It's funny to hear a person who's never been shot before say "fear of guns" to someone who has been shot before but still manages to have more objectivity on the matter.

Yes, I'm marginalizing people who are selective about protection. Why? Because you've not been called on your bullshit. You, dksuddeth, are probably never going to be home invaded, but you've still spent god knows how much on a small arsenal of guns that you excuse by saying they're for home defense. They're not. Whether you're aware of it or not, that's just an excuse. The real reason you have those guns is inexcusable, so you try to cover up for that by screaming "self defense" and hope that people buy the fallacy that is something is done in self defense, it's always right.

Blargh.

Does it even matter what they're for? They aren't killing people so what's the problem.

Rumor has it you don't have to be shot to know it's a bad thing.

I think the verdict is still out on that one.

The problem is the availability of guns to people who shouldn't have them: namely people who are criminals or have emotional or mental problems. I do trust some people with guns. Crompsin, for example, makes no qualms about explaining that they're for fun. I understand that. I used to have a bb gun when I was a kid and I can imagine opening fire with the real thing on a range is a blast, not to mention that soldiers who were deployed actually develop friend-like relationships with guns. I get that.

What I don't get is the "if he breaks down my door, I'm going to kill him" mentality about criminals being paired up with the "everyone should be armed" mentality. That's dangerous. And I don't mean dangerous like running with scissors. I mean dangerous like playing with a match inside a gas tank.

So, uh, DK... do you have fun with your recreational firearms?

I think the difference between the hobby person and the psycho person is the fun factor.

I have fun with them and put them away. I don't sleep with them at night and refer to them as "Ole Right-Maker."

I can see where you're coming from, and there's some truth to that. But fear isn't everything. I've always been afraid of open water (my father drowning at sea might have something to do with that), but I still dove headlong into crew in college, because I loved facing that thing that scared me on a daily basis. I developed a healthy respect for the power of open water. I've typically been drawn to things that I fear... not so with guns, ever. I've always just seen them as a total anomaly in my life... something that did not belong.

When I think about guns and ammo, etc... the dominant feeling isn't fear, it's that of being in a totally unrecognizable country. I have no connection whatsoever with the mindset of wanting to be armed... it's just not there, even when reason states that it should be, maybe (e.g. walking around Beirut, or hell, even when I was doing fieldwork in the Philly ghetto). I just never had that curiosity, which is strange for me. I'm the type who gets curious about damn near everything, even if it's dangerous and a very bad idea.

So part of that may be fear, but I think a lot of it is also personality and maybe the way I was raised. Gut values, as I said before.

As I'll never regain control of this thread.

Think of it then in terms of convenience. How convenient is it to get from here to there without walking down some street? It wouldn't be. Once one has a gun.. that is all they need and they are prepared. I am not for the "kill he whom dares enter unlawfully" mentality, but I do believe in:

1. If the threat is clear and immediate, neutralize it
2. Neutralizing the threat with as little harm as possible (I'd only be willing to shoot the intruder in the arm if said intruder became hostile towards me)
3. Teach the point that breaking in to my family's home is wrong and there are immediate consequences.

Exclude yourself from this any look around you at mostly everyone else.



I agree. Again, guns are not the issue. Whatever is fucking over our culture and society is the problem. Again: Guns don't kill people, they just help.

Exactly. Guns are not the issue. Whether there are more guns or less guns is not going to stop anyone from committing mass murder if they really want to do it. We can't create a society with no guns, as they say, the cat's out of the bag, someone's going to have them and I'd much rather everyone have them than only the government. It's much better to have an armed citizenry in which there are rare illegal shootings than a government with guns and a citizenry with none. Governments are much more dangerous with power.

No laws can prevent this type of incident. Mass murder is already illegal and the murderers typically intend to die anyway, so anything that happens after they start shooting is irrelevant. Arming everyone in class is terribly impractical, but I agree that if someone meets state standards for concealed carry it should be legal to carry in schools, or at least any public institutions. Why anyone would be qualified to carry a gun in certain public places and not in others was always a mystery to me.

I think its pretty common for a lot of women actually, and apparently willravel.

While single I never even thought about having a gun beyond a 'meh maybe, whatever' but now that I have kids and a wife, my protection instincts are heightened, especially with the kids. Hurt me, ok, hurt my kids, I'll rip off your arms and beat you with them if needed, but shooting works better.

Most boys are drawn to guns as well. We played solider almost daily as a kid, and my son already turns pretty much every stick like object into a gun and thats just from seeing a few video games.

Much like its your nature to abhor weapons, I am drawn to them, not in a 'unhealthy' way, I currently don't own a weapon more dangerous than a K-Bar, but there is something about them that carrying them seems natural.

I can have objectivity on the matter because i've been shot AT, just never been shot.

gee will, I own two handguns. what arsenal are you referring to? whats my 'real reason'? my small penis?

when i can afford extra ammo, I love going to the range.

I don't sleep with mine either. they have their own damn bed. :paranoid:

Oh, this again. Carry on.

BELOW: Possible portrait of average middle-aged white American male?

While there is a grain of truth to it, if you were any more sexist in that last post... I'd have to slide into a ratty NASCAR shirt and put on one of those tacky beer can hats.

...

Two? Is that it? Awwh, jeez. :rolleyes: I don't even know how to handle that, DK. :D

And I'm really objective because I've been shot at with RPGs and mortar rounds the size of your calf. Who wants to whip it out and play "who's got the bigger one?" with me? Who cares? I don't give a fuck who's been shot at with what and I think it's a really shitty debate point when discussing psychos who've capped innocent students.

I'm not trying to get a date here so I don't worry how I sound. There is nothing sexist about saying women are less likely to be drawn to weapons and fighting. Its scientifically documented from our childhoods on. Not all men are, not all women aren't but there is a reason that women so rarely fight in wars that when they do it becomes notable or even enters mythology in the case of the amazons.

You might be trying to get a date here though so I understand your position.

... because they can't enlist in combat military occupational specialties such as 11, 21, and 13 series in the United States Army?

While physical size and strength is the biggest factor, social attitudes of equality and training can overcome biology when there is a willing mind.

I know quite a few female LTs that can bench press more than I weigh.

...

When ya've got a smooth spot like a Ken Doll... dates are a just big waste of time and money, brother.

/threadjack

There are always some just like there are some men who would have no place anywhere near combat. Its not our physical biology that I'm overly concerned about here. Sure even though I almost never work out these days I can take pretty much any woman who hasn't been martial arts trained, I don't consider that to be the problem. Guns are a great equalizer.

Its the psychological differences that make the difference. Its not so much social attitudes its how our brains are wired, and our society is based on that, not the other way around.

I think the bottom line to this kind of thing is that there are psychos out there. This is not a USA only thing - mass shootings occur everywhere, it just seems to the USA has a system where guns are more accessible (Australia's gun laws changed dramatically after the Port Arthur massacre - see link for details of the shooting - that even if I wanted a gun I have absolutely no clue how to go about getting one).

Also, American shootings on this scale make the news because most of the news outlets have a pretty US centric view - bombs going off in other countries probably don't the coverage in the US that a school shooting gets.

RE access to guns - personally I think it should be really hard to get one, even if the law says you can have one. Laws should be written in such a way that there should be a sizeable background check before you can buy one. If you are deemed to be mentally unstable, you should not be able to buy a gun - end of story.

I don't buy into the more guns = more gun crime argument either. I think this is a red herring. The kinds of people that do this kind of thing are psycho and everything should be done to identify the causes of this, not be so hung up on "where did the gun come from?"

But I need you like fat kids need cake.

it's a financial thing. recession and all. :expressionless:

I agree, but then I didn't bring it up to start with. Willravel did by saying he knows better since he's been shot and i haven't. or something like that.

Couldn't of said it better myself.

Being a student at a large university makes you wonder if maybe yours could be next. Although I've noticed most of these shootings don't take place in Texas and if they did...more than likely the shooter wouldn't get far. I'm certain there are students on the Texas Tech and Texas A&M campuses who carry and conceal their guns for instances just like this.
The law says it's illegal for students to carry guns on campuses, but if someone comes on with one wiping everyone out I think a student with a gun taking out the gunman would be a thanked instead of punished. Although I'm sure there are tons of folks that would disagree with that option.

James got his CHL...when I turn 21 I'd like to get mine. Planning to anyway.
I also carry a knife on me everywhere I go, it's in my hand when I'm about to get into my car after my night classes.

It's pretty messed up these shootings keep happening. I disagree that people need to ignore the war and focus on the homeland. The military can't force these kids not to run a muck, might as well stick to their objective. But that's just my opinion. (Please don't comment on my military comments)

Umm..notice how many gun shootings happen in Texas on a weekly basis. I think guns are more difficult to get in Texas and more states of the Southwest than elsewhere.

Oh and to mention something else.
The Texas Tech Mascot carries guns, so...obviously that shows you what people in Lubbock believe if something happens on our campus.

I disagree, I think that mentality is right in the right situation.
For example, I'm a female student living in a town home complex. If some man breaks into the house and attempts to either rape/and or kill my roommates and I, I plan to do all I can to survive and kill the bastard. They know what they're doing is wrong, how is it wrong to be prepared for such as instance? I see nothing wrong with having a gun ready in case it is necessary.
James has his AR-15 and 45 ready to go by the bed in Houston, you better believe he wouldn't think twice about taking someone out if they broke in and threatened our personal safety.

I enjoy shooting, I wish I had more time to go shooting with James but often when he goes I'm doing something else. My dad and I are going out to the gun range this weekend if there is time.

You make it sound like every person carrying a gun in their house is a ticking time bomb which I think is a bunch of bull shit.

There are plenty of students who carry in violation of school policies, and less who do it illegally. As this kind of thing happens time and time again, it becomes more likely that a spree killer will encounter an armed civilian. A shooting spree will make national headlines regardless of how it ends, and if it is ended by an armed civilian protecting himself and others, it may force the idea into the public mindset that good people with guns can be a good thing. On the other hand, it could end up like the shooting in Texas (I think) where the guy who shot in self defense was an off-duty cop and it just faded into the stream of crap coming out of the TV. If it happens, people can realize that heroic actions that save lives aren't limited to someone with a uniform and a badge; it'll also be better PR for gun owners than "from my cold dead hands." (which, for the record, was said at a meeting a year after the Columbine shootings.)

In the right situation, the mentality is understandable. The right situation, though, is a situation where the odds of a home invasion are plausible. Let's say you lived in Kosovo in 1992, when the Serbs were invading often and they would routinely invade homes with violent or murderous intent. In this situation arming one's self seems totally reasonable. The odds of needing the gun excuse owning it for just such an occasion.

What are the odds of a home invasion in your area? 1/600,000 like Illinois? 1/1,000,000 like Finland? The "if" in the sentence "If some man breaks into the house and attempts to either rape/and or kill my roommates and I" is a fantastic if.
No, I said that I understood Crompsin, who owns guns for responsible recreation. Not only that, but Crompsin lives near DC, which does have a very high crime rate (11 robberies a day in 2004). I also never mentioned anything like a time bomb. All I suggested is that home defense is not likely a reason for owning a gun, but rather an excuse. This is something I still stand by and that I've seen no evidence to contradict.

The time bomb situation is a separate issue. That has to do with reasonable background checks including mental health history when someone applies to get a gun. That kind of thing could have very easily prevented the Virginia Tech shootings, as well as the shootings in the OP. It's common sense.

Sounds to me like you're very intent on shoving statistics into your arguments like they actually have any weight.

You can't force your anti-gun beliefs down on everyone who opposes them. And the odds of home invasion in my area are not that great however my argument was that having guns for certain situations should they arise is not a bad thing.

I never mentioned Crompsin in my post, I mentioned that I enjoy recreational shooting when there is time. Not to mention ammo is expensive right now. Owning a gun is a choice, not an excuse.

Let it go, you're not changing other folks minds, don't bother with mine either. I was just stating my opinion.

I hope you are right and dksuddeth is wrong that it is easy to get illegal guns in Texas.

But just for the record, according to FBI stats, Texas ranks 14th in violent crime on a per capita basis

Not that is relevant to the broader discussion.

My original point was that the laws preventing persons with histories of mental illness from purchasing guns legally are not working.

I see, I misread your OP. My mistake.
Yea I believe the border affects the statistics in a more negative connotation than the rest of the state.

If you keep saying it enough, I'll believe it is true. Mention it some more and I'll figure why I don't agree with it.

I don't understand "protection" as an excuse for owning a weapon.

Fixed that for ya. The objective isn't to kill them, it is to neutralize them as a threat, which can be accomplished by shooting extremities.

Statistics are about applying reality to theory. The theory that you're in danger must be supported by factual evidence or it is not a logical fear. So far, it is not a logical fear.
I can "force" logic on people all day. Whether people want to listen or not isn't my call. You have said yourself now that the odds of a home invasion are very low in your area and you own a gun for home invasions, therefore you either are over-prepared or there is another reason you have a gun.
You were responding to my post that was not necessarily directed at you. Don't act like I started our dialogue.

I happen to change people's minds all the time, including but not limited to subjects regarding guns. So I am changing other folks minds, just not yours apparently. That's fine. Believe what you want.

What I mean is protection isn't the actual reason that people own these guns. If it was about protection, then people would be preparing for equally likely or more likely dangers as well, which they don't. They're being selective and choosing a firearm specifically to be selective about, which strongly suggests another reason for owning the gun. Crompsin's reason, for example, is entertainment. I would imagine that he's not the only one that uses this.

There are other reasons, but trying to assign them to people would require more study. I couldn't really venture a guess as to why dk has so many guns without knowing him. I can tell you it's probably not about self defense, though.

I see this reasoning... but again, still don't find owning a gun as an excuse.

I am handy with an aluminum bat. Is keeping a bat behind my door illogical? I lived in a quiet neighborhood, until one year houses, cars, garages, everything was getting broken into, robbed, vandalized...

The fact that statistics say one is safe doesn't change the fact that outliers occur. With people, you often see one bad thing leads to another. Why? Because people being nice does not get noticed

Very true. Although...if you shoot extremities sometimes you hit arteries and they bleed out. (Had to throw that in there). I remember that one lady who shot an intruder in the leg and stopped him from running away. Good call.

Wouldn't that just come back to convenience? You buy a gun and bullets... whala your safety is "secure." Granted it still depends on one's proficiency with the weapon and maintaining it.

The intruder should think of it as my way of being polite. My intention is not to extinguish the intruder's life, just make sure that a portion of his life is spent thinking about what he has done wrong. If he and I have the rotten luck and I hit a major artery... We'll it was an extremity shot, and the officers should note that.

Decided to reword that.

I get that there is still a 1 in a 1/600,000 statistic, but does being prepared to be that one if it means bringing a deadly weapon into your home (which statistics actually say is more likely to kill on accident) really worth it?
If I had a gun, I'd learn how to use it. I'm sure if you have a gun or guns, you're trained. That doesn't mean everyone is. A license doesn't always require training, I've found. In some places it requires virtually nothing.

As for convenience... shouldn't we be worried when it's convenient to get and have a gun? I was almost run off the street coming back from visiting my dad because some idiot thought I cut him off. His Chevy Silverado went from being transportation to being a weapon in an instant and he used it to attack an innocent person. If it wasn't for my Eibach coil springs and Tokico shocks, I may not had had the maneuverability to avoid him and could be dead. My point is it's not easy to get a drivers license. You actually do have to know how to drive. Still, this asshole or psycho managed to get a license despite the fact that he was prone to violent road rage. If this can happen with a seemingly normal person in a car, what's to stop a seemingly normal person with a 9mm in his glove compartment or a shotgun in his house? I can drive defensively and make sure my car is limber and I am a good driver to avoid assholes like I did tonight. How can I make myself bulletproof? And why do some people seem to think that also having a gun somehow makes one safe?

So investing in a Brinks home security system is a waste, too? I mean, statistically... I won't need it. Is my lucky Louie (I have a classy wood bat in my living room, in addition to my aluminum bat) illogical too?

Now we want to talk about convenience of buying the gun? No, let's not.

By convenience I mean: convenience in taking steps towards the goal. Walking down the sidewalk or avoiding all sorts of certain foods and finding all the alternatives is a hassle. One just buys the gun, and one feels safer. It doesn't make it so like I have pointed out.

Yes there should be a stricter additional process before acquiring guns: training, maintaining, safety regulations... when that will happen... doubtful in my lifetime.

It's easier to get a gun on the street than it is in a gun shop or show in texas, if you're around the major cities.

Shooting extremities doesn't work in real life and the poorly-aimed rounds will go through walls, etc. until they hit something, hopefully not an innocent person. The only acceptable place to aim is center of mass. If you can disable someone with a limb shot, you are not in enough danger to justify deadly force.
I completely disagree. Gun ownership is a lot like licensing for cars. You don't have to be good at it, just good enough to prove to an instructor that you can aim it in the right direction and make it go.
Agreed. Almost any drug dealer other than the guy who sells pot to his college friends will have enough connections to be able to get illegal guns because of the almost inevitable tie-in with organized crime. I've never heard of someone having problems finding drugs, and people don't tend to specialize in black market activities, they do what makes them money.

Its the same way in Indiana. Even though I have my conceal carry license, I still have to go through that Federal background check everytime I purchase a Firearm.

My wife and sister both graduated from NIU, this one hits a bit close to home.


There are a large group of people that look at this incident and think to themselves "Damn, there are too many guns in this country and they are too easy to obtain". There is another group that thinks "Damn, if only there were more guns, these folk could have defended themselves". There really isn't any middle ground, nor is there room for compromise, yet that is what has to happen.

The Brinks system assists with not just police but fire and medical emergencies. It makes perfect sense. The bat? If you like playing sports as much as I do I'm sure it makes sense to own a bat. As for keeping it by your bed? You have to keep it somewhere.
Ah, misunderstood.
Measure the convenience against both:
1) The risk of owning the weapon
2) The unlikeliness of needing it

That's my point. Every day 5 children under 19 die because of an accidental shooting or suicide by gun. Look up accidental shooting stats, they're everywhere. Then look up how rare opportunities for using your gun in self defense are.
Why? Why can't we change?

Why doesn't the media highlight cases where CCW people saved lives?

Here's an example where a woman stopped a gunman who had enough ammo to kill hundreds:

Again what is wrong with responsible concealed carry?

"Damn, there are way too many crazy people in society! Why are they going crazy and think shooting people in a blaze of glory will make their end better?"

I don't know.

You should know that I was implying that I keep one bat behind the door and one in the living room for the same reasons people own guns.

Damn you might make a good lawyer. Didn't have me fooled but damn, how good are you at turning a statement?

For the case in question, she was an ex-cop, assigned as a security guard, not someone that happened to CCW. Your example makes a case for improved security, not CCW.

But we're in agreement that things would probably be better if proper training were a part of the licensing process? I ask because DK disagrees strongly with this.
Well to be fair teens aren't committing suicide with Louisville Sluggers, and if someone steals your bat they can't go rob a bank or do a drive-by. Okay, owning a bat purely for home defense probably doesn't make sense, but bat's are useful for other functions. Guns only shoot.

Still, you're missing out. Baseball may be boring as shit to watch, but it's fun to play.
Heh, ty. Both I and my future clients hope you're right. I plan on being a public defender and then a civil rights attorney eventually.

Uh, she was someone who happened to CCW. Only some of the guards were armed. The unarmed security guards would of been all but helpless against the gunmen.

Not sure why being an ex-cop or a designated 'guard' makes a damn bit of difference. The fact that she had a CCW, a level head, and a gun is what made the difference.

This is a case for CCW.

ex-cop yes, assigned security no. she volunteered to do so, along with another person who had a weapon but did not intervene.

some people are still under the impression that cops get superhero training and are able to do things with guns that us average folk are incapable of.

I disagree with which part? training? licenses? probably be better?

You've said you were against more regulation in all it's forms, including requiring training in order to get a gun. Has this changed?

:mad: WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. I will PAY for you to take a concealed carry class. :mad:

This kind of ignorance is perpetuated by non-gunners and the media.

"Oh, just shoot out a leg. Shoot the gun out of his hand. It's easy."

Complete hogwash.

...

You use a firearm when there is no other option of force available. It is the absolute last resort after harsh language and other physical implements fail.

When you pull the trigger on a firearm that is pointed at someone else...your intent is to destroy them. You shoot to kill, you don't shoot to wound.

You focus your front sight over the bad guy's sternum (center mass) and squeeze in short successions until he goes down.

This is both a philosophical and legal principle. Regardless of the outcome of your shot, the intent is, was, and should always be to kill.

If you have to unholster a firearm and point it at someone because of a life-threatening situation (the only viable reason)... you should be in the mindset that you are going to shoot your weapon with the purpose of killing them. There is no wounding, there is no grazing... the righteous use of firearms goes: "I am defending my life by taking yours." Serious shit.

We don't have any Star Trek "Set phasers to stun!" technology yet.

Firearms are lethal weapons and should be treated as such.

"THAT'S POPPYCOCK!"
*throws a sponge, angrily*
*opens fire with gun*

I dunno... doesn't that strike you as 11 different kinds of crazy?

Crazy is using something that can quite easily kill somebody to do less than it's intended purpose.

Either don't use the gun at all... or use it for what it was designed to do. That sounds pretty sane to me.

no, it has not. It is absurd to require a license, granted by the government, to exercise a right protected by the constitution in order to keep that government in check.

Training? I believe everyone should be trained to use weapons, just not mandated training. If you don't want to train or own a gun, by all means don't. Just don't presume to tell me how to be responsible with a weapon when you don't even own one.

No law enforcement agency in the nation, that I know of, trains it's officers to shoot to wound. I know that's not what I was trained to do. If you draw your weapon you'd better have a damn good reason. If you discharge it you do so to permanently stop someone.

They train that way for a reason.

So then I didn't misrepresent your stance at all. Good.
As long as anyone has a gun, people will be in unnecessary danger. If you suddenly think you're at risk of being in danger and open fire, I don't want to be caught in your crossfire as you play Rambo. So yeah, I can tell people how they can be responsible as my safety and the safety of the public is at risk.

1. If you are buying, I wouldn't mind learning something new.
2. I would much rather an ambulance arrive to make sure they live, but if it came down to it, I would kill if they didn't stop
3. Legal reasons to kill the perp?
4. Don't think I do not appreciate this fact.

There is no argument here that you will know better than I, so I ask would you point me to some excellent reading material?

The fact is, she wasn't a random parishoner with a CCW. She was specifically asked to carry and act as security that day because of her training and a prior incident in Denver.

The point is that organized, trained security stopped the gunman. Not a random CCW.

I have no doubt that someone can come up with a case where random CCW actually stopped violence, but this isn't it.

Well trained security stopped the gunman? Try a well trained CCW holder.

You can spin it however you want, but a security guard ex-cop with no CCW wouldn't of done jack shit. This same lady in a 'gun free' zone would of been another helpless bystander.

Another thing I don't understand is 'random CCW'. What is random about deciding to walk around with a loaded gun in the case that you may need to use it to protect yourself or stop a mass shooting.

There is nothing 'random' about a CCW license.

I believe random was meant that the CCW did not have previous special training like one would receive on a police force (or military, etc).

Like others have said, to really spark something in the media, it would have to be a "random" CCW. This story does not qualify. That is my opinion.

Apparently, "spin" is in the eyes of the beholder. Using an ex-cop assigned to specifically watch for this scenario after a similar incident a few miles away to make a case for CCW, seems pretty far fetched to me.

"Gun free zone" applies to random CCW, not police or private security. For what it's worth, the church in question is marked as a gun free zone. Obviously, private (volunteer) security was able to function.

police do not receive 'special' training with guns. Most departments only require an officer to qualify once a year.

How would YOU, as someone who doesn't own a gun and is most likely unfamiliar with regular usage of one, expect to know how to tell others who ARE experienced in the ways of being safe with that gun?

1 - That scares me now.

2 - Who says everyone that has a gun has enough experience to use it properly? Will's comment does seem directed to you, but lets step back and consider everyone that now can get a gun.


Crazies? Why they want to take out others? Anyone? Anyone?

I don't fly planes either, but I have no qualms requiring pilots to get proper training before flying over my house.

I'm not asking to be the instructor, just that people be properly trained before someone gives them a weapon that can so easily kill.

//claps//

why should we?

training like your average police officer is given?

1 - It's going to happen eventually, whether we like it or not.
2 - Given what was said earlier, I hope firearms licenses require more than that.

So as to avoid the NUMEROUS gun related accidental deaths every year. Or do you like that this right that you so valiantly defend kills so many innocent people accidentally?
No one here is talking about the police but you. I have absolutely no clue why they would be the bar, and I'm not sure what they have to do with anything.

http://www.frontsight.com/
These programs are very successful and I would imagine that requiring someone to take a basic firearms safety and training program before issuing them such dangerous weapons would be more than prudent, it would be downright responsible.

what other rules and regulations should be made because people refuse to be responsible for their actions? There are only two reasons why people want training classes and licensing requirements for people to have guns.
1. They don't like/carry guns themselves so they want to make it as difficult as possible for everyone else to carry them
2. they want some sort of 'feel good' insurance policy in the head to help them make it through the day thinking 'if someone is carrying a gun, they at least know how to use it.

nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not the only person here talking about them, but it's been said numerous times that 'common folk' don't have the training to effectively use guns, like cops or the military do. So if that's the common belief, why shouldn't they be the bar?

requiring classes and licenses to exercise a right, kinda defeats the purpose of it being a right, don't ya think? Not only that, but I believe there is a supreme court case that said no state can charge a license fee or tax for the exercise of a right that is federally protected.

It will be interesting to see the USSC ruling on the DC gun ban. The author of the Appeals Court decision that ruled it unconstitutional also wrote in the decision:
No right is absolute.

Don't you guys ever get tired of the gun control debate?... seriously. Don't make me insert another abaya_suddeth photo in here to lighten things up!! ;) (DK, I don't know if you saw the first one in Playground, but it was a hit).
Just a sidenote about this boys vs. girls thing... Ustwo, you'd have been hard-pressed to find more of a tomboy than I was, as a kid. I tore dolls apart or used them as chemistry-set experiments :D when anyone was thoughtless enough to give them to me as a gift. My toys of choice were my dad's real hammer and nails, a drill if my dad would let me get to it (I loved power tools), and trees and blocks of wood. I loved playing with bows and arrows, pretend swords, etc... but just never was attracted to the idea of guns, for whatever reason. When my dad gave me the BB gun for target practice, I just remember feeling awkward and bored... not fearful or abhoring the weapon, but just disinterested. I don't know what that says, but I just wanted to throw it in there since I wasn't your typical "girl," and I don't think attitudes towards weapons are always necessarily gender-based.
So, as I said, it took me a long time to develop a more negative attitude towards weapons. I wouldn't say it was in my "nature" to abhor them, but since I was so disinterested, it didn't take much observation of people and their guns around me (e.g. my crazy wanna-be militia relatives) to shift my feelings towards the negative end of the spectrum. And now, I really just do not like them. I love the idea of being able to defend myself, and when I took a self-defense course, I was very much into the various ways that I could harm someone... whatever it took, I would do it. But not with a gun, I know that.

Hope we can get this thread of the very unenlightening merry-go-round that it's currently on...

In the example of silbermans decision, licensing doesn't appear to be brought up. Would that be because of Murdock v. commonwealth of PA??

No, I hadn't, but now you've got me intrigued. :cringe:

I agree on licensing. My point was that but the Appeals Court ruled that 2nd amendment right is not absolute and that "reasonable restrictions" would not violate that right.

Enough said. We shall see this spring when the USSC rules on the case.

;) Just look for the photos in the threads below... there is a world outside of gun control debates, my friend!! ;)
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=abaya_suddeth
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...=abaya_suddeth

:lol: :bowdown: oh god, those rock :thumbsup:

There are two general ways to respond to crime problems: prevention and reaction. Prevention is about removing the opportunity to commit a crime. Reaction is about punishment and deterrence via punishment. Either way the problem is addressing and stopping crime. The problem with reaction is that the crime has already occurred, and someone has already been victimized. Things like "give em guns and if they commit crime, then punish the shit out of them" are perfect examples of reactive measures to crime. They may prevent crime by deterrence, but they're mainly punishment and don't protect the victims. My way, prevention, is about preventing the victimization in the first place.

I'll illustrate each of our philosophies using the travesty in the OP as an example.
DK's world: A gunman who was easily able to get a hold of guns despite the fact he may have had warning signs as to mental illness opens fire in a school. Several armed students return fire. The gunman is killed, and one of the students who pulled a gun to respond is killed, and another injured. Before the armed students returned fire, the madman was still able to kill a half a dozen students and injure an additional sixteen.

Willravel's world: A potential gunman applies for a gun license, but is turned down due to a history of emotional problems. He attempts to get a gun illegally, but fails. No one is injured and no one dies.
You act like "right" has one definition. It doesn't.

:D hehe. Good to know we agree on something, eh? Thanks to Crompsin in the first place for coming up with such an insane combination... ;)

/back to The Usual Gun Control Debating Thread...

why is it that in your world, everything turns out peachy keen, yet in my world, the only thing that changed is another student died? bias? I think so. Especially considering the other possibilities, like a student with a gun stopping said gunman before 6 died or 16 were injured.....or wanna be gunman gets even more pissed because he can't find a gun so he straps on 10 pounds of homemade dynamite? It's all conjecture. The only difference is my scenario creates the possibility of defense in the face of failure while yours is hoping for success and no plans for failure.

how many do you think there are?

The point: Prevention vs. reaction. And... Go!
Obviously there are more than one.

Ah... The obligatory gun control argument.

It's always nice to note that people kill people. It'd be just as easy to mow plow into a large crowd of people with a car as it would to be to open fire on a group of people (Actually, it'd be easier).

Thank you for numerating your points. Saves me the trouble.
1 - I still would not mind to take a class to own a gun.
2 - Yeah, so? What happened to better safe than sorry?


That was before you and others unwittingly popped my bubble universe that cops had actual engagement training.



Maybe this was all ready tackled by the linguistic artists. If not, I will sleep on this one.


@ Willravel:

While your way seems squeaky clean, dksuddeth is right, and ties back to my concerns in the OP. If it were not for guns, the killer would make or buy explosives. Guns are only tools. Just like bombs. Just like screwdrivers.

But a whole lot harder to be selective about your target or get past 4-5 victims (human speed bumps and all).

Note that the NIU shooter, the VA Tech shooter, and the CO Springs shooter all obtained their guns legally. Heaven forbid we make sanity a requirement for legal gun ownership (like it is for a driver's license).

Not really. When you look in places that have a lot less guns you don't see school bombings. It's still shootings.

Correlation does not equate causality. Again we are ignoring the sociocultural aspects as to why today's American generation is going to hell, steering with its own hands.

Correlation is more than a lack of any evidence whatsoever.

I'm going to threadjack back to motive :)

Does anyone else think that maybe anti-depressants are actually the problem? In almost every case of these mass shootings and attempted mass shootings or weird stabbing 75 times or the mother drowning her kids and what not, it seems the person was on anti-depressants then abrubtly stops taking them.

After reading about these drugs in my opinion they are extremely over prescribed. Plus the whole system seems to reward doctors and the people taking these pills (like the happy pill commercials on tv). These drugs should really only be given to the extremely mentally ill schizophrenic or manic depressive type people. Even on the labels now they say things like 'increases suicidal tendencies.'

The doctors should be telling people to get more sunshine and exercise and eating correctly rather than prescribing these pills.

My understanding some people taking them start to have diminishing returns and have to up the dose to get the good feeling. Then some decide to stop taking them for one reason or another. Wouldn't that cause a day after exstasy type depression, except for weeks instead of a couple days. I guess that might cause someone to flip out on society.

I admit I don't know a lot about anti-depressants, it's just a thought.

No, I am glad that someone brings this back to sociocultural reasons this day's American generation is burning out. I have always felt that medication is over prescribed, whether it is for depression of ADHD. From what I have seen, people don't need it to function. Yes I have seen those that really really should stay on their medication... but I have seen parents that just a quick fix so they don't have to deal with their kid.



@ Willravel:
You had to see that one coming.

That is what my dad told me...when you take a shooting class isn't the main objective to shoot in the midsection? Or am I wrong?
Thanks for confirming Cromp. :)

It won't matter because DC isn't a state and therefore the decision won't result in the incorporation of the Second Amendment.
The core problem is that mental illness is a taboo in our society and people aren't free to discuss it. People see it as being the problem or fault of those who suffer from it rather than having sympathy, they avoid it and are afraid of it, and those who are mentally ill become outcasts as a result.