade rest in front of school . . . Or wishidbeens can borrower uniforms and stand equally effective guard.

Let the goofiness begin! Just because you were a Soldier, Sailor, Air-person :D or Marine does not mean you have the "innate" ability too teach.:cool:

Stay safe.
COIN vs GW kinda proved that assumption false.

Old Dog New Trick

12-21-2012, 08:24

We could always hire a few out of work "Mercenaries" to "Substitute" :D. Anybody ever see that movie? The Substitute (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3rDokiFU9w)

No, but I have seen Kindergarten Cop a few times...

Maybe that should be required viewing for young people and politicians to help desensitize them to school violence in a fun way.

Guy

12-21-2012, 08:47

COIN vs GW kinda proved that assumption false.Initially in the beginning, yes it was working well then, we slid into nation building where the corrupt (central government) got richer.

I always find it amazing that some folks will throw up Power Point presentation and NOT realize their audience can't even read; that ain't teaching, that's jackassery! :eek:

Stay safe.

BryanK

12-21-2012, 09:16

No, but I have seen Kindergarten Cop a few times...

Maybe that should be required viewing for young people and politicians to help desensitize them to school violence in a fun way.

I see your point. However, that was not mine. Anything that will further desensitize anyone in the U.S. IMO is already available. Some examples to include Saddam's execution, Daniel Pearl's execution, news reports, etc., are all just a click away. It is the parental responsibility to ensure the minimization to the exposure of violence on the internet, in movies, video games, "art", and even books. I believe it's called censorship, and it sure isn't the FCC's job to ensure kids don't watch that stuff. I was merely attempting to inject what some adults consider to be "humor" into the conversation. Yes, that may be a problem too, and I'll leave it at that. Merry Christmas!

VVVV

12-21-2012, 09:32

I believe the best solution is to instill good moral values into people. The Boy Scouts is a great method, not a substitute for parents. The only Eagle Scout I am aware of becoming a mass murderer is Charles Whitman of the University of Texas Tower in 1966.

So, do you really believe that your "solution" works with mentally ill people?

Team Sergeant

12-21-2012, 10:55

So, do you really believe that your "solution" works with mentally ill people?

It only works if they were Boy Scouts first.....:rolleyes:

MR2

12-21-2012, 11:39

Schools that look like Super-Max prisons? In addition to keeping bad people in aren't prisons supposed to be an unpleasant place?
Why should my kid or any other kid or any teacher or administrator or staff or volunteer have to suffer that sort of environment for the sake of safety?

Agreed - So lets work on some solutions.

SomethingWitty

12-21-2012, 11:51

Is everyone looking for a solution to a problem that is impossible to predict, and is impossible to measure whether or not it is effective on a systematic basis?

Team Sergeant

12-21-2012, 12:04

Agreed - So lets work on some solutions.

Unless you arm teachers I don't see a solution.

Armed security will cost billions as some schools are huge and would take a dozen or so armed individuals to make it seem safe.

Cops are minutes away from all the schools but most lack the training and mindset to charge into an active shooter situation. Does anyone think some security guard that could not join the police and being paid less than a cop is going to charge headlong into an active shooter situation?

And making the schools into a supermax is also not the answer. The more physical obstacles schools put in place also slow down any LEO response that takes place. Most of these shootings last a few minutes too short a time for some 300lb security guard to run across most schools.

There are three types of bad people, criminals, crazies and crusaders . Your average criminal is not the type to perpetrate this sort of crime.

So you have crazies and crusaders. Crusaders will plan out an attack for months and an armed security guard or even the police will not stop them.

All of these school shootings have one thing in common, they were all done by crazies.

How many "millions" of Americans use "mind altering" prescriptions every day?

Add to that the number of Americans that use illegal mind altering drugs?

That number is in the millions. Only takes one to "snap" and do something horrific.

Arm the teachers against the crazies is my number one choice.

MR2

12-21-2012, 12:57

Unless you arm teachers I don't see a solution.

;)

ODA 226

12-21-2012, 14:14

I believe the 2nd amendment was written to keep an armed and free populous in the US. I think they were right with banning the M2 for civilian use, but I fear that the planned end state for some of these politicians is an America where all guns but flintlocks are outlawed.

You are absolutely wrong here! Eventually, they will come for your flintlock too.

bubba

12-21-2012, 14:21

ODA 226

12-21-2012, 14:30

"We" will know who "They" are very soon.

Team Sergeant

12-21-2012, 14:58

My questions......... considering who is likely to be reading this is............ just who the hell is/are "they"............... and what are "they" going to "do" when people do NOT comply with whatever confiscation plans "they" cook up.............

Confiscate my guns, I don't think so.

You'll know who "they" are when I'm standing in a pool of their blood having a cup of coffee. ;)

Ambush Master

12-21-2012, 17:21

Attached is a pdf of the transcript.

Oldrotorhead

12-21-2012, 17:28

It only works if they were Boy Scouts first.....:rolleyes:
An not named Charlie Whitman.

booker

12-21-2012, 19:16

Confiscate my guns, I don't think so.

You'll know who "they" are when I'm standing in a pool of their blood having a cup of coffee. ;)

They'll end up with the remains of the revenuers if they try to confiscate anything in these hollows. I don't think anyone in their right mind would even try. Hell, they can't even find census people to go up in those places.

Badger52

12-21-2012, 20:00

1) Republicans forced to sign a bill that the Democrats attach all sorts of anti-gun legislation toAt this stage I don't think the Republicans - as if that actually means a vote against a gun-control bill - will be forced into anything as a part of some financial bill. I think there are plenty who will be complicit in a new & improved gun bill standing all by itself. New Senators are an easy-sell because they'll have 6 years to obfuscate; Reps' cycle is 1/3 that and they don't want to be painted as dancing in the blood of children when they campaign in 2014.

Just a gut view, I don't think they've got the balls, figurative or literal to have a fact-based discussion. You can listen to both sides - regardless of the starting point of their perspective - they are more concerned with how approach 'x' would play, rather than whether it actually does something.

I'm for speeding up that part of the cycle that gets to the shooter being dead on the ground; commisserate about the social aspects later while parents hug their (still alive) kids.

GratefulCitizen

12-21-2012, 20:45

If the Feds want to do something they can exempt income gained working as school security from the Social Security "cap".
(There's a limit to how much money you can make while drawing Social Security).

You could afford multiple retirees for the price of one school resource officer.
Probably a large supply of grandmas and grandpas would be willing to take the job.

Remember that we're trying to deter crazies rather than stop trained killers.

ZonieDiver

12-21-2012, 21:41

Old Dog New Trick

12-21-2012, 21:48

Question.

Since the end of the AWB (2004), how many "assault" rifles have been used to commit a mass murder (federal gov. says that's more than four killed) shooting spree in the U.S.?

Dozer523

12-21-2012, 23:17

Unless you arm teachers I don't see a solution. . . Let's call out the Guard!

Title 10 my ass for the next 4 years in the Little Dude's school. Cuz that's when I hit MRA. Beats the Sh!t out of the embedded trainer mission I'm up for (F Me.) I'm in this for the points now!
Seriously, when I got back from A-stan and MRFL had moved us to the middle of the Big Flat Part I went looking for a NG unit. I walked into an armory and found a certificate of appreciation from GARMISH. Seems the boys from Illinois secured the Zugpitz and the Patton Hotel from the terrorists.

I looked at that and thought, "No sh!t? Daddy's home".
So it COULD happen again I hope, I hope, I hope.Question.

Since the end of the AWB (2004), how many "assault" rifles have been used to commit a mass murder (federal gov. says that's more than four killed) shooting spree in the U.S.?In the last week? At least one. Check this out. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map Scroll down a couple of inches to the map.

orion5

12-21-2012, 23:43

MSG Paul Howe weighs in from the piney woods of east Texas. [LINK] (http://www.ktre.com/story/20377404/s?fb_comment_id=fbc_476851669045399_4601202_478013 252262574#f130580fa27b42d)

He recommends training school officers who have the right mindset, but not arming all teachers.

Old Dog New Trick

12-22-2012, 00:47

In the 25 mass murders since 2004 (which actually started in 2005) I can only find reference to four shootings that used an AWB banned weapon. Two AKs and two ARs, a couple tactical shotguns, all the rest were carried out with pistols. Although some (a few) of the pistols had high or very high capacity magazines.

I don't know what kind of point I'm trying to make, but it would seem that "Assault Weapons" are rarely used and account for less than 1 in 5 mass murders or spree shootings.

Less than 2% of all homicides/suicides occure with a weapon that was listed on the AWB.

There were other findings of "Assault Weapons" used to commit murder but they were single accounts or same weapon used over time (D.C. sniper) where they were probably just a poor choice and any rifle would do.

I suppose it doesn't matter much, the pantywaists in congress are going to go after black guns and magazines over 10-rds and they will soon become collectors items and rarely seen outside a Three Gun Competition Match.

Sad, how far we have fallen...:(

Damocles

12-22-2012, 01:25

The fact that this is such a huge national crisis is disturbing to me. We are being manipulated. These individuals are seeking control, and they care not about mass murders. Their provocation of this national argument is simply a means to an end. This movement is not fueled by reason, but by fear. They are teaching us to fear each other. They rely on the general stupidity of the flock.

They are trying to draw the American peoples' freedoms into the KZ, and we are letting them, slowly but surely.

Smoke and mirrors, friends. Smoke and mirrors.

I very seriously doubt that I would be anywhere near as successful as TS when they come to take my freedom, but it wont be for lack of heart.

Be safe.

Badger52

12-22-2012, 07:46

Unfortunately, the Republicans seem to be too stupid to even be aware of the arguments against it. They only seem to be against it because of their constituents, and make ridiculous-sounding arguments about a slippery-slope and so forth. No, the argument against it is that it's a blatantly stupid law. And the NRA unfortunately seems to be too stupid to know how to portray themselves in a nice way and make the argument as well.No question there are some stupid people out there & they get quoted when convenient. Look who's convenient.
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said he was at a loss for words after hearing the proposal.

"I don’t even know where to begin," he said on msnbc. "As a supporter of the Second Amendment and a supporter of the NRA — even though I’m not a member of the NRA — I just found it very haunting and very disturbing that our country now is talking about arming our teachers and our principals in classrooms." So for Michael Steele a concept is haunting but the hunting down & murder of cowering children isn't. Screw him.

Still, I'd suggest giving some consideration that the problem may also lie on the distant-end. (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16069016-disbelief-in-some-quarters-after-nra-calls-for-armed-guards-at-every-school-blames-movies)
Gent I know works as an addiction counselor over at the VA reminds me of the difficulty of getting an irrational person to make a rational, fact-based decision. And, make no mistake, 18 seconds of this blathering is what much of an emotional populace makes its decisions on.

No LaPierre fan here but critiquing the messenger gets no traction. Facts are gonna have to be presented and I believe he did make some specific examples - putting import on the presentation doesn't leave him enough time for the week-long filibuster it would take to cover all the media's errors.

The Reaper

12-22-2012, 11:00

This bill will not just cover "assault weapons" or some arbitrary number of rounds per magazine you will be permitted to own.

The opportunity is there and the Dims are ready to strike.

This proposed bill will also include an end to private sales and face to face transfers of firearms, a ban on internet sales of ammunition, etc.

And the representatives we have elected, in conjunction with the mainstream media, and going to cooperate in the gutting of the Second amendment to the US Constitution. One down, 26 to go.

Nanny knows best for the sheeple.

TR

Badger52

12-22-2012, 12:17

And the representatives we have elected, in conjunction with the mainstream media, and going to cooperate in the gutting of the Second amendment to the US Constitution. One down, 26 to go.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it." - Sen. Feinstein, at passage of the last AWBI'm sure she's mellowed in the intervening years.
Probably good for her that she didn't have to articulate the mechanics of how that would've happened.

kgoerz

12-22-2012, 12:42

I can't believe they are going to spend millions of dollars to do research on why people own guns. The reason most people own assault weapons. We know it keeps the Government in check. I work on a Range. Last thing I want to do on my time off is go shooting.
That outside agency they are going to use. It's just a bunch of their cronies who are retired. They will award them a big Gov. contract to do the study. It's absolutely criminal how the govt. rips off the people to help themselves.

GratefulCitizen

12-22-2012, 12:59

Why do people need assault weapons?
Because they're much more effective than torches and pitchforks.

Old Dog New Trick

12-22-2012, 14:04

One maybe good thing is that Obama appointed a commission, and usually, when someone assigns a commission in Washington to address something, it's a way of saying that nothing concrete will be done. However, Obama promised that this will not be a typical Washington commission, so who knows.

I am hoping you are wrong on those things though.

Washington should lead by example and turn in all their assault weapons, make all the police agencies that bought assault weapons with federal grants turn them in too. And all the politicians with a CCW should turn in their guns and release their government provided and private security forces so they can truly represent the American people. (And, no I'm not going to put that in pink!)

DIYPatriot

12-23-2012, 09:53

Washington should lead by example and turn in all their assault weapons, make all the police agencies that bought assault weapons with federal grants turn them in too.

If what this article seems to suggest is true, they definitely seem to be gathering info in order to make a move to lower capacity mags on the law-abiding citizens (and not just our AR's). Meanwhile, the thugs will continue to out-gun us. Ironically, the article only reflects magazine counts in our LEO's standard issue .40, not how many rounds they carry in their issued AR's & shotguns.

Link (http://www.wmctv.com/story/20407475/wharton-leaves-officers-funeral-to-talk-gun-control-with-vp)

The first meeting of Vice President Joe Biden's working group on gun control included a conference call with a dozen mayors.

"There are some things we can immediately do," said Biden. "And we're going to need your help," he added.

I can only wonder which mayors were part of that discussion.

Badger52

12-23-2012, 10:13

I can only wonder which mayors were part of that discussion.Here's a rogue's gallery to pick from. (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/members/members.shtml) Just a guess.

Dozer523

12-23-2012, 11:41

The fact that this is such a huge national crisis is disturbing to me. We are being manipulated. These individuals are seeking control, and they care not about mass murders. Their provocation of this national argument is simply a means to an end. This movement is not fueled by reason, but by fear. They are teaching us to fear each other. They rely on the general stupidity of the flock.
You DON'T see a score of Kindergarteners killed with multiple gunshots in a matter of minutes is a huge national crisis? That's disturbing to me.
As for the rest of your post -- maintaining control, not caring about mass murder, this being a means to an end, arguments based on fear, teaching fear . . .
Are you talking about the NRA?

Peregrino

12-23-2012, 12:20

You DON'T see a score of Kindergarteners killed with multiple gunshots in a matter of minutes is a huge national crisis? That's disturbing to me.
As for the rest of your post -- maintaining control, not caring about mass murder, this being a means to an end, arguments based on fear, teaching fear . . .
Are you talking about the NRA?

Ummm - NO, I don't. To be blunt, while it is an incredible tragedy for those directly involved and my prayers go out to those families, it's a pimple on an elephant's ass when looked at from a national perspective. It isn't a symptom of "out of control guns", it's a symptom of a disasterously inadequate mental health system.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. And this tragedy is another opportunity for the Left to exploit a crisis, whipping up their base into a frenzy to advance their control agenda. I don't need the NRA to explain Soviet population control methods to me; the Army was kind enough to teach me everything required 30 years ago. The technology may have advanced making it easier to identify and oppress dissent; however, the base principles have not changed.

Personally, I'm tired of having my rights stripped from me by statists, sheep, and assorted physical/moral cowards who want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the real problems.

Team Sergeant

12-23-2012, 12:43

The Reaper

12-23-2012, 12:48

craigepo

12-23-2012, 15:07

I had assumed that massacres were a relatively new phenomenon. This article argues otherwise.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336125/running-amok-charles-c-w-cooke

Old Dog New Trick

12-23-2012, 15:52

I had assumed that massacres were a relatively new phenomenon. This article argues otherwise.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/336125/running-amok-charles-c-w-cooke

That's an interesting read.

ZonieDiver

12-23-2012, 18:03

Has the actual problem really been identified and is it really gun related?

The more recent mass shootings were perpetrated by individuals with documented psychological issues. Why not question the manner in which the mental health industry is regulated to default patient privacy over public safety?

Why does the NRA have to offer a solution rather than the American Psychological Association?

Now there's a news conference that might have gone somewhere! LaPierre standing there with someone from the APA (or other org. dedicated to battling mental illness) and announcing that the NRA was opening its 'warchest' to help fund research and facilities for said battle that the Feds and other levels of government have ignored for years, which "contributed to this most recent tragedy, and many others that came before.'

But, Nooooooo! He trots out the same-old, same-old (and Charles Heston he ain't), and gets the same-old reaction from the same-old quarters. The guy (and others) can't 'think outside the box' - hell, he (they) don't even know what the box looks like!

Dozer523

12-23-2012, 20:28

Yup.

The Reaper

12-23-2012, 20:40

Yup.

Cute.

Did that come from Huffpo or the Brady Campaign?

Do you really think taking my guns away will prevent this from happening again?

TR

koz

12-23-2012, 21:16

If gun control works, why is Chicago approaching 500 murders this year?

ddoering

12-23-2012, 21:20

Yup.

ZAV and stupid. Congratulations.

ZonieDiver

12-23-2012, 21:31

If gun control works, why is Chicago approaching 500 murders this year?

"They" say it's because firearms are so readily availabe in other parts of the US, and easily transported into their peaceful fiefdom to lure their innocent citizens into acts of mayhem that only evil firearms can cause. Hence, "their" desire to ban them (in the end) throughout the US (ignoring completely the millions of tons of drugs and millions of illegal immigrants that have crossed our porous borders through the years - and still do).

That said, I have to agree with Dozer's original point (he does have one sometimes), which was not to ban firearms (he expressly stated that), but to have the NRA, et al come up with something NEW to counter "their" continual braying about banning evil "large capacity 'clips'" and those evil looking "Assault Rifles"!

"Babies" are dead. Drums are beating among each group's faithful. "They" can just repeat "their" continual refrain, adding only a "See, we told you so!" Those amongst the masses (sheeple, if you must) who were on the fence or undecided before, will be much more easily swayed now. If "we" - and I put myself in "we" - just do the "same-old, same-old" (as I said in Post #148), "we" will lose... this time. Maybe lose BIGtime. Again! (2nd time in a month and a half - not looking good for the "Home Team"!)

cbtengr

12-23-2012, 21:53

This did not come from Wikipedia and in trying to ascertain as to how reliable factcheck.org is I came to the conclusion that they were fairly reliable. It's a long read but worth it. We are being spoon fed a crock of crap by those who want to take away our guns not control them. Below the link is a mere excerpt of the entire article.

http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Is Gun Violence Rising?

On “Face the Nation” on Dec. 16, Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign, used the number of daily gun murders as proof that “gun violence rates are not” going down. But the rate of firearm homicides committed with the intent to kill or injure is at its lowest point since at least 1981: 3.6 per 100,000 people in 2010. The high point was 7 in 1993.

Gross, Dec. 16: … every day in our country, 32 people are murdered by guns. So while violence rates might be going down, gun violence rates are not.

There are two issues here: gun violence in general and gun murders in particular. Let’s first look at the number of murders committed with guns.

We called and emailed the Brady Campaign to ask about Gross’ statement on gun violence but we did not receive a response.

However, the group’s “gun violence facts” site lists “12,179 people murdered” as one of its facts — which would work out to 33 per day, supporting Gross’ claim. But that figure is from 2008, according to a footnote. It comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control database. (Check the boxes for “homicide” and “firearms” and select 2008, and you will get 12,179 “Homicide Firearm Deaths.”)

The CDC’s most current data show there were 11,078 homicides committed with guns in 2010 — or about 30 per day. The CDC data also show gun homicides have declined each year since 2007, falling from 12,791 in 2006 to 11,078 in 2010, even as the nation’s population grows. In fact, the homicide rate in 2010 (3.6 per 100,000 people) was the lowest since at least 1981 — which is as far back as the CDC’s online database goes.

The FBI collects murder data, too, but academic researchers we consulted said the CDC data is the more accurate measure of gun murders. CDC gets its data from the National Vital Statistics System, which collects death certificates that are required to be filed in every state. But the FBI relies on the voluntary reporting of law enforcement agencies that results in under-reporting. (For the record, the FBI’s 2011 Uniform Crime Report says there were 8,583 murders committed with firearms last year — that’s about 24 per day.)

Even so, the CDC homicide data is not a perfect measurement of murders in the U.S., which suggests the number of gun murders is somewhere between 24 and 30 per day.

CDC homicide data, by its definition, is supposed to include only “injuries inflicted by another person with intent to injure or kill.” But Catherine Barber, at the Harvard School of Public Health’s Injury Control Research Center, said some local coroners and medical examiners “take a more literal definition of homicide,” so some accidental shootings are included in the CDC data. Also, the CDC data, by definition, includes “justifiable homicides,” which also are not murders. Barber said the CDC’s reporting issues may overstate U.S. murder statistics by “a couple of hundred” — but its data are still “more reliable” than the FBI’s voluntary system of reporting.

By either measure, the number of gun murders is going down.

The 2011 and 2006 FBI crime reports show that firearm murders have declined each year since 2006. There were 10,177 such murders in 2006 and 8,583 in 2011 — a drop of 1,594 or nearly 16 percent in five years, even as the nation’s population continued to rise.

As for overall gun violence, the FBI tracks the use of firearms in three types of violent crimes (murder, robbery and aggravated assault), and the use of guns has declined in all three cases. From 2006 to 2011, robberies committed with guns declined 21 percent and aggravated assaults committed with guns declined 12.5 percent, according to the FBI reports. In both cases, the number of violent gun crimes dropped each year since 2008.

Dozer523

12-23-2012, 22:04

Cute.

Did that come from Huffpo or the Brady Campaign?

Do you really think taking my guns away will prevent this from happening again?

TR Facebook, retired SF Col posted it. The Ale Party, I think it's some sort of counter to the tea party. As far as beverages, The Ale Party gets my vote.
Brady? He was the guy who got gunned down on the street during the near murder of President Reagan.

Where have I said I want your guns? TR. I don't want your guns. guys like you can have all the guns they want. I think you're probably smart about it and they are secure.
Here is what i think so you know and stop telling me what I think.

I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America. Someone want to pack an M-4, enlist.
I think it's bullshit to claim that a weapon that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger is not dangerous -- that because it isn't full automatic it is somehow safer.
I think military style magazines have no place on the streets of America.
I think many Americans are not going to continue to accept the NRA position that being armed to the teeth to the exclusion of the safety of others is IAW the framers of the Constitution.

I'd like to think reasonable gun-owners will view this mass murder as something more then unavoidably sad.
I'd like to think their participation in the conversation will be more then "no change" or "arm more people".
I'd like to think they could get behind something like a mandatory security system for every gun.
I'd like to think they could get behind something like limiting the size of magazines.

Streck-Fu

12-23-2012, 22:22

What, exactly, does all that accomplish. Truthfully. What does that accomplish?

What, actually happens when you ban any semi-auto rifle? Remember that FA weapons built after 1986 are not transferable, therefore, not available to public so the M4 is not real issue.

M4 clones are all semi-auto so what is the difference that necessitates a M4 clone ban but permits a Mini-14 in .223?

What you proposes, accomplishes nothing excepts to cater to emotional reactions perceived threats.

Peregrino

12-23-2012, 22:48

Here is what i think so you know and stop telling me what I think.

I think I'll keep my freedoms. You can surrender yours for the illusion of security if you want. I also think you either lack any understanding of the purpose behind the 2nd Ammendment or you are convinced that it "is outmoded and doesn't apply to today's circumstances". Personally, I'm having a very difficult time understanding how anyone who would swear to uphold and defend the Constitution would be willing to risk their life for something they don't understand or agree with.

ETA: NC has mandatory storage requirements for firearms. Only the law abiding adhere to them. The 1994 AWB accomplished NOTHING, and it had everything you're asking for. CDC, DOJ, and several universities conducted studies as it was sunsetting, they didn't find anything and ALL of them had an agenda that would have benefited if they could have proven its efficacy.

TXGringo

12-23-2012, 23:29

I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America.
I think military style magazines have no place on the streets of America.

Who's bringing these weapons and magazines into the streets?

Mine stays in the garage, except when we're at the range or in the woods...

Destrier

12-24-2012, 03:53

(Dozer) I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America. Someone want to pack an M-4, enlist.

I think the 2nd Amendment specifically means a weapon designed for military use. Goes to Intent, even Justice Ginsburg agreed with that, she felt that a M-4 rifle was more protected than a pistol, and she is not a firearm fan Justice Ginsburg joined the dissent on District of Columbia v. Heller on Jun 26, 2008:

(Dozer) I think it's bullshit to claim that a weapon that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger is not dangerous -- that because it isn't full automatic it is somehow safer.

Real shooters, use semi auto more effectively than full auto. Nothing but truth about that. But so is a pump shotgun.

(Dozer) I think military style magazines have no place on the streets of America.

Back to Intent of the 2nd Amendment

(Dozer) I think many Americans are not going to continue to accept the NRA position that being armed to the teeth to the exclusion of the safety of others is IAW the framers of the Constitution.

Being armed to the teeth of which I am, does not mean the safety of others is somehow in jeopardy. As an NRA instructor, every NRA course I have ever taught covers safe storage of firearms. The NRA being the primary weapons Safety organization in America. Maybe more Americans should be required to take safety classes, I am sure the NRA would back that.

(Dozer) I'd like to think reasonable gun-owners will view this mass murder as something more then unavoidably sad.

I view it as an F'n tragedy. One that could have been avoided, if reports are true on this kids mental state. Having a gun free zone that limits the good guys from protecting themselves and the children certainly did not help prevent it. Nor did the enhanced gun laws in CT

(Dozer) I'd like to think their participation in the conversation will be more then "no change" or "arm more people".

I would like to think we train more people, arm responsible trained people and ensure a sheepdog is present to deter if not kill the wolves, we cannot stop a determined individual from doing harm to unguarded children, regardless of what weapon system he or she uses

(Dozer) I'd like to think they could get behind something like a mandatory security system for every gun.

I have a safe since I cannot bear all my arms, the ones I bear, have a finger safety. That wont stop a determined individual from going to an unguarded location and causing havok, and given time I am sure any security system can be breached if a nutjob kills me

(Dozer) I'd like to think they could get behind something like limiting the size of magazines.[/QUOTE]

I believe the Nation would do better with a series of safety programs. The Eddie Eagle program for children is a great start. Primarily for the young it teaches, the 'stop, do not touch' find an adult'

I also think the mental health common denominator is more of an issue than weapon type.

Sigaba

12-24-2012, 04:33

Destrier

12-24-2012, 05:12

If Newtown was a national tragedy, then what was the act of hubris that set the sequence of events in motion?

Does the current trajectory of debate address that act of hubris or extend it?

(IRT the "actual" meaning of the U.S. Constitution, I would point out that it remains a topic of debate among historians who have centered their careers around that document and the era in which it was written. )

Hubris (pron.: /ˈhjuːbrɪs/), also hybris, from ancient Greek ὕβρις, means extreme pride or arrogance. Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence or capabilities, especially when the person exhibiting it is in a position of power.
The adjectival form of hubris is "hubristic".

The act in my opinion would be the 'State' that has overestimated their ability to protect citizens in gun free zones. They are in control of these 'zones' they have lost sight of reality thinking a sign stops a determined individual with intent to do evil.

I think the topic of discussion has pointed out the lack of the States ability to do so, and offered measures that could help limit damage in the future. We will never stop 100% such assaults, only limit the time on target unopposed and perhaps dissuade some from making such attempts.

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

In regards to the 2nd Amendment. Muzzle loaders vs a standing Army with M-4's or a citizenry suitably armed to resist? I will go with what makes sense.

Streck-Fu

12-24-2012, 07:03

(IRT the "actual" meaning of the U.S. Constitution, I would point out that it remains a topic of debate among historians who have centered their careers around that document and the era in which it was written. )

Debate only exist because some want to alter what it means.....usually to advance some policy issue they support. The document itself is pretty plain.

Badger52

12-24-2012, 08:16

Brady? He was the guy who got gunned down on the street during the near murder of President Reagan.
A staunch conservative whose name has been co-opted by others.
I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America. Someone want to pack an M-4, enlist.An almost verbatim point made by Wesley Clark during his campaign run.

Nice use of "on the streets of America" which, to me, implies your view as one of projecting, that gun owners would - simply by ownership alone - fail to keep their firearms secure or be roving your streets of America looking for victims. I might be wrong; to be clear:

Are you differentiating between ownership, and your use of "on the streets"? Or are you flat-out saying they should simply not be in the commercial market, unavailable to anyone except the state? If not, which animals are more equal than the others?

Richard

12-24-2012, 09:12

koz

12-24-2012, 09:31

(IRT the "actual" meaning of the U.S. Constitution, I would point out that it remains a topic of debate among historians who have centered their careers around that document and the era in which it was written. )

We (USDOJ, Federal Judges, State Judges) have set policy and law based off the letters and notes written by the Founding Fathers, not just the words in the Constitution. No where does the US Constitution say that there should be Separation of Church and State.

Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Henry all believed that arms were to protect the people from the tyrannical government. They never mention hunting, self-defense or sport shooting.

Historians want to change history to suit their agenda.

The Reaper

12-24-2012, 10:26

I am not telling you what to think, I am asking you what you think in an effort to try and better understand your position.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

Where have I said I want your guns? TR. I don't want your guns. guys like you can have all the guns they want. I think you're probably smart about it and they are secure.

I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America. Someone want to pack an M-4, enlist.

Can I own an M-4, or not?

Can my brother, if he has a clean criminal record and is of good moral character?

Who is the arbiter of who might properly own semi-auto rifles and carbines? You? Me? Diane Feinstein?

Is it morally right to take away my rights and property because of the actions of others?

Finally, it remains to be determined what weapon was used in this horrible crime. If he killed all of those people, but the AR-15 never left the trunk of the car, is there still a problem with owning those weapons, even if they were not used in the crime?

Are the facts of the matter still relevant in this wave of "do something" knee-jerk reaction?

TR

Paslode

12-24-2012, 10:50

A staunch conservative whose name has been co-opted by others.
An almost verbatim point made by Wesley Clark during his campaign run.

Nice use of "on the streets of America" which, to me, implies your view as one of projecting, that gun owners would - simply by ownership alone - fail to keep their firearms secure or be roving your streets of America looking for victims. I might be wrong; to be clear:

Are you differentiating between ownership, and your use of "on the streets"? Or are you flat-out saying they should simply not be in the commercial market, unavailable to anyone except the state? If not, which animals are more equal than the others?

Wes Clark........it has been said on this board by at least one highly respected member that no tracked vehicle left the Ft. Hood Armory without Gen. Clark knowledge and approval.

Secondly, it has been said on this board by at least one highly respected member that there were many opportunities to apprehend David Koresch off the premises off the compound.

74 men, women and children including 12 children younger than five years of age died. As wacky and misguided as they may or may not have been they were near and dear to someone.

We can argue as to whom killed whom, we can argue whom set the fire, we can argue how and when they died, who was right or wrong and we can argue conspiracies.....but I do not believe you can debate that the Government senselessly put the most helpless of citizens in harms way.

How many innocent lives have been taken and changed with the Fast & Furious firearms? Whatever the intention of that OP was, the BATFE acting on behalf of the US Government once again put innocent lives in harms way.

With those two events in mind I believe it begs to question whom needs their ammo, mags and firearms regulated.

I believe the founders foresaw people like Wes Clark, Janet Reno and rogue elements within the government and agencies like the BATFE when they came up with the 2nd Amendment.

GratefulCitizen

12-24-2012, 12:25

Ultimately, the meaning of the 2nd amendment (and the rest of the Constitution) will be determined by whomever possesses the guns.
I intend to retain my ability to have some input.

Sigaba

12-24-2012, 12:56

We (USDOJ, Federal Judges, State Judges) have set policy and law based off the letters and notes written by the Founding Fathers, not just the words in the Constitution. No where does the US Constitution say that there should be Separation of Church and State.

Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Madison, Henry all believed that arms were to protect the people from the tyrannical government. They never mention hunting, self-defense or sport shooting.

Historians want to change history to suit their agenda.
MOO, you are overstating the case for a consensus view among the framers on constitutional issues. For example, the split between Adams and Hamilton during the Fries's Rebellion of 1799 exposed (again) deep fissures among Americans over the thorny issue of the federal government's monoplization of military power. If the framers were all of the same view IRT the BoR, then why were the debates over so many issues of public, military, and foreign policy so energetic?

Also, the contemporaneous argument that the Second Amendment existed primarily to check the authority of the federal state overlooks the historical circumstances of the early republic.

Finally, the argument that jurists approach matters of historiographical debate with a greater sense of disinterest than historians is, bluntly, controversial.

koz

12-24-2012, 13:55

Not the literal phrase "separation of church and state," but the separation of church and state is found in the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; so no laws based off of religion and and no infringing on people's religious practices. Where this can get confusing is for example, let's say the local town government decides to put a statue of the Ten Commandments up at the town hall. Does this violate separation of church and state? It's not a law being based off of any religion, and it doesn't infringe on the practice of anyone's religion, so one could argue probably no. Such cases have to pass what's called the Lemon Test I believe.

I do believe that self-defense is a fundamental right though. To me, right to protect oneself is like the most fundamental right of nature. I mean we understand this right intuitively when dealing with other life forms. I have always though that the Founders meant the right to keep and bear arms for all three primary purposes: self-defense, resistance to tyranny, and hunting (survival). Arms were essential for those three things for pretty much the existence of humanity until modern forms of society (for the most part).

Right - the 1st Amendment doesn't say separation of church and state. This amendment was based off the Church of England and the other gov't that mandated you must be a member of _____ religion.

I wasn't trying to get into a 1st Amendment debate other than the Judiciary branch uses excerpt quotes and letters by the founders to interpret the Constitution. I wish they would use the letters of the founders and apply them to the 2A

koz

12-24-2012, 14:15

MOO, you are overstating the case for a consensus view among the framers on constitutional issues. For example, the split between Adams and Hamilton during the Fries's Rebellion of 1799 exposed (again) deep fissures among Americans over the thorny issue of the federal government's monoplization of military power. If the framers were all of the same view IRT the BoR, then why were the debates over so many issues of public, military, and foreign policy so energetic?

Also, the contemporaneous argument that the Second Amendment existed primarily to check the authority of the federal state overlooks the historical circumstances of the early republic.

Finally, the argument that jurists approach matters of historiographical debate with a greater sense of disinterest than historians is, bluntly, controversial.

You say I'm overstating. Please state the writings, letters and quotes of a writer or signer of the Constitution that said free men should not own guns/arms. For that matter which didn't believe that the power should remain with the people. Hamilton, the Federalist, still wanted the people armed. So they had disagreements, but ultimately they adopted the document as we know it.

Peregrino

12-24-2012, 17:38

Re post #163 - to a simple mind, perhaps, but I tend to agree with the historians and, IMO, the Constitution leaves much room for debate in the realm of “intent” as revealed in the scope of the opinions found in the writings of the Founders themselves and its ability to adapt to unforeseen change as we – as a nation and culture – and the world have developed since its creation, ratification, and use as the foundation for our governmental and legal systems.

As for this matter, in MOO it is far more complicated, serious, and far reaching than just a “whittling away” of a so-called “rights” issue, and when we’re to a point in which we refer to the heinous murder of 20 children and their trained developmental nurturers as little but a “pimple on an elephant's ass when looked at from a national perspective” in a “meh” sense, we’ve got some BIG issues to deal with as a culture apparently so calloused to such acts of violence and so suspiciously fearful of ourselves that we’re creating a “run” on the arms industry and unwilling to consider admitting change may be needed in a number of areas or even to listen to anyone else’s arguments but our own entrenched positions.

I have been one to argue against the idea so often put out there that our political system has become so cantankerously divided that neither side is willing to listen to the other, and that any compromise of the sort understood to be so important by those who created our Constitution is now considered to be a sign of weakness, a “selling out” of one’s principles so to speak, which only allows one side or the other to win or lose – when most often it is we, as a whole, who wind up with less than might have been gained from such mutual concessions.

However, after watching this matter unfold among friends and family, in here and a number of other forums, in the news, and in the halls of our political institutions, I am beginning to wonder if they are not correct in that assessment – especially when the perception appears that we are polarized around little but either an arm ‘em all or take ‘em all away position.

Sad it is - we should be better than this.

Richard :munchin

Richard – I find your characterization of my comment in post #142 disingenuous and personally insulting. Dismissing my attempt to restore perspective to discussions wherein a local tragedy is being exploited nationally by entrenched leftist interests by insinuating that I considered it a “meh” event reflects poorly on your appeal for reasoned compromise.

Not to worry though, in this instance your appeal falls on deaf ears. In order for compromise to work both sides need to see a win-win. There is no win for conservatives when negotiating with the left; there is only a delaying action and I for one am sick of continually losing. One test for insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. Compromising with the left meets that test. As examples, I offer the current budget impasse, and any federal firearms law you wish to examine. I’m tired of suffering the “death of a thousand cuts”. Turn the other cheek has been an abysmal failure; the time has come to return each incivility in kind, proportional to the insult.

The problem is not and never has been firearms. Firearms are tools, and like all tools can be used responsibly or otherwise. Tools only do what the mind using them directs. Failures in the mental health system, the criminal justice system, and the zero personal responsibility/soccer trophy for everyone mindset that has shaped American society today are the root causes. Until actions have consequences and people are held accountable, the amoral, self-centered, and destructive behaviors that lead to these tragedies will not stop.

As an example I invite you to look at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/24/fire-trap-gunman-dead-after-killing-2-firefighters-at-scene-western-ny-blaze/. Especially the part about his “extensive criminal record” – one that made him ineligible to possess firearms. This tragedy could have been prevented by executing the perpetrator for the murder of his grandmother years ago.

You (or anyone else of like mind) are cordially invited to offer a solution that is effective (20,000 gun laws already on the books in this country haven't stopped these incidents) and that does not compromise my rights. Implementing new laws that have already been proven ineffective and demanding in the process that I surrender a right so sheep can bask in the illusion of security isn't an acceptable option.

Personally, I think America has passed the 50% +1 that marks the turning point in every society. The ancient Chinese curse about living in interesting times has come to pass. I feel for the next generation. Indications are they will not enjoy the opportunities and freedoms we did – and it’ll largely be because Conservatives surrendered them without a whimper because they couldn’t stand being called “insensitive” by the left. So no – I’m not better than this. You can only kick a dog so many times before you get bit. Maybe leftists should give that some consideration.

Streck-Fu

12-24-2012, 18:05

arm ‘em all or take ‘em all away position.

I don't recall it being such a black and white option. Recommending that school staff that choose to be armed be permitted to do so is not the same as making all teachers carry a gun.

Why does it have to be all or nothing approach?

And, is not denying rights to the majority due to the fear of a minority an act of tyranny?

ChuckG

12-24-2012, 18:39

The same people that are promoting gun control endorse the aborting of 1 million children in the United States every year. Rather hypocritical.

ddoering

12-24-2012, 20:51

Richard – I find your characterization of my comment in post #142 disingenuous and personally insulting. Dismissing my attempt to restore perspective to discussions wherein a local tragedy is being exploited nationally by entrenched leftist interests by insinuating that I considered it a “meh” event reflects poorly on your appeal for reasoned compromise.

Not to worry though, in this instance your appeal falls on deaf ears. In order for compromise to work both sides need to see a win-win. There is no win for conservatives when negotiating with the left; there is only a delaying action and I for one am sick of continually losing. One test for insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. Compromising with the left meets that test. As examples, I offer the current budget impasse, and any federal firearms law you wish to examine. I’m tired of suffering the “death of a thousand cuts”. Turn the other cheek has been an abysmal failure; the time has come to return each incivility in kind, proportional to the insult.

The problem is not and never has been firearms. Firearms are tools, and like all tools can be used responsibly or otherwise. Tools only do what the mind using them directs. Failures in the mental health system, the criminal justice system, and the zero personal responsibility/soccer trophy for everyone mindset that has shaped American society today are the root causes. Until actions have consequences and people are held accountable, the amoral, self-centered, and destructive behaviors that lead to these tragedies will not stop.

As an example I invite you to look at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/24/fire-trap-gunman-dead-after-killing-2-firefighters-at-scene-western-ny-blaze/. Especially the part about his “extensive criminal record” – one that made him ineligible to possess firearms. This tragedy could have been prevented by executing the perpetrator for the murder of his grandmother years ago.

You (or anyone else of like mind) are cordially invited to offer a solution that is effective (20,000 gun laws already on the books in this country haven't stopped these incidents) and that does not compromise my rights. Implementing new laws that have already been proven ineffective and demanding in the process that I surrender a right so sheep can bask in the illusion of security isn't an acceptable option.

Personally, I think America has passed the 50% +1 that marks the turning point in every society. The ancient Chinese curse about living in interesting times has come to pass. I feel for the next generation. Indications are they will not enjoy the opportunities and freedoms we did – and it’ll largely be because Conservatives surrendered them without a whimper because they couldn’t stand being called “insensitive” by the left. So no – I’m not better than this. You can only kick a dog so many times before you get bit. Maybe leftists should give that some consideration.

Amen brother.

ddoering

12-24-2012, 20:52

The same people that are promoting gun control endorse the aborting of 1 million children in the United States every year. Rather hypocritical.

Yeah but it kills more potential Dems so who cares.

GratefulCitizen

12-24-2012, 21:42

You can only kick a dog so many times before you get bit. Maybe leftists should give that some consideration.

Leftists think in terms of hierarchies.
They think that they are now dominant and everyone else is submissive.

It hasn't occurred to them that they are merely being tolerated.
They genuinely believe intimidation will work.

Andrew Wilkow calls this "fighting the heavy bag."
The heavy bag doesn't punch back.

Sigaba

12-24-2012, 22:42

Please state the writings, letters and quotes of a writer or signer of the Constitution that said free men should not own guns/arms. For that matter which didn't believe that the power should remain with the people. Hamilton, the Federalist, still wanted the people armed.Koz--

You have misread my post. I did not argue either of those two points. That is, having agreed that free men should have the right to bear arms, there was concurrently an ongoing debate over how, to use your words, "that power should remain with the people" within the context of the time.

For example, in the Federalist no. 29, Hamilton, who, IMO, clearly favored a more powerful central government than many of his contemporaries, specifically called for "confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority." By contrast, in a letter to Patrick Henry dated 14 September 1789, Richard Henry Lee (http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm) worried that the Federalists were appropriating terms like "the people" in order to prop up the federal state at the expense of a "Union of Confederated States." (IIRC, Hamilton, in the Federalist number 84, had questioned the need for a Bill of Rights at all.)

My previous post is not an argument for using the past as justification for more (or less) gun control. Instead, my previous post is simply a caution for those who would use the past to justify positions (either for or against) in present day policy debates without having an in-depth understanding of the historical contexts. These contexts include the personal and political rivalries among various framers as well as the pressures under which the framers worked to hammer out a constitution in the first place. (FWIW, a contemporaneous discussion of these contexts, dated 12 December 1787, is available here (http://constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm). This document also addresses the perceived failure of the Constitution to mention hunting, self defense, and fowling.)

One last point. As this post implies, I do not agree that the only people who should be considered historically relevant IRT the debates over the constitution and its ratification should be the drafters or signers of that document.

dollarbill

12-24-2012, 22:42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EdiTK4PRJM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Agree that firearms are tools of choice. I only own four. A Millennium .40, that I carry while on the road, a XD 40, Rem 870, and a Sig. These are the tools that I have decided that would surfice for protecting my family, myself, or God forbid someone else. I live a good law abiding life, and set an excellent example for my kids to follow. One of my concerns of somebody telling me what type of weapon I can own is would it stop there. Would someone then say, I think all the violence actually starts with the Bible. It's full of murder, death and distrution. So let's get rid of all the Bible. I for one will not give up either one.

Razor

12-24-2012, 23:04

Here is what i think so you know and stop telling me what I think.

I think weapons designed for military use have no business being on the streets of America. Someone want to pack an M-4, enlist.
I think it's bullshit to claim that a weapon that can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger is not dangerous -- that because it isn't full automatic it is somehow safer.
I think military style magazines have no place on the streets of America.
I think many Americans are not going to continue to accept the NRA position that being armed to the teeth to the exclusion of the safety of others is IAW the framers of the Constitution.

I'd like to think reasonable gun-owners will view this mass murder as something more then unavoidably sad.
I'd like to think their participation in the conversation will be more then "no change" or "arm more people".
I'd like to think they could get behind something like a mandatory security system for every gun.
I'd like to think they could get behind something like limiting the size of magazines.

I'd like to think that someone with your background that certainly knows better would provide more than feel-good platitudes for actual, workable solutions.

I'd like to think that in claiming that more control of guns would save lives, you would also be advocating for a new Prohibition and a total ban on tobacco, as both kill far more people and ruin far more lives than maniacs with guns (and neither are Constitutionally protected, I might add).

I'd like to think that as someone that's actually held a real assault weapon (i.e., is capable of automatic fire) and is well-trained in its employment, you would know better than to try to compare what is fundamentally a semi-auto only rifle (just like a Remington 750, a Ruger Model 44, a Winchester Model 100, etc.) to a "weapon designed for military use".

I'd like to think that having training and experience in completing area studies, IPB, mission analysis and other research-based, logical analysis of information, you'd be able to look at cities and countries where stricter gun controls have been enacted (or where they haven't been) and recognize what actual effect these measures have created.

I think it's bullshit that simply because you don't feel comfortable having firearms in and around your home, you do feel completely comfortable in dictating what I should and shouldn't be allowed to have (again, despite what the Constitution states and the Supreme Court has taken intial steps in confirming).

frostfire

12-25-2012, 04:38

I suppose it doesn't matter much, the pantywaists in congress are going to go after black guns and magazines over 10-rds and they will soon become collectors items and rarely seen outside a Three Gun Competition Match.

(

I don't think three gun matches can survive the ban. Without (affordable) proper equipment and newcomers to support its continuation, it will perish. I sling 33rds to a 6" plate at 7 yards in 10 seconds with a reload, and I'm not even that good. If we are really heading that way, it is a matter of time before such training/skill becomes the next witch hunt.

I do agree with some of dozer's sentiments though.

Kyobanim

12-25-2012, 07:47

This is worth a watch. don't know how old it is but I think it applies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8RDWltHxRc

craigepo

12-25-2012, 09:06

Koz--

You have misread my post. I did not argue either of those two points. That is, having agreed that free men should have the right to bear arms, there was concurrently an ongoing debate over how, to use your words, "that power should remain with the people" within the context of the time.

For example, in the Federalist no. 29, Hamilton, who, IMO, clearly favored a more powerful central government than many of his contemporaries, specifically called for "confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority." By contrast, in a letter to Patrick Henry dated 14 September 1789, Richard Henry Lee (http://constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm) worried that the Federalists were appropriating terms like "the people" in order to prop up the federal state at the expense of a "Union of Confederated States." (IIRC, Hamilton, in the Federalist number 84, had questioned the need for a Bill of Rights at all.)

My previous post is not an argument for using the past as justification for more (or less) gun control. Instead, my previous post is simply a caution for those who would use the past to justify positions (either for or against) in present day policy debates without having an in-depth understanding of the historical contexts. These contexts include the personal and political rivalries among various framers as well as the pressures under which the framers worked to hammer out a constitution in the first place. (FWIW, a contemporaneous discussion of these contexts, dated 12 December 1787, is available here (http://constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm). This document also addresses the perceived failure of the Constitution to mention hunting, self defense, and fowling.)

One last point. As this post implies, I do not agree that the only people who should be considered historically relevant IRT the debates over the constitution and its ratification should be the drafters or signers of that document.

Historical contexts are good to know. However, people need to tread lightly when venturing into that morass.

Our Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights, was ratified by vote of the 13 colonies. Subsequently, every state that entered the Union, prior to statehood, had to affirm that this Constitution was and is the supreme law of the land. Neither the Federalist Papers, nor Paine's "Common Sense", nor arguments on the floor during debates, were part of what was ratified. If some old document helps in understanding, fine. But, if those documents imply a holding other than the plain text of the Constitution, they are nothing more than ink stains on really old paper.

(Lawyer's trick---when the law says something that hurts, try to find something else to talk about, i.e. if the 2nd amendment says the people have the right to bear arms, and you don't like that, try to find a delegate to the Constitutional Convention who said something contrary during arguments, then quote him, and hope like hell people quit paying attention to what the Convention ratified).

I recently finished reading "Paul Revere's Ride". The book detailed the days and months around the battle of Lexington and Concord. The colonial militia drilled regularly, kept their muskets at their homes, and had armories in central locations in their villages. Cannon, extra muskets, powder and ball were kept at the armory. When the call came, the men grabbed their muskets, headed to town, fell into formation, hooked up the artillery, and marched to battle.

Interestingly, each village militia unit was led by a person elected by the unit. The unit was funded by the locals. There was no government oversight.

In another post on this Forum, I saw that a New York paper printed a list of CCW owners addresses. While printing the addresses is a stretch, American history does show that local militia leaders were known, and of course they were armed. (They had to be known, or else nobody would know who to contact when the militia was needed).

Clearly, the 2nd Amendment protects a person's right to bear small arms, to defend himself and his village. I'm just not sure how the local militia cannon fits in.

(Sorry for the stream-of-consciousness post. Merry Christmas).

Richard

12-25-2012, 09:13

Pete

12-25-2012, 09:45

...........I was talking about it with a long-time friend yesterday who is a retired Sheriff's Dept and DA Inestigator. He said the biggest issue they dealt with was gang-related violence with weapons that had been purchased legally but stolen from owners who had not properly secured them....................

How "property secured" does a weapon have to be when it's in your own home?

Most folks have a reasonable expectation that when they go out to eat supper nobody is going to kick in their front door and steal everything of value they own.

7624U

12-25-2012, 10:03

How "property secured" does a weapon have to be when it's in your own home?

Most folks have a reasonable expectation that when they go out to eat supper nobody is going to kick in their front door and steal everything of value they own.

Not when all the world knows you have guns in the house

http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40351
:)

VVVV

12-25-2012, 11:27

How "property secured" does a weapon have to be when it's in your own home?

Most folks have a reasonable expectation that when they go out to eat supper nobody is going to kick in their front door and steal everything of value they own.

Better than Nancy Lanza did!

Then why do so many people keep their valuables in safes, have home security systems, and home owners insurance riders to cover theft of valuables?

Damocles

12-25-2012, 11:28

I apologize for the stream of consciousness of this post. I have nieces and nephews going crazy all around me, and I'm doing my best to concentrate and keep this from rambling too much. That being said, Merry Christmas to everyone!

You DON'T see a score of Kindergarteners killed with multiple gunshots in a matter of minutes is a huge national crisis? That's disturbing to me.
As for the rest of your post -- maintaining control, not caring about mass murder, this being a means to an end, arguments based on fear, teaching fear . . .
Are you talking about the NRA?

No, I do not see this as being a huge national crisis that needs immediate action. Actually, this event is a relatively localized crisis. Should we feel empathy for the victims and their families? Of course we should. Should we feel this loss as a nation? Of course we should. As much as we should feel the loss when an unsupervised child falls into a swimming pool and drowns. As much as we should when a drunk driver plows through a group of people on the sidewalk.

In a free society, these kinds of events cannot be avoided. No amount of regulation will prevent this, short of a martial law situation (which means we would no longer be a free society).

The "individuals" I refer to are the Statists. They want the populace to fear each other. They want the populace to run to the Government for protection from their untrustworthy neighbor. They want the flock to run to the Government for help (as many have already been conditioned to do). The statists reject the idea of personal responsibility.

I argue that the answer is the idea of personal responsibility itself. If every person was taught a responsibility to hold him/herself accountable for being a positively contributing member of society (or at the very least, to keep themselves from contributing in a negative manner), we would have very little of this type of thing to deal with. Unfortunately, its not much of an answer, because it will not happen on a national level.

Humans have become too advanced (and therefore too comfortable) for their own good. Historically, people had to possess a strong feeling of personal responsibility in order to survive. It was the norm. If you didn't possess it, you didn't survive. In that world, firearms not only meant survival, but in more basic terms they meant safety. Safety from animals, both four-legged as well as two-legged.

The only sure thing about life is death. The idea I draw from this truth is that life carries inherent risk that cannot be fully mitigated. To live is to risk everything. If we as a nation were to try and fully mitigate all risk to life, we'd all be wearing padded suits, mouthguards and helmets 24/7. There would be a ban on vehicles of all types, and any movement of an individual faster than a walk would be forbidden. It would be illegal to pick up sticks or rocks. Eating utensils of all types would be banned. Personal contact of any kind would be strictly forbidden, save that intended for procreation - and even that would be strictly regulated. Sounds fun, doesn't it? It would be like living in a huge "bouncy castle" where the act of bouncing is forbidden.

Personally, I choose to accept a high level of personal responsibility. Not only for myself, but for my countrymen as well. It is the only way to truly be a free society. I believe that this is the society our forefathers had in mind. Rely more on the innate responsibility of our citizenry, and less on governmental regulation.

Should we have programs in place to manage those individuals who are unable to manage themselves? Yes. Could the existing programs designed for this be improved upon? Certainly. We should also make more of an effort to understand those afflictions so we might treat them more effectively. Our over-arching goal should be to do our best to allow every citizen to exercise his freedoms as he/she sees fit. To do otherwise is a form of oppression, plain and simple. That being said, should SOME common sense regulation exist? I say yes. I believe the founding fathers had it right to begin with, and that we have been spiraling downward since the Constitution was introduced.

The Second Amendment, as passed by the Congress, reads thusly:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What this means to me is this:
The God-given right of the people to organize a militia in defense of a free state, and to own and carry weapons in defense of that free state, shall not be infringed.

In my opinion, my right to own and carry in order to defend our free state from tyranny has already been infringed upon enough. There is already a disproportionate difference between the military and the citizenry in terms of weaponry. I'm sure I don't need to say this, but I will anyway. The QPs here are experts on the formation and operation of organizations designed to combat a tyrannical government. I'm sure you would all agree that if it came to a US Militia / US Government conflict, the US militia would already be at a severe disadvantage. I doubt the founding fathers would be overly happy at this information.

This may not be the most well written post, but I hope its enough to get my various points across.

Merry Christmas to all. Hope you all have a great day. To those downrange, thank you and be safe.

ZonieDiver

12-25-2012, 11:39

The Second Amendment, as passed by the Congress, reads thusly:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What this means to me is this:
The God-given right of the people to organize a militia in defense of a free state, and to own and carry weapons in defense of that free state, shall not be infringed.

So... shouldn't those who possess, or want to possess, such weapons actually BE in the "well regulated" militia.

Just where is this militia, and where do they 'drill'?
How will this militia be called up when needed?
Who decides when and if it is to be called up?
Is a militia different from an armed mob?
Just asking...

Besides, I thought you used a sword! :D

Pete

12-25-2012, 11:55

Better than Nancy Lanza did!

Then why do so many people keep their valuables in safes, have home security systems, and home owners insurance riders to cover theft of valuables?

Ya know, I've heard that Bull Shit remark a couple of times and asked Well, how did she secure them.

Nobody knows - but they're all experts on she didn't secure them well enough.

And I asked again - How well do they have to be secured to prevent a family member from getting them? A few more smart ass remarks.

You well secured folks had better be careful "well secured" might be defined by the government as inside a 6' x 6' x 6' block of cured cement.

Pete

12-25-2012, 11:56

Peregrino

12-25-2012, 12:00

Interesting Factoid: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

Some animals are more equal than others.

ZonieDiver

12-25-2012, 13:17

Unorganized Militia.

Did you miss the other thread?

Nope, I didn't miss it at all. In fact, I was a contributor to that thread and followed it closely.

I was referring to comment such as this one by our own learned magistrate (no Pink, seriously respectful use of "learned magistrate"):

Neither the Federalist Papers, nor Paine's "Common Sense", nor arguments on the floor during debates, were part of what was ratified. If some old document helps in understanding, fine. But, if those documents imply a holding other than the plain text of the Constitution, they are nothing more than ink stains on really old paper.

The actual words in the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment are "well regulated militia". The idea of "organized" vs "unorganized" as brought up in the other thread derives from a 1789 act of the North Carolina legislature (not the US Constitution) and the U.S. Code (which can be changed tomorrow), as well as" some old or obsolete definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary".

If we stick to ONLY the words in the Constitution, these other references become moot.

My point is, and has been, that 'we' need to get out ahead of those who wish to stress the first part of the 2nd Amendment, and gut the second part (about the people keeping and bearing arms), 'we' need to pre-empt any argument 'they' may come up with. Make our own, modern, definition of these words: militia, organized militia, and unorganized militia - on a state-by-state basis.

I personally don't give a shit what 'they' do in New York. Never been there. I'll never go there if I can avoid it. Arizona can set up whatever they choose, the militia may have whatever arms Arizona deems appropriate, and people can 'vote with their feet' as a frequent contributor here says.

GratefulCitizen

12-25-2012, 13:24

Nope, I didn't miss it at all. In fact, I was a contributor to that thread and followed it closely.

I was referring to comment such as this one by our own learned magistrate (no Pink, seriously respectful use of "learned magistrate"):

.

The actual words in the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment are "well regulated militia". The idea of "organized" vs "unorganized" as brought up in the other thread derives from a 1789 act of the North Carolina legislature (not the US Constitution) and the U.S. Code (which can be changed tomorrow), as well as" some old or obsolete definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary".

If we stick to ONLY the words in the Constitution, these other references become moot.

My point is, and has been, that 'we' need to get out ahead of those who wish to stress the first part of the 2nd Amendment, and gut the second part (about the people keeping and bearing arms), 'we' need to pre-empt any argument 'they' may come up with. Make our own, modern, definition of these words: militia, organized militia, and unorganized militia - on a state-by-state basis.

I personally don't give a shit what 'they' do in New York. Never been there. I'll never go there if I can avoid it. Arizona can set up whatever they choose, the militia may have whatever arms Arizona deems appropriate, and people can 'vote with their feet' as a frequent contributor here says.

Arizona is on its way.
The unorganized militia is already empowered by Constitutional carry.

Just need a few more empowerments.

VVVV

12-25-2012, 14:57

Ya know, I've heard that Bull Shit remark a couple of times and asked Well, how did she secure them.

Nobody knows - but they're all experts on she didn't secure them well enough.

And I asked again - How well do they have to be secured to prevent a family member from getting them? A few more smart ass remarks.

You well secured folks had better be careful "well secured" might be defined by the government as inside a 6' x 6' x 6' block of cured cement.

It's not rocket science....if they were secured ...her mentally ill son wouldn't have been able to use them to commit the horrendous acts he carried out.

Pete

12-25-2012, 15:02

In other words - you don't know but like using the phrase.

He killed her.

How many home weapons storage plans take into account one of the family killing you?

I consider my weapons and ammo secure - but if one of my family killed me they would have access to the storage areas........

...........and I wouldn't be around to defend my plan.

The Reaper

12-25-2012, 15:16

It's not rocket science....if they were secured ...her mentally ill son wouldn't have been able to use them to commit the horrendous acts he carried out.

Was your unit armory guaranteed secure?

Were the weapons you were issued 100% secure against misuse or loss at all times?

Nothing is certain but death and taxes.

TR

koz

12-25-2012, 15:16

It's not rocket science....if they were secured ...her mentally ill son wouldn't have been able to use them to commit the horrendous acts he carried out.

What is "secured?" What level of security is acceptable?

dollarbill

12-25-2012, 16:30

I remember as a child seeing my dad lock up his firearms. It was just something that was taught. I also remember him saying, " Always be carefull, this cabinet and locks will only keep honest people out." More true these days than back then. Lock em up tight. If some one wants them bad enough, there gone. I know the vaults are more secure these days. However the same applies. Put a lock on it and most criminals, especially the mentally ill will see it as more of a challenge with a bigger pay off.

GratefulCitizen

12-25-2012, 16:46

How secure are your car keys, kitchen knives, and gas cans?
http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Chinese-man-drives-car-into-students-injuring-13-4144574.php

Injured is injured, dead is dead.
Deny one tool and another will be used.

Firearms aren't necessary to harm the defenseless.
They are useful for protecting the defenseless.

Team Sergeant

12-25-2012, 17:30

What is "secured?" What level of security is acceptable?

I agree. As I said before I would not purchase a 1000 lb gun safe if I only owned two pistols. And even if I did my "family" would most likely know the combo.

And besides that here in Arizona the ATF likes to give away AR-15's to illegals. Not hard to find a gun if you really wanted one.

Destrier

12-25-2012, 20:16

So... shouldn't those who possess, or want to possess, such weapons actually BE in the "well regulated" militia.

Just where is this militia, and where do they 'drill'?
How will this militia be called up when needed?
Who decides when and if it is to be called up?
Is a militia different from an armed mob?
Just asking...

Besides, I thought you used a sword! :D

A militia of freemen cannot be formed at all unless they are already armed, in order to be well regulated (trained).

My little village here readied themselves and marched West to fight in 1812 in under 12 hours, they became a militia, all already had arms. Would have been difficult to accomplish if they had not had arms already available.

The Militia is the People.

ddoering

12-25-2012, 21:21

A militia of freemen cannot be formed at all unless they are already armed, in order to be well regulated (trained).

The Militia is the People.

Exactly.

Razor

12-25-2012, 21:36

It's not rocket science....if they were secured ...her mentally ill son wouldn't have been able to use them to commit the horrendous acts he carried out.

It's not rocket science...if no one ever drank and drove...far fewer people would be dead each year.

Sad thing is, life doesn't work in the fluffy cloud/unicorns and rainbows mode you want to put forth as a foundation to your argument. Last I checked, those horrendous acts occured in a gun-free zone. In your perfect world, that should have been enough to stop Lanza, shouldn't it have?

Razor

12-25-2012, 21:43

If we stick to ONLY the words in the Constitution, these other references become moot.

Except for the decisions of the governmental body whose job it is to interpret the Constitution--the Supreme Court. Last I checked, they said the 2nd Ammendment provided an individual right (in BOTH Heller and McDonald). Therefore, the 'militia' wording in the Constitution has also become moot.

Jersey Dirtbag

12-25-2012, 21:51

Please pardon the long post (as well as what may be perceived as my "preaching to the choir"), but I'd like to throw something out there which I haven't seen articulated explicitly anywhere just yet.

If we're interested in determining Nancy Lanza's degree of moral culpability for this atrocity, then given the presence of her mentally unstable son (I'm assuming she had prior knowledge of his illness or at least suspected it based on some of her statements to friends published by the MSM), then I think it's worthwhile to ask how she secured her weapons. For example, if Adam was known to be mentally ill, then I would say she is morally responsible for securing those weapons in a safe whose combination was not known to him.

Then again, her moral culpability isn't all that interesting -- even if everyone "perfectly" secured their weapons, eventually some similarly deranged individual will use a cutting torch to defeat the security measures on a safe and proceed to kill a classroom or two full of schoolchildren.

That brings us to an important point. As we all know, for any given level of preparation, there exists a combination of maneuvers the enemy can make that you will be unprepared to deal with. That's why defensive positions are not just statically established but instead are perpetually improved, right?

So we have to give up on the binary concept of something being either "secure" or "unsecure." What we have instead is a spectrum of security -- given a particular scenario, a combination of security measures has X% chance of successfully defeating the enemy. The Newtown atrocity consisted of a suicidal man with some degree of firearms training wearing a ballistic vest and carrying a semiautomatic, magazine fed rifle (as well as the details of the school/terrain, which are just as relevant). If this is the enemy we want to have, say, a 75% chance of being able to defeat with zero casualties, I think that's going to require a lot more than a few teachers/administrators carrying handguns which they train with infrequently and are not expecting to have to use.

But then again, what are the chances of another Newtown style shooting in the next 10 years at any one particular school? How about 100 years? Is it reasonable to expect that every school is 99% secure against such an attacker? How about a platoon sized element of jihadists, such as the force that attacked the Beslan school? I think it's clear that we can't make our schools impenetrable in a general sense.

Anyway, my point is just that there are plenty of "solutions" being floated around by both sides without anyone first identifying the problem we seek to solve. Wouldn't it make more sense to first decide what sort of attack we want to have some specified chance of being able to defeat and then figure out what measures need to be taken to reach that level of security?

Peregrino

12-25-2012, 22:40

Anyway, my point is just that there are plenty of "solutions" being floated around by both sides without anyone first identifying the problem we seek to solve. Wouldn't it make more sense to first decide what sort of attack we want to have some specified chance of being able to defeat and then figure out what measures need to be taken to reach that level of security?

I'm sorry, you must have missed that part of the discussion. Knee-jerk feel-goods want a panacea. 100% foolproof security against every conceivable threat that doesn't cost anything and will make them feel warm and fuzzy all under. Unfortunately, the answer to your question requires lots of work and a proportioned response that accepts that it's impossible to prepare for every eventuality in a real world. Kind of like the Corps of Engineers building a levee system around New Orleans designed to withstand a Cat III hurricane - because thats what the available resources and political will would allow. Course we all know how that one turned out. The CofE is still being pilloried for having failed to meet the delusional expectations of people stupid enough to build below sea-level in a hurricane prone area. The same people who today expect the rest of us to pay for rebuilding their cesspool and demanding that we provide "perfect protection" against the inevitable repeat.

Despite appearances I'm not mocking you. What you're asking is simple common sense. It's basic risk management planning and the way the military (usually) does business. What are the most likely threats (surprisingly, shooters aren't very high on the list) and what's it going to cost (direct/indirect) to address them? Local school systems develop most plans internally though since 9/11 it has become fashionable to use government grants and pay contractors (talk about the full range from frauds to genuine experts all with their hand out to earn a buck or 250K) to develop contingency plans. Then it's up to the local district to decide how they're going to implement them and whether it is about lip-service or actually providing security. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. And as long as the underlying social problems (defective mental health programs, revolving door criminal justice system, and amoral/socially underdeveloped thugs) exist and everybody continues to ignore them, these types of tragedies will continue. School systems that are serious and present "hard targets" will have fewer incidents, those who fail to take the threat seriously become targets of choice. Even psychopaths are smart enough to take the path of least resistance.

My point from the very begining of this discussion has been that it isn't a problem that can be solved by the federal government - despite the fantasies of the sheeple and the statists who manipulate them. Unfortunately nobody seems willing to address the real issues - the aforementioned defective mental health programs, revolving door criminal justice system, and amoral/socially underdeveloped thugs wandering the streets today. The leftists want the appearance of "doing something about the problem" so it's easier for them to attack the inanimate object and deprive law-abiding citizens of a tool necessary for the exercise of a fundamental right.

Pete

12-26-2012, 06:13

Gun Restrictions Have Always Bred Defiance, Black Markets

http://reason.com/archives/2012/12/22/gun-restrictions-have-always-bred-defian

"I doubt I ever would have gone to the black market to purchase an illegal assault weapon if it wasn’t for New York’s annoyingly restrictive gun control laws. Wait. Let me back up a bit. New York State passed the Sullivan Act back in 1911. The law required people to get a government permit to own or carry any weapon small enough to be concealed—handguns, in particular. Issuing the permit would be a matter of official discretion, which is a policy continued to the present day..........."

An interesting read. Ropes together a number of issues.

Pete

12-26-2012, 06:55

When ‘assault weapons’ saved Koreatown

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/23/when-assault-weapons-saved-koreatown/

"This year marked the 20th anniversary of the Los Angeles riots, sparked by the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers accused of beating the now-deceased Rodney King. During the five days, mobs around Los Angeles looted stores, burnt 3,767 buildings, caused more than $1 billion in property damage, and led to the deaths of more than 50 people and left another 4,000 injured. A story that has been forgotten since then is that of the brave storeowners in Koreatown who fended off mobs with handguns, rifles and assault weapons.................."

A point made in this story is that the police abandoned the area. In any large scale civil disturbance the average citizen has no right to protection from the local police force. You're on your own folks.

Oh, and it uses that nasty militia word.

ZonieDiver

12-26-2012, 08:33

A militia of freemen cannot be formed at all unless they are already armed, in order to be well regulated (trained).

My little village here readied themselves and marched West to fight in 1812 in under 12 hours, they became a militia, all already had arms. Would have been difficult to accomplish if they had not had arms already available.

The Militia is the People.

Historically in the US, how well have militias performed on the field of battle against professional soldiers, or for that matter, Native Americans?

To say "the village" is all armed, and when the call comes out - we all just march out and answer it with no prior organization, training, or leadership seems to fly in the face of what SF teaches... doesn't it?

Be in the militia - you can have any arms you want. Not in - not 'qualified' to be in (mental, physical, emotional issues) - tough shit... "No guns for you!"

What I'm saying is that we can redefine these terms in for a modern society in a way that will allow the bulk of responsible, rational citizens who wish to possess such arms to do so, and keep them from the hands (to the extent possible) from those who are not.

Relying on the "same-old, same-old" is not going to work out well for us, I fear.

Pete

12-26-2012, 08:48

Historically in the US, how well have militias performed on the field of battle against professional soldiers, or for that matter, Native Americans?..............

Well, the "Militia" appeared to work 20 years ago in Koreatown.

The "Militia" an armed body from the local population banding together to protect the area from a threat.

Pete

12-26-2012, 08:59

The "Militia" comcept also appeared to work well in the suburban neighborhoods located outside downtown NOLA. Armed neighbors banding together to protect their property.

Well, that is until they were disarmed by authorities - so all animals could be equal.

BOfH

12-26-2012, 10:10

Entire post.

Bingo! Risk management 101: You cannot eliminate risk, but you can mitigate it to an acceptable level, and that acceptable level depends on how you define it and how much you are willing to spend in time, money and other resources to get there. Or, do you just need to be a little more "secure" than the guy down the street, and hope that the malicious actor(s) move on.

If I may add, the human mind is not a binary state machine: impulse, whim, emotion etc. make the most difficult task in risk management that of securing the human, not inanimate objects. Mental illness that shorts the rational thought circuit(s) only makes it that much more unpredictable.

My .02

Peregrino

12-26-2012, 10:11

Historically in the US, how well have militias performed on the field of battle against professional soldiers, or for that matter, Native Americans?

To say "the village" is all armed, and when the call comes out - we all just march out and answer it with no prior organization, training, or leadership seems to fly in the face of what SF teaches... doesn't it?

Be in the militia - you can have any arms you want. Not in - not 'qualified' to be in (mental, physical, emotional issues) - tough shit... "No guns for you!"

What I'm saying is that we can redefine these terms in for a modern society in a way that will allow the bulk of responsible, rational citizens who wish to possess such arms to do so, and keep them from the hands (to the extent possible) from those who are not.

Relying on the "same-old, same-old" is not going to work out well for us, I fear.

Everything "reasonable people" (your definition, not mine) are asking for already exists in some form - and it's all proven to be ineffective. The "20,000 gun laws on the books" isn't hyperbole. The only people who obey them are the law abiding citizens - the ones who aren't prone to shooting up schools, malls, and churches anyway. As an example NC already has a safe storage law. The CCW permit process requires training, a criminal and mental health background check, and approval of the local Sheriff. Non-CCW undergo an NICS check for all purchases and handguns require a special permit - only available from the local Sheriff. What more do you want?

None of this has anything to do with what SF teaches. By doctrine SF doesn't even get to the conflicted area until late Phase II. The locals are already in armed rebellion and the US makes the decision to improve their chances of success (actually to improve our chances of forcing a negotiated settlement that serves US interests but who cares about the fine print?). Bottom line - I'm perfectly happy with the traditional definitions of militia and the concept of the "unorganized militia".

Side note - Your apparent contempt for the "unorganized" militia belies my personal experience. If conflicts endure long enough, militias eventually become something more "formal". FWIW - I worked with the Salvadoran military against the FMLN (a militia) (a mission that also included training and equipping village defense "militias"), on the periphery of the Sandinistas (a militia) against the Nicaraguan military, observed at first hand the auto-defensas (a militia) and the Colombian military against the FARC and friends (also started as militias), got to see the results of the Sendero Luminoso (real bastards) vs. the Peruvian govt, and can list a dozen more fairly recent examples from studies or (distant) observations where the "armed rabble" caused organized forces significant PITA. All of these movements got their start from the "unorganized militia" - most of them in places where civilians had limited access to any weapons, let alone militarilly significant ones. Many of them were even able to achieve negotiated concessions addressing their grievances. As a result, I personally have considerable professional respect for anyone who is willing to take up arms in support of a grievance (and that respect isn't limited to friends - opponents are just as worthy). As the saying goes - "beware the wrath of a righteous man". Not everybody on the other side is an "evil bastard". Anyone willing to take up arms will learn by doing; survivors of the initial learning curve will eventually get pretty good within the constraints of their logistics and coordination capabilities. Ask any of the guys here with experience in the current conflicts (I'm not one of them) what happens when you spend 12 years killing the stupid ones. Then ask yourself why the survivors are still fighting. You don't have to like them but anyone still fighting/joining the fight after 35+ years of conflict has enough motivation to be treated with respect.

Richard

12-26-2012, 10:28

Years ago the politicians figured out it is cheaper to let these people out, allow a certain amount of loss in civilians in order to save money.

YGBSM! :eek:

Richard

Badger52

12-26-2012, 10:44

Well, the "Militia" appeared to work 20 years ago in Koreatown.

The "Militia" an armed body from the local population banding together to protect the area from a threat.I think your examples fit rather well. In the '65 version the neighboring valley residents were ready if it "spilled over." There was no Gov-sanctioned program to determine if we were responsible or not, and the word 'militia' was a long way from its current perjorative use. To our minds the militia was... us. But we weren't using that term either. We were just a community protecting ourselves, our children (I were a bulletproof teen at the time) and our stuff.

Failing to contest the improper use of that word, even in daily conversation, has yielded much ground to those who've been successful in history at painting with a very broad brush. The expert users of media have the majority of the public well-educated as to what a militia is - it's some overweight, OPSEC-stupid, BDU-clad yay-hoos being paraded in a perp walk. But I won't stop using the word because of someone else's ignorant attempt to define it for me.

It also leads to proposing "reasonable" solutions for the sake of not being painted with that broad brush. Again, the worry about how something plays vs. what it might (or might not) accomplish.

Richard

12-26-2012, 11:11

The "Militia" an armed body from the local population banding together to protect the area from a threat.

Residents also have to understand that there's a 'fine line to be walked' between how such activities may be viewed after-the-fact - a necessary local 'militia' action or an act of vigilantism?

Richard :munchin

Peregrino

12-26-2012, 11:12

Damocles

12-26-2012, 11:24

Ummm - NO, I don't. To be blunt, while it is an incredible tragedy for those directly involved and my prayers go out to those families, it's a pimple on an elephant's ass when looked at from a national perspective. It isn't a symptom of "out of control guns", it's a symptom of a disasterously inadequate mental health system.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. And this tragedy is another opportunity for the Left to exploit a crisis, whipping up their base into a frenzy to advance their control agenda. [ . . . ]

Personally, I'm tired of having my rights stripped from me by statists, sheep, and assorted physical/moral cowards who want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore the real problems.

[ . . . ]

Not to worry though, in this instance your appeal falls on deaf ears. In order for compromise to work both sides need to see a win-win. There is no win for conservatives when negotiating with the left; there is only a delaying action and I for one am sick of continually losing. One test for insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time. Compromising with the left meets that test. As examples, I offer the current budget impasse, and any federal firearms law you wish to examine. I’m tired of suffering the “death of a thousand cuts”. Turn the other cheek has been an abysmal failure; the time has come to return each incivility in kind, proportional to the insult.

The problem is not and never has been firearms. Firearms are tools, and like all tools can be used responsibly or otherwise. Tools only do what the mind using them directs. Failures in the mental health system, the criminal justice system, and the zero personal responsibility/soccer trophy for everyone mindset that has shaped American society today are the root causes. Until actions have consequences and people are held accountable, the amoral, self-centered, and destructive behaviors that lead to these tragedies will not stop.

As an example I invite you to look at http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/24/fire-trap-gunman-dead-after-killing-2-firefighters-at-scene-western-ny-blaze/. Especially the part about his “extensive criminal record” – one that made him ineligible to possess firearms. This tragedy could have been prevented by executing the perpetrator for the murder of his grandmother years ago.

You (or anyone else of like mind) are cordially invited to offer a solution that is effective (20,000 gun laws already on the books in this country haven't stopped these incidents) and that does not compromise my rights. Implementing new laws that have already been proven ineffective and demanding in the process that I surrender a right so sheep can bask in the illusion of security isn't an acceptable option.

Personally, I think America has passed the 50% +1 that marks the turning point in every society. The ancient Chinese curse about living in interesting times has come to pass. I feel for the next generation. Indications are they will not enjoy the opportunities and freedoms we did – and it’ll largely be because Conservatives surrendered them without a whimper because they couldn’t stand being called “insensitive” by the left. So no – I’m not better than this. You can only kick a dog so many times before you get bit. Maybe leftists should give that some consideration.

If ever given the chance, I will buy any/every QP I meet a beer. However, you, Sir, I will buy two. Maybe more, cash flow permitting.

Well said on both counts.

DJ Urbanovsky

12-26-2012, 13:13

Not just during civil disturbances. More like no right to protection from the police, ever. Unless a "special relationship" exists. That's a mighty diaphanous term. What constitutes a special relationship, exactly? The police came over to my house earlier in the week, lit some candles and incense, and gave me a sponge bath, so now we have a special relationship? Open up, this is the police! We've brought you a pineapple upside down cake!

If more people were familiar with this ruling, maybe they would realize that only they are responsible for their own personal safety, and perhaps start to behave accordingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

A point made in this story is that the police abandoned the area. In any large scale civil disturbance the average citizen has no right to protection from the local police force. You're on your own folks.

Badger52

12-26-2012, 13:35

If more people were familiar with this ruling, maybe they would realize that only they are responsible for their own personal safety, and perhaps start to behave accordingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_ColumbiaYup, see also the other 2 cites at that entry or here, for the wiki-averse (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0489_0189_ZS.html).*

* Pete "mentored" me once some time ago and, thank you sir, I do not need another.

The police came over to my house earlier in the week, lit some candles and incense, and gave me a sponge bath, so now we have a special relationship?
That image is a complete destroyer of office decorum - damn, man!
:D

Pete

12-26-2012, 13:47

Residents also have to understand that there's a 'fine line to be walked' between how such activities may be viewed after-the-fact - a necessary local 'militia' action or an act of vigilantism?

Richard :munchin

My house, my street, my neighbors.

I don't think dragging a looter to the edge of your 'hood and hanging him from the nearest light pole with a sign "Looters will be hanged" would go over too well these days.

But with a fairly large collapse of civic law and order in a greater area I think the "self defense" side will be a little more elastic.

BOfH

12-26-2012, 13:49

If more people were familiar with this ruling, maybe they would realize that only they are responsible for their own personal safety, and perhaps start to behave accordingly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Responsible or not, people also need to realize that which is physically impossible: it is impossible for LEO to be everywhere at all times.

There are limits on what the law and government agencies can do to protect the public. Though I’ve been a cop for 30 years, nearly every day of which has been spent on the streets of Los Angeles, I can recall only a handful of times when I was able to interrupt a violent crime in progress, either by responding quickly to a radio call or by coming across it randomly while on patrol. You’ve heard the expression: when seconds count, the police are minutes away. It’s trite but no less true.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/childish-fantasy-gun-control-and-the-victim/?singlepage=true

Another tangential point to consider is the law of unintended consequences, that is do you end up hardening one target at the expense of others? Meaning, the lunatic might skip the known hardened target(the school with armed LEO) for a softer target(pizza shop down the block during lunch) with the same devastating effect(granted CCW could come into play here, however, many of the states with gun free zones also have next to impossible CCW requirements).

My .02

Team Sergeant

12-26-2012, 14:06

Another tangential point to consider is the law of unintended consequences, that is do you end up hardening one target at the expense of others? Meaning, the lunatic might skip the known hardened target(the school with armed LEO) for a softer target(pizza shop down the block during lunch) with the same devastating effect(granted CCW could come into play here, however, many of the states with gun free zones also have next to impossible CCW requirements).

My .02

Check out the crime stats of "gun-free" cities as compared to cities like Phoenix. Yes those that make themselves gun-free are being targeted by the criminals. Chicagos violent crimes are about 4-5 times worse then Phoenix.

Badger52

12-26-2012, 14:41

....many of the states with gun free zones also have next to impossible CCW requirements).
Not to put too fine a point on it but let's make sure we are talking about gun-free zones in a given state's weapons statutes that have the pre-emptive force of law, versus the option of a private-property owner to put up a sign (e.g., a mall). Examples of the former are usually specifically called out in law, e.g., gov building, school, etc. As in many states, there's no legal force here to the signage on private property until you:

a. Get noticed and are asked to leave (ergo, you're doin' it wrong) AND
b. Refuse, at which time you can be cited for trespassing.
Big boy rules apply. Monsters don't read.

Cruised a handful of the editorial pages of some smaller-town USA papers and finding that there is alot of "party of EX-clusion" going on with regard to the NRA's remarks. Any morsel of merit to any one thing in LaPierre's remarks aside, they are completely tossing it all out because of the initials of the messenger. Guess I'm not surprised. Any notions to address anything about mental health resources in any way will have to be their idea; lotta not-invented-here syndrome goin' around.

Responding to these with facts is a must, otherwise they're being allowed to parrot what they're being fed by those controlling the national message.

One of 'em got their proposed $8B school-security cost from NPR :eek: and was aghast. That's the kind of 1-source info they run with and the editor of a single rag small-town paper probably gets read more per person in terms of copies printed.

Sigaba

12-26-2012, 16:05

MOO, some of the positions and rhetorical tactics in this thread are going to lead to a profound political backlash against those who oppose more gun control. Those Americans who don't want more gun control need to bring viable solutions to the table. Else, they are going to be folded into the Democratic Party's increasingly compelling narrative that its right of center opponents are unwilling (if not also unable) to participate in the ongoing efforts to address the country's many issues.

By my reading, the president staked out a sensible approach to the issue of violence against children during his speech of 16 December 2012 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/16/remarks-president-sandy-hook-interfaith-prayer-vigil). He said:We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law -- no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try.

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens -- from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators -- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?
Three days later, the president elaborated during a press conference held at the White House. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/12/19/remarks-president-press-conference)Over these past five days, a discussion has reemerged as to what we might do not only to deter mass shootings in the future, but to reduce the epidemic of gun violence that plagues this country every single day. And it’s encouraging that people of all different backgrounds and beliefs and political persuasions have been willing to challenge some old assumptions and change longstanding positions.

That conversation has to continue. But this time, the words need to lead to action.

We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there’s no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We’re going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We’re going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can’t prevent every act of violence doesn’t mean we can’t steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence.
While it is clear that the president would prefer more restrictive laws on the ownership of firearms and ammunition, it is equally clear that he is not hoping for a "panacea" through such legislation.

Peregrino

12-26-2012, 16:53

Neville Chamberlain would appreciate your stance. I'm unable to find any merit in it. I've clearly stated my position and issued an invitation:

You (or anyone else of like mind) are cordially invited to offer a solution that is effective (20,000 gun laws already on the books in this country haven't stopped these incidents) and that does not compromise my rights. Implementing new laws that have already been proven ineffective and demanding in the process that I surrender a right so sheep can bask in the illusion of security isn't an acceptable option.

And your only response is to tell me that I/we "must be reasonable"? Very presidential of you.

On one thing you're absolutely right. The current fight is futile. So long as the MSM denies moderate voices on the right access to the public forum there is no hope of a reasoned debate about the root causes, certainly not for any lasting compromise of any value. My goal is/has been to plant a seed. I'm reasonably confident the current administration will do all that is required to see that it flourishes.

afchic

12-26-2012, 19:29

GratefulCitizen

12-26-2012, 19:48

How accurate are the arbiters of mental stability?

http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1693&context=fac_artchop
http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Gp-decEK_50%3D&tabid=222

GratefulCitizen

12-26-2012, 20:05

afchic

12-26-2012, 20:33

While I am sure you can take care of yourself how well could you defend yourself if a 6'5" 280 lbs of muscle jacked up on meth attacked you if you were unarmed? I know I would probably get my ass handed to me and I am not a small guy or helpless. A 45 would go a long way twords your survival.

Agreed. My husband wants them in the house so I can protect myself and the kids if Stinky Puppy doesn't get them first if he is gone :) I can handle alot of men due to my size. But when they get taller than my 6'2 they usually have me by 50 pounds. or more

Sigaba

12-26-2012, 23:03

Neville Chamberlain would appreciate your stance. I do not agree that offering comparisons between the current debate over mass violence against children and European diplomacy during the late 1930s is the way to go. Leaving aside the historiography of the origins of the Second World War (including an expanded understanding of the relationship between appeasement and British rearmament as well as Hitler's preferred time table for war with Great Britain), the comparison implicitly paints someone in the debate as a Hitler-like figure and indicates that there really is no grounds for compromise on the subject.

Two (rhetorical) questions for the consideration of interested parties.

Is it just by coincidence that three QPs who have worked as educators (Richard, ZonieDiver, and Dozer523) are suggesting that the current debate over the relationship between guns and violence against young people needs to go beyond the parameters of previous debates over gun control?
Is it be possible that their experiences as educators allow for insights as to how key stakeholders (i.e. parents, teachers, and academic administrators) might respond to certain arguments?

Peregrino

12-26-2012, 23:36

Sigaba

12-27-2012, 00:37

The comment was a condemnation of appeasment and "if you'll just be reasonable and give us everything we're asking for we can avoid all this unnecessary unpleasantness". I'm fairly well versed on the Chamberlain govt's "avoid war at any cost while secretly engaging in an ineffective arms buildup" strategy. Avoidance of conflict, even after it had become apparent to all, including the most head-in-the-sand pacifist, while understandable as an outgrowth of the WWI experience was an unforgiveable failing in a national government with a duty to look to its people's best interests. My duty is to uphold and defend the Constitution so that succeeding generations can enjoy the same rights and privileges I hold dear; my failing is in expecting others to understand that duty in the same light.

Interesting that you ignored the rest of my comments and seek to divert attention by asking rhetorical questions. As a partial answer, I invite you to examine Post #28 in the NYT Posts Names thread.By my reading of this thread and others related to the post Newtown debates, no one--including those with whom you disagree--is suggesting anything resembling "appeasement." It is my view that some are calling for a level of engagement that allows for an optimal balance of political pragmatism, rhetorical effectiveness, and, for lack of a better term, imagination, that does not compromise core principles.

The purpose of the rhetorical questions was to suggest that just because good and wise men (that is, Richard, ZonieDiver, and Dozer523) have different perspectives on an issue, those views cannot work to the benefit of the overall discussion.

The conversation over how to address the issue of mass violence against children is centering around the issue of gun control and becoming increasingly polarized. It is my view that this direction is going to cost America an opportunity to discuss "big picture" issues that include the militarization of American mass popular culture, the criminalization of mental illness, the role violence (both actual and symbolic) plays in identify formation, and the social contract among citizens, communities, and the state.

I also think that the current trajectory is going to expose the American right even further to a series of vicious counter arguments that will undermine its intellectual and political legitimacy among independent minded voters.

This polarization is not merely the result of politicians' rhetoric, irresponsible media elites, special interest groups, nor a broadly defined they/them who won't listen to reason. To me, this polarization is a choice made by Americans on both sides of an already complex and controversial topic. This choice is to make an issue a broader symbol for things they don't like about people with whom they disagree and then to recast the debate as a make or break contest of us versus them.

I think that this choice is not in accord with the best practices of the American political tradition; the fact that different people have markedly dissimilar views on vital issues is not evidence that the America is failing--but rather that it is working.

My $0.02.

Badger52

12-27-2012, 07:17

Check out the crime stats of "gun-free" cities as compared to cities like Phoenix. Yes those that make themselves gun-free are being targeted by the criminals. Chicagos violent crimes are about 4-5 times worse then Phoenix.Unable to link thru the work filter but Larry Correia had a pretty good piece I read last night on this. IIRC, all but one of the recent high-vis events (Gifford's shooting) occurred in "gun free zones." Even given the excellent response times of LE
- average number of people shot when LE was first intervention: 14
- average number when a civilian (already there) intervened in some way: 2.5

And a suggestion: Exempt on-site staff, who also happen to be permit holders, from the Fed GFSZ Act. This isn't "putting cops in every classroom" and permit-holders aren't cops - that's not the point. If, when faced with opposition, these monsters tend to either give up or shoot themselves, let's speed up that loop.

A permit holder has no more or less criteria to go by when faced with someone about to do them (or their charges) grievous bodily harm. Make it voluntary, but at least enable it. (Naturally there would be occasions where a state must release some pre-emption or home rule issues, but that's f'n paperwork and a vote in a statehouse.) A non-critical outcome of that might be also a window into who is locally serious IAW their local values about protecting children, and who's just flapping their gums.

But the G currently handcuffs those communities who'd be willing to try that. With that act they (from top down) said things would be better. They either lied or were ignorant; bottom line it doesn't work. If the vast national conversation is to have any merit it must include an objective examination of what hasn't worked, however motivated. To do otherwise is criminal.

Now y'all go play socio-pathology. There's one idea, just one small facet, and I'll bet it could be implemented someplace faster than you can fix the deficit in mental health care.

Richard

12-27-2012, 08:10

Check out the crime stats of "gun-free" cities as compared to cities like Phoenix. Yes those that make themselves gun-free are being targeted by the criminals. Chicagos violent crimes are about 4-5 times worse then Phoenix.

There may be others, but I'm not sure Chicago is a valid choice for making such a comparison as I doubt that its long-standing and well-known (to an almost mythical stature) culture of urban violence (ala organized crime and gang-related criminal activities) has changed much in the last 100 years from its pre and post-gun free zoning - other than its violent crime rates (including murder) have, in general, dropped fairly significantly over the last couple of decades.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf

http://qrc.depaul.edu/djabon/Articles/ChicagoCrime20030101.htm

Richard :munchin

Streck-Fu

12-27-2012, 08:38

Richard

12-27-2012, 08:52

Rates of violent crime of all types have been dropping for decades all over the country. Chicago serves best as an example firearm prohibition BECAUSE the gun violence is very prevalent after the prohibition was enacted.

Just like with alcohol prohibition, Chicago proves that bans will not stop the behavior.

I don't think anybody here believes such acts can be entirely 'stopped' - but can they be reasonably curbed or lessened? To that end, the logic of your statement escapes me - I'd be interested in hearing your interpretation of the CPD's "Chicago Murder Analysis" report and Table 13 in particular.

However, using such logic, this may be an argument in favor of letting everyone arm themselves - maybe the problem would become self-limiting.

A teenager is recovering after police say he shot himself in the penis and testicle while cleaning a gun he just bought.

It happened Thursday morning at a home on the 200 block of Verada Street in Port St. Lucie.

Police say 18-year-old Michael Smeriglio first lied to police saying someone shot him while he was walking down the street. After being questioned by police he admitted to accidentally doing it himself.

Doctors say the bullet went through his penis, his left testicle and then lodged itself in his thigh.

Smeriglio told police he bought the gun last month at a party.

While police were investigating at the home where it happened, they discovered marijuana in the house. That led to the arrest of the homeowner Joseph Lamar James, 22, on drug charges.

CH11 News, Macon, GA

Richard :munchin

Destrier

12-27-2012, 09:12

Perhaps we are missing a few other ways to stop and individual with a gun attacking a gun free zone.

Maybe some would consider other methods to attempt to buy time until LEO's can arrive.

O.C. bear spray in a sprinkler system in hallways or hand helds.

With small hand held O2 bail out bottle in class rooms.

Car-15 with blue plastic

semi auto shotguns with bean bags or rubber bullets

Flash bangs

Tasers

tranqulizer guns

Ballistic shields for the turtle effect

Tracked Robotic drone with several methods of sub duel operated from LEO station.

Not saying my preference is for such. Just brain storming. But since some are not capable, are unwilling, or simply cannot utilize deadly force themselves.

Maybe a multi faceted approach. Along with, some trained armed willing responsible individuals when possible. Goal to buy response time.

Pete

12-27-2012, 09:42

The Mission of the S.A.I.S.D. Police Department

http://www.saisd.net/admin/police/index.htm

Hmm, Cops in schools.

Goggle Texas ISD Police and you get a bunch of hits.

Even Dallas has one

http://www.dallasisd.org/Page/1217

rubberneck

12-27-2012, 09:50

They're not screwing around this time. This makes the Clinton AWB look like a walk in the park. This evil legislation has to be killed before it sees the light of day. Every owner of a magazine with a capacity of over 10 rounds becomes a felon the second after this law is passed. Another goodie includes a national registration of grandfathered "assault weapons" for easier confiscation down the road, and the banning of some handguns.:eek:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Badger52

12-27-2012, 10:19

Naturally her website doesn't cite as ref the CDC studies commissioned by her complicit friends the Clintons, which ended up not validating any real benefits of such things.

Another goodie includes a national registration of grandfathered "assault weapons"...Whatever. Let me know how that works out.

Streck-Fu

12-27-2012, 10:49

Molon Labe

Richard

12-27-2012, 10:52

Streck-Fu

12-27-2012, 11:04

Can we have it both ways?

As though more laws/restrictions would work.

From the link:

Also, nearly all Americans -- now 92%, up from 83% in 1999 -- favor laws that require people attempting to purchase guns at gun shows, including gun dealers, to undergo background checks.

This demonstrates extraordinary ignorance and it's inclusion in the poll indicates the Gallup question writers are very ignorant of existing laws.

Buying from dealers at gun shows already requires a 4473 and background check. What they probably are trying to address is private sales/transfers at gun shows which are a matter state law. Most states do not require private parties to transfer through a FFL/dealer.

To ban private sales at gun shows would only move those sales to the parking lot next door.

The question is based on a false premise.

booker

12-27-2012, 11:06

While I am sure you can take care of yourself how well could you defend yourself if a 6'5" 280 lbs of muscle jacked up on meth attacked you if you were unarmed? I know I would probably get my ass handed to me and I am not a small guy or helpless. A 45 would go a long way twords your survival.

Funny you mention that one - my neighbor is a town cop who had to deal with just this issue (the guy was probably only 240 though) a couple of weeks ago. Tasered him twice, to no avail, physical restraint failed, it took three officers to subdue him. And this was a college kid... One cop broke his wrist in the scuffle. Denial won't work anymore, trouble will find you with your head stuck in the sand. I agree with BrushO, a .45 will help.

koz

12-27-2012, 11:22

Can we have it both ways?

Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_content=morelink&utm_term=Politics

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

This is simple. Politicians, teachers/educators, psychologists, hollywood, liberals in general continue to tell people that "gun laws will make them safer." If you hear something enough, some people will begin to believe it. So when someone says, do you want more restrictive gun laws, they think they want to protect the children, so they say "yes more restrictive gun laws will make me safer."

But when they ask how to make these more restrictive gun laws, banning anything doesn't seem to make sense to the majority.

Team Sergeant

12-27-2012, 11:44

There may be others, but I'm not sure Chicago is a valid choice for making such a comparison as I doubt that its long-standing and well-known (to an almost mythical stature) culture of urban violence (ala organized crime and gang-related criminal activities) has changed much in the last 100 years from its pre and post-gun free zoning - other than its violent crime rates (including murder) have, in general, dropped fairly significantly over the last couple of decades.

https://portal.chicagopolice.org/portal/page/portal/ClearPath/News/Statistical%20Reports/Murder%20Reports/MA11.pdf

http://qrc.depaul.edu/djabon/Articles/ChicagoCrime20030101.htm

Richard :munchin

Yes Richard that's my point, even with laws banning guns the problem only grows. Chicago is a prime example of how such brainless left-wing guns laws don't work. It's also a prime example of what happens when you ban guns. And we know Washington D.C. is the same as Chicago. Ban guns and crime goes up.

As far as the violence seeming to lessen over the decades I have read studies that suggest killing the bad men stems the violence. It's hard to be a repeat offender when you're taking a dirt nap.

You want to stop the violence, enforce the current gun laws. It's quite apparent that left-wing operated cities with millions cannot do that. Do we need to bring the current situation in England into the discussion? You know what's currently going on in a country that basically banned guns?

Targeting the guns is simple but it will not stop the violence. How about we target the individuals committing the violent crimes instead.

I will defend my constitutional right to defend myself with my life and I will not live in a left-wing, delusional, sheeple gun free zone.

The right idea is starting to come to the surface:
"Arizona Attorney General proposes arming school employees"
Published December 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/27/arizona-attorney-general-wants-to-arm-school-employees/?test=latestnews#ixzz2GH7fF3lb

Badger52

12-27-2012, 12:04

But when they ask how to make these more restrictive gun laws, banning anything doesn't seem to make sense to the majority.X-ring. Going back to the historical data provided, not the snippet that was run & grabbed on by the morning papers, even tying it to dates of things like Columbine & VA Tech shows the survey subjects didn't regard large amounts of legislation as being a tool to legislate behavior. With 18sec till commercial break most information consumers won't get it & don't dig for it. Could be a more aged (and less secure) demographic (over a decade or more), lots of factors impact surveys.

I wonder how many, if asked, would know that Columbine happened 5 years after the start of the first AWB, smack in the middle of a period of law that was marketed to them as making them safer, and that the GFSZA had been in place for 9 years.

PedOncoDoc

12-27-2012, 14:24

I believe that there should be no talk about new gun laws until the proponents come up with a thorough and 100% effective plan to seize all firearms from those convicted of violent crimes, gang-related crimes and drug-related crimes.

Start there, watch the crime rate over the following 5 years and THEN show me that we need more gun laws. :rolleyes:

The solution lies in disarming the criminals, not going after law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise their 2nd amendment rights for defense of self and the innocent.

steel_eel

12-27-2012, 14:50

Peregrino

12-27-2012, 14:57

How long until Homeland Security is demanding your papers?

Razor

12-27-2012, 15:55

If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try.

Once again, it appears the only national tragedies that count are those caused by guns. Where is the demand for a new Prohibition on alcohol and a ban on tobacco, which kill in even greater numbers than all the shootings listed above combined? How about make any public or private pool deeper than 2 feet illegal? We could always drive down vehicle deaths by governing motors to 35pmh max. Those are steps that can be taken to save lives, but it creates too much discomfort or inconvenience among the constituency, so it will never even be considered. "Even one step"...right, nice platitude.

Paslode

12-27-2012, 16:02

We could always drive down vehicle deaths by governing motors to 35pmh max.

Or mandate the use of mass transit by the commoners.

OldNCranky

12-27-2012, 16:20

Interesting Factoid: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service

Some animals are more equal than others.

Yes they are..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuBbLeqZbPA&feature=endscreen&NR=1

Surgicalcric

12-27-2012, 17:30

While we are considering gun control I also suggest we ban spoons. After all they are responsible for rampant obesity that as prevalent among children - and it has to be the spoons fault.

Dusty

12-27-2012, 17:39

While we are considering gun control I also suggest we ban spoons. After all they are responsible for rampant obesity that as prevalent among children - and it has to be the spoons fault.

Nip psychos in the bud. Ban hetero sex. Wait...libs...just kiddin'.

The Reaper

12-27-2012, 19:30

Not sure if this has already been posted, but here is what Senator Feinstein's website has as her "modest proposal."

She would probably take 90% of it now, knowing she can get the rest later.

There is a ban on 120 named weapons, and any others with similar characteristics.

The ban on transferring mags would appear to prohibit loaning your shooting buddy a 12 round SIG mag, or your kids inheriting any of your mags. I guess they will have to be destroyed, or buried with you.

It provides for a complete ban on magazines over ten rounds. I wonder if they will make it illegal to reload your murder weapon after you shoot the first ten victims?

Those of the 120 restricted guns you decide to keep will have the same regulatory and application process as a fully automatic machinegun.

Looks like three gun competiton will be a lot like cowboy action shooting, when the Dims are done.

Not much I have seen being proposed to keep crazy people from acting crazy among the rest of us. :rolleyes:

TR

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Summary of 2013 legislation
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.