NRA: Merry Christmas! We need more guns . . .
. . .and armed security in every school! Here’s a blip of National Rifle Association Executive Director Wayne LaPierre, explaining why we need lots more armed guards of public displays of weaponry.
Note: There are 132,128 public and private elementary, middle and high schools in the United States. And some schools are pretty big — it’s not clear at all that a single armed officer could prevent a massacre at one of those by a suicidal manic. Remember Columbine? It had armed guards.
And, what about the malls (47,835)? The movie theaters (6,000 theaters with 38,000+ screens)? The supermarket parking lots (36,569)? The churches (450,000)? And other places where there a lot of people? Before you know it, we’ll have a full-blown police state.
Bonus from Think Progress: The 10 craziest quotes from the NRA’s press conference.
December 21, 2012 - 3:44 PM
“The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/21/us-usa-shooting-pennsylvania-idUSBRE8BK0Y520121221
That didn’t take long… Wayne Lapierre is a tone deaf idiot. He had a week to come up with a nuanced response and this is the best he could come up with?
My initial thought after watching the press conference…they had an entire week to respond, and *this* is what they came up with?
I’m not opposed to the idea of more security guards in schools to add a measure of protection. But, most of the NRA core membership is opposed to raising taxes, which would be required to fund the effort.
Or, as the NRA mentioned, volunteers could handle the task. Um, ok…how’s that gonna work? You’d have to have geriatric security guards fill those roles, because working people aren;t going to be taking days off in rotation to guard a school…if they want to keep their job and their home.
And how are Police officers in school a bad thing? When something like this happens at a school, you don’t call a politician…you call the Police. Why not have them there BEFORE something happens rather than AFTER it is over? And look, you just created a hundred thousand jobs. Want to pay for it? Take money we have been spending to “protect” our relationships with foreign countries (that still hate the US anyway) and use it to protect our kids!!!
Other John:
“working people aren;t going to be taking days off in rotation to guard a school…”
I’ll volunteer two days a month for 2013.
Dan’s original post:
“Before you know it, we’ll have a full-blown police state.”
We’re headed that way, now. Besides, I thought you lefties liked unnecessary job creation? Like the woman who favored our state legislature making it unlawful to pump one’s own gas and praising that as “job creation.”
Which is it?
Remember, John W, Dan likes to pretend on the issue of guns that he’s only against concealed carry permits, despite all of his blogging that prove the contrary.
As for Wayne LaPierre, the sooner the NRA realizes he is a lightning rod for criticism, the better.
I’ll volunteer two days a month for 2013.
Comment by John Wilburn — December 21, 2012 @ 5:55 pm
RIGHT ON, John! I will be right beside you on that one! Unarmed, but doing all that I could to protect our children. I would rather die trying, than sit back and watch from a distance.
I still can’t watch or read anything on the recent shooting. It is just too much for me to take right now.
I would rather die than live without my children. How heavy of a burden the families must carry for the rest of their lives. If I could only take a portion of that pain I would.
I hope that we can all come to a solution that is best for everyone. I want our children to have a bright future; Better, Faster, Stronger! We have come to far as a country and as a species to fail now.
So we need armed guards at every school”?
The poor guard probably would carry a .38 or maybe even a 9mm against a guy who more than likely came with a Bushmaster or AR-15. First, the shooter will have the element of surprise. Second, even if the “security” guy is a good shot, odds are he dies first and the shooter keeps on going until he kills himself or the cops arrive and do it for him.
LaPierre didn’t say anything about what happens when the “good guy” with a six shot revolver is overwhelmed by the “bad guy” with an AR-15 and a hundred round drum. Maybe he meant that he is planning to give semi automatic assault rifles to the guards in schools – you know one that will fire 30 bullets in 30 seconds or less?
I’m still curious about the liability aspect and how school systems will fund these new found positions? Cost has been estimated to be billions of dollars nationally.
I have a friend who is an attorney and also a small business owner. He has said that he will donate 1/2 day per employee per week for any employees who choose to participate. He has about eight employees in all, but we are all like-minded, so I’m sure they will do it.
To quote Forrest Gump…”Stupid is as stupid does.”
So one old lady wants to have her gas pumped so we’re all advocating a socialist state, is that what it is? With armed guards and cops on every corner, every bus, in every school, every single public venue, just watch what you wish for. If you think we’ve a police state now, just wait.
How can we disparage the NRA when Obama embraces “Kill American” Rappers in the White House for Christmas?
-
http://roanokeslant.blogspot.com/2012/12/obama-embraces-kill-american-rapper.html
-
More from PoliceOne
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6072041-Newtown-shooting-In-Loco-Parentis-and-the-protection-of-our-children/
Re: Hillary @ 7:42 pm
See the links that I provided, earlier ( http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6065056-Newtown-shooting-Stopping-the-active-shooter/ & http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/6064989-Active-shooters-in-schools-Should-teachers-be-trained-by-police-firearms-instructors/ ), as well as the one above.
Re: scott whitaker @ 8:35 pm
Starting to get crowded on Dan’s latest slippery slope.
Hillary:
“The poor guard probably would carry a .38 or maybe even a 9mm against a guy who more than likely came with a Bushmaster or AR-15.”
This is not quite the disadvantage some want to make it out to be. My Glock holds 16 rounds of very powerful 10mm or 18 with a different magazine. 10mm has a larger slug than the .223 for more stopping power and still has lots of velocity, more than a 9mm or .45. Also, since the AR-15 fires no faster than the Glock, the firepower discrepancy is not that great. If the guard had an AR-15, a murderer could come with a bomb, etc, etc.
But rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47 don’t offer that much superiority over reasonable handguns. In fact, Kel Tec makes a .22 magnum caliber handgun that holds 30 rounds. That would level the playing field against an AR-15 if not give the handgun an all-around advantage.
One word, liability. So much for the volunteer idea.
Dave Hicks – read the link and not sure what the point was. Is it to support more guns and Rambo-like behavior that supposedly would have saved the situation in CT?
Although the weapon in the CT massacre was legal, if the general population did not have access to these “assault rifles”, the shooter would not have gained access to the school and within minutes killed 26 victims. Additionally, weapons with extra-large magazines that allow a shooter to get off dozens of shots without reloading should be banned.
Do you think this country really needs to continue to allow high capacity magazines to be available and sold to the general public?
For what purpose?
If having armed police at schools is such a bad idea, then why are one-third of the schools in the US already doing it at least one day per week? Why not all day, every day, every school?
If armed police are so bad, lets start by taking away the ones protecting the politicians advocating gun control. You say we don’t need guns, it’s not that bad out there. If that’s so, then why do the politicians armed guards need guns to protect them from the same public that we are out and about in all day every day?
“With armed guards and cops on every corner, every bus, in every school, every single public venue, just watch what you wish for. If you think we’ve a police state now, just wait.”
comment by scott whitaker
That irony is lost on some “libertarian” gun apologists, even as they embrace an armed big government program.
I’m not sure what the cost is to put trained armed security in the schools but I’m all for it IF we fund these highly trained professionals with taxes on ammunition and guns. Sound good NRA?
I urge everyone to watch this clip to see the degree of sympathy shown by John Wilburn’s VCDL mentor Phillip Van Cleave to the twenty murdered children in Ct.
http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/18/clips-from-last-night-morgan-openly-criticizes-philip-van-cleave-aurora-families-respond-to-the-sandy-hook-shooting/?hpt=pm_mid
Van Cleave, as did John Wilburn, has happily defended the Bushmaster child slaughter weapon as a “fun” gun; Van Cleave likened it to a Ferrari.
This is the guy who’s been so active in giving violence an easier path in Va. Ignore the accelerated aging evident in Van Cleave’s appearance and you’ll notice his aloof indifference to the reality of slaughtered children. If years of race car fumes could create a neurologically dictated retirement by NASCAR driver Rick Mast, it’s quite plausible that Van Cleave’s central nrevous system’s been adversely affected by years of sniffing “fun gun” fumes. But nothing rational can account for his cold demeanor about gun killings.
How did that gun free zone work in Newtown?
Even NRA members are scratching their heads after that load from Wayne. Pooooor NRA. So set upon by the media and the whole world.
“How did that gun free zone work in Newtown?”
How do gun-free zones work 99.999999999 percent of the time?
How do they work in Australia, where there have been no mass killings since a conservative leader cracked down hard on guns?
Some of the things said at the NRA comments are sad but true. You can’t talk someone that sick out of shooting.The only people who will obey the preposed new laws are not the ones that we need to worry about. The people who will obey them is law abiding people.As far as all the hoopla about what guns do better the CHT is any gun is better than no gun. The whole idea of arming anyone willing to step foward is just because you are armed it don’t mean that you should be trusted with our childrens safety.
Re: Hillary @ 9:25 pm
“…read the link and not sure what the point was….”
“Although the weapon in the CT massacre was legal….”
“Do you think this country really needs to continue to allow high capacity magazines to be available and sold to the general public?”
“For what purpose?
——————-
My point was to provide a link to advice by professional Law Enforcement, SWAT trainers and researchers — each of whom has researched and taught extensively on the topic of active shooters. Experts who recommend use of trained volunteers, arming teachers, etc. As to your alleged “Rambo-like behavior”, Hardesty added that while he doesn’t advocate in any way taking the law into one’s own hands, he does advocate for people taking personal responsibility for their survival and well being.
Legally possessed by the shooter? Nope. FWIIW, someone who is suicidal and bent on homicide will likely be able to get one regardless of the laws that get passed — check out Mexico.
Yup. I have been clear that I support allowing high capacity magazines to be available and sold to the general public who are of age and have not been banned by adjudication in a court of law.
Why? For self defense and for taking personal responsibility for their survival and well being, as well as the survival and well being of others in their care, their family & loved ones, etc.
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?”
Great quote. With the AR-15 capable of spewing 100 rounds a minute this NRA NUT is ignoring the fact that in 1 minute 100 children or more could die.
On a positive note I guess that 100 is better than 3000.
Henry:
“How did that gun free zone work in Newtown?”
It worked just like Warren wanted it to. Had someone armed on the inside stopped the madman, he wouldn’t have had nearly as much to bash me about. After all, his anonymous stalking character really came to life full time here just three hours after the murders to start spewing his inexplicably personal contempt for me. What’s a few dead kids when his favorite video game of defamation, bashing me, is in full swing.
Seriously, his obsession with me, mentioning or alluding to me in 2/3 or more of his posts, is creepy. Is physical stalking next? I’m obviously awfully important to him.
Re: Warren @ 9:57 pm
In case you missed it goverment is as armed as it wants to be, save where goverment has decreed that employees such as teachers, college professors, etc cannot be trusted to be armed — albeit we trust our children to to them to act “In Loco Parentis.”
IMHO, there is no irony in trusting them to protect the children’s bodies as well as develop their minds. If irony is lost it is in trusting them with our children, when we don’t trust them with the tools to protect our children, IMHO.
Cold n P quoting LaPierre:
“Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?”
A MINUTE away?! That’s too far… we need guns in the schools BEFORE murderers set up shop.
Dave Hicks — December 21, 2012 @ 11:33 pm
Well said, Dave.
“How can we disparage the NRA when Obama embraces “Kill American” Rappers in the White House for Christmas?”
–Comment by Lars Hagen
Lars, we’ll have to discuss this on Christmas while we’re tossing back the bourbon shots, eh? You’re coming to the party, right?
Cold n P:
“Great quote. With the AR-15 capable of spewing 100 rounds a minute this NRA NUT is ignoring the fact that in 1 minute 100 children or more could die.”
Not possible. So that’s a beta mag, reaiming and squeezing the trigger every 6/10ths of a second, more than one kill for every round in the magazine, and zero misses.
With all due respect, Bob Munden couldn’t do that.
JW, how do you suggest you seed out the bad guys who want to “volunteer” to protect the kids?
JW, I like the sound of the Kel Tec 22 magnum…I’ll have to research that some.
Dave Hicks, im case you missed it, government is us, save in cases where those too paranoid to accept their neighbors as their equal insist on hyper-individualistic violent recourse.
“Is physical stalking next?”
Gosh, John W, I don’t think you have to worry about that. After all, you’ve made it quite clear that you’re heavily armed and trained, and I’ve been told on this very blog that the bad guys always look for “gun-free zones” and avoid people with guns. Right?
Cold n P:
“JW, how do you suggest you seed out the bad guys who want to “volunteer” to protect the kids?”
I didn’t suggest it; I was just responding to the notion that no one would volunterr their time. I absolutely would volunteer my time.
Other John:
“36.JW, I like the sound of the Kel Tec 22 magnum…I’ll have to research that some.”
http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/pmr-30/
There’s also the Grendel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qImEP8tDn8k
Ask Art Hill about those.
JW, My statement is meant to challenge and I admit a bit over the top. However, the fact cannot be denied that in less than 10 minutes 26 innocents died at the hands of a madman with a gun and bullets that were designed to kill. Would you consider the Bushmaster and bullets used in these killings a more military capable weapon than say, the M1 Garand? “The greatest battle implement ever devised.-Patton”
Trained soldiers die in war zones every day. To think that vigilantes, some highly trained, others good hearted fools and even others with mayhem in their own hearts could stop a shooter is silly at best. At worst it is inviting more carnage than we are already experiencing in the US. IMO.
At the VERY least we should be having the conversation.
OJ, buy that Kel Tec and sell me the Glock!
.
My how some things never change:
“Congress adopted most of our recommendations. But this bill–as big as this bill is–still falls short, because we just could not get the Congress to carry out the requests we made of them. I asked for the national registration of all guns and the licensing of those who carry those guns. For the fact of life is that there are over 160 million guns in this country–more firearms than families. If guns are to be kept out of the hands of the criminal, out of the hands of the insane, and out of the hands of the irresponsible, then we just must have licensing. If the criminal with a gun is to be tracked down quickly, then we must have registration in this country.
The voices that blocked these safeguards were not the voices of an aroused nation. They were the voices of a powerful lobby, a gun lobby, that has prevailed for the moment in an election year.”
Lyndon Johnson comments on signing of gun control bill of 1968
Very good read:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29197
One of the biggest obstacles of keeping guns off of the hands of the evil is the Gun Show Loophole. We must stand up and demand this loophole be closed. Do this first and also maintain a 30 day waiting period on gun purchases and alot of the violence issues in the US goes away. IMO.
“JW, My statement is meant to challenge and I admit a bit over the top. However, the fact cannot be denied that in less than 10 minutes 26 innocents died at the hands of a madman with a gun and bullets that were designed to kill. Would you consider the Bushmaster and bullets used in these killings a more military capable weapon than say, the M1 Garand? “The greatest battle implement ever devised.-Patton”
Trained soldiers die in war zones every day. To think that vigilantes, some highly trained, others good hearted fools and even others with mayhem in their own hearts could stop a shooter is silly at best. At worst it is inviting more carnage than we are already experiencing in the US. IMO.
At the VERY least we should be having the conversation.”
–Comment by Cold n P
AND, let’s not forget that the best Wayne LaPierre can come up with is to put armed guards in schools. Like Columbine, remember that one? There were armed guards there and it didn’t matter a bit.
More guns my you-know-what. What’re we gonna do, arm the students?
gdad:
“I’ve been told on this very blog that the bad guys always look for “gun-free zones” and avoid people with guns. Right?”
Yes, that’s why Warren does his dirty work from the safety of anonymity on this blog. He doesn’t have the guts to use his name and own his comments like a good number of us do.
Cold n P:
“in less than 10 minutes 26 innocents died at the hands of a madman with a gun and bullets that were designed to kill. Would you consider the Bushmaster and bullets used in these killings a more military capable weapon than say, the M1 Garand?”
Looking at this objectively and with respect for your tone, all guns and bullets are designed to have lethal potential. (New Jersey bans hollow points because they bought into the “cop killer bullet” lingo of the early 90s and would rather hope you can’t stop your threats). 26 lethal shots in 10 minutes can be done with a muzzle loader. The M1 Garand is more powerful than the Bushmaster-made AR-15. The M1 Garand only holds 8, so there would be more frequent clip changes (yes, they actually take clips instead of magazines), but can certainly get off well more than 26 shots over the course of 10 minutes.
The point being, he could have used ANY gun and done that kind of damage when inside facing no resistance. Cho used handguns with standard capacity magazines for a higher death toll and simply reloaded. He, too, had all kinds of time without any armed resistance.
But, take comfort in the fact that Obama destroyed one million M1 Garands and Carbines just for the heck of it.
I’m going to the gun show tomorrow. It will look like a Black Friday sale on the show floor. If any of you do, stop by the VCDL booth and say hi!
Cold n P:
“Do this first and also maintain a 30 day waiting period on gun purchases and alot of the violence issues in the US goes away. IMO.”
What supports this?
” There were armed guards there and it didn’t matter a bit. ”
That’s why we need to arm ourselves instead of depending on guards and police.
HA HA! Bill Clinton agreed with the NRA.
After the Columbine massacre, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools.
Ft Hood is full of heavily armed “guards” and that shooter managed to kill a dozen anyway. The entire notion that this NRA “plan” accomplishes anything but – cha Ching – note gun sales is stupid.
And anyway… What about parks? Malls? Hospitals? Theaters? Hell we’d have to create a new cabinet position to keep track of all the new armed camps we need to create. Expensive AND dumb.
If you read blogs that include participants from other places, people are completely bewildered at how Americas infatuation with firearms seemingly trumps all else, including the lives of our children. You don’t hear New Zealand or France having these endless futile debates… Why do you think that is? It’s like health care. Why is the US so “challenged” at solving basic stuff the rest of the world has figured out?
I doubt any other country suffers from the same level of lobbying that we do, which might be one answer. At any rate, we have a whole lot of things here to not be proud about.
“HA HA! Bill Clinton agreed with the NRA.
“After the Columbine massacre, President Clinton announced $120 million in new federal grants Saturday to place more police officers in schools.”
–Comment by Henry
First, the statement above is a finely shaded lie. Second, the NRA (and many conservatives) opposed the initiative, which was for community oriented policing, not necessarily cops in schools. Third, at best stretch, the NRA has come round to agreeing with Clinton, under whose administration Wayne LaPierre called federal agents “jackbooted thugs.” (He was forced to apologize for that one).
Fourth: Henry gets it all backwards again. Big surprise!
If you read blogs that include participants from other places, people are completely bewildered at how Americas infatuation with firearms seemingly trumps all else, including the lives of our children. You don’t hear New Zealand or France having these endless futile debates… Why do you think that is? It’s like health care. Why is the US so “challenged” at solving basic stuff the rest of the world has figured out?
Comment by Kristen — December 22, 2012 @ 7:43 am
It would appear that healthcare is a poor comparison here; however, with Obamacare…perhaps in the near future?
48.Ft Hood is full of heavily armed “guards” and that shooter managed to kill a dozen anyway. The entire notion that this NRA “plan” accomplishes anything but – cha Ching – note gun sales is stupid.
And anyway… What about parks? Malls? Hospitals? Theaters? Hell we’d have to create a new cabinet position to keep track of all the new armed camps we need to create. Expensive AND dumb….
Comment by Kristen — December 22, 2012 @ 7:43 am
Fort Hood and other military bases soldiers have to keep their firearms in the armory. That area, the medical clearance area, like many other on the base was a designated “gun free zone” for the soldiers. I wonder why Hasan did not target an area of the base they can be armed, like the shooting range???
As for the malls, parks, parking lots, theatres…we are adults and our safety and that of our family is our responsibility. You are free to choose for yourself your own measures of security. Schools our kids are there, they don’t have a choice, can’t defend themselves, and we aren’t with them to do it for them.
The only time my children do not have an armed guard is when they are at school. Let’s put police there.
Pretending that banning a certain looking style gun will magically stop lunatics from entering schools is just sticking your head in the sand. It won’t stop a lunatic from walking in with a shotgun. Limiting magazines to 10 rounds doesn’t matter. When no one is shooting back what is the difference in reloading once or three times. The guy was there for 10 minutes…he could have inflicted just as much carnage with a single action revolver. Who could stop him? If a police officer had been there, perhaps he would have had only 1 mnute rather than 10. Think that would have saved a few lives?
“Yes, that’s why Warren does his dirty work from the safety of anonymity on this blog.”
But, John W, you just said you thought he might start physically stalking you despite the veritable arsenal you carry. Anyway, it sounds like to me you’re saying that if he did come insult you in person, he needs to fear that you might pull one of your blasters, so that’s why he doesn’t do it in person. Right?
“I didn’t suggest it; I was just responding to the notion that no one would volunterr their time”
Gee, another dodge.
I may have missed the answer (and if I did I apologize), but I’m still waiting for somebody to explain how Australia’s gun crackdown by a conservative worked when we all know those things don’t work. John W, Jack, Phillip, Dave H, anybody?
gdad:
“But, John W, you just said you thought he might start physically stalking you despite the veritable arsenal you carry. Anyway, it sounds like to me you’re saying that if he did come insult you in person, he needs to fear that you might pull one of your blasters, so that’s why he doesn’t do it in person. Right?”
If his obsession deepens to that point that my safety is in jeopary, I am glad I have a measure of defense. You are not going to bait me into the notion I would blast him for insulting me in person.
“I didn’t suggest it; I was just responding to the notion that no one would volunterr their time
Gee, another dodge.”
I dodged nothing. If it’s volunteers they elect, volunteer I will.
“The point being, he could have used ANY gun and done that kind of damage when inside facing no resistance. Cho used handguns with standard capacity magazines for a higher death toll and simply reloaded. He, too, had all kinds of time without any armed resistance.”
Well now, Thanks for the information JW. You have convinced me that we need to talk about a lot more restrictive gun control laws than the modest ones I’ve suggested.
You won’e see me at you VCDL booth. Sorry. Maybe we can meet sometime in the future, I’m sure you have good intentions. I just strongly disagree.
As for Obama taking 1 million guns off the streets? Don’t we have something like 300 million out there just waiting to be used? We have work to do.
“If his obsession deepens to that point that my safety is in jeopary, I am glad I have a measure of defense.”
I hate to say this, but your paranoia seems to be reaching suzie level. suzie claims to be certain that if liberals here ever knew her identity, we’d suddenly start showing up on her doorstep to harass her. The REAL truth is that while I (and others) have fun goading her on this blog, I haven’t even the tiniest sliver of desire to meet her in person. And that has nothing to do with whether or not she’s armed. And I bet that the truth about Warren is that he would either have no desire to meet you, or if he did somehow run into you, it would be cordial on his end.
I’ll have to miss you at the gun show. I’ve got family stuff lined up this weekend before Christmas.
JW I will answer your question “What supports this?”
After you answer how you would weed out the bad guys who might volunteer to protect the children when in fact they have bad intentions? Surely you won’t dodge this simple question?
I didn’t suggest it; I was just responding to the notion that no one would volunterr their time. I absolutely would volunteer my time.
After you answer how you would weed out the bad guys who might volunteer to protect the children when in fact they have bad intentions? Surely you won’t dodge this simple question? I want your honest opinion on this.
Disarming innocent people does not protect innocent people. Like it or not, we`ll ALWAYS have our guns. Bye.
With all due respect John Wilburn, I believe the chance of Warren putting your safety in jeopardy are about as great as my chance of becoming POTUS.
As a parent I would not be comfortable at all with a bunch of volunteer putative Rambos all excited to prove the efficacy of guns in classrooms wandering the halls. And certainly not with a corps of Walmart greeters armed and waiting.
Why not just go for it and station the National Guard in our schoolrooms.
Well, Well….In todays news…A Maryland man, who, in 2006 broke into his ex-wifes home and tried to murder her by stabbing…Just recently, this same man broke into her home again, But guess what ? Her current boyfriend was armed and shot the intruder 3 times !!! Thank God he had a gun or they might both be dead today.
Jeff Doto, as we speak the country is debating nationwide I.Q. tests as a prerequisite for gun ownership. There’s also a component of this proposed legislation that makes it retroactive, meaning those of diminished mental capacity won’t necessarily have their weapons Grandfathered in.
By extension, Jeff Doto, if a grieving nation passes this legislation it’s highly probable you’ll be disarmed.
You know you live in a Country run by IDIOTS if…….Being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you `safe`.
Whats the newest `crock` ? That Gun dealers are accomplices of gun crimes….If you choose to foolishly believe that, then try this on for size…`You spoons are making you fat`.
Cold in P, I would say you would weed those people out the same way you weed out the bad teachers who would seek to harm their students. The problem is, so far we haven’t done a particularly good job of that either.
I’m not a huge fan of armed volunteers patrolling schools. However, at the very least it is an idea. Other than the imagined panacea of gun control, what solutions have liberals offered? So far liberals, as a political group have objected to ANY proposed security measures for schools. If someone proposes SROs in elementary schools, liberals object to the “militarization of our schools”, or they object because one SRO won’t be enough, or, and this is a great one, “the SRO would carry his gun in a holster so it would be easy for the bad guy to get the drop on him,” or even better the inevitable, “why not just bring in troops.”
Suggest locking the doors and restricting access to one, manned entry point, and liberals wail about turning schools into prisons. Metal detectors, security cameras and requiring people to show ID are deemed too great of an imposition on freedom and privacy. Moving back to the days of institutionalizing those who violently or criminally mentally ill is rejected as being too intrusive or unfair or unpleasant to them so they are returned to their communities for “community based treatment.”
So how do you guys reconcile the apparent national mandate to DO something to prevent this with absolute refusal to consider and rejection of even the most basic security measures? Other than passing a new gun control law, id there ANYTHING else you would do? I sincerely hope so because the sad reality of it is that you could outlaw private sale and ownership of ALL guns tomorrow and there would still be 250 million guns already out there.
Among those gun worshippers who place so much faith in bullets, it’s amazing that words and ideas can penetrate the skin from much farther away, and stay there longer than any caliber of bullet. The power of ideas is real, even if those who praise child slaughter weapons as fun and think Obama bought himself reelection are bankrupt when it comes to ideas for a healthier nation. They must have very little or no background in medicine or law enforcement, two areas that are even more important than mere gun enthusiasm for developing a compassionate sanity about guns.
Chuck,
I’m not a huge fan of heroin. However, at least it is a drug.
If you put volunteer gun nuts in our schools, how long before some substitute teacher or parent that the gun toting idiot shoots them because they didn’t recognize them? I can hear it now “well I had never seen them before and they were walking down the hall, so I felt I needed to protect the students from this strange unidentifid person so I put 20 rounds in them. I didn’t know they were a parent of a student, but at least no kids were harmed in my hail of bullets”.
@Steve C: “Jeff Doto, as we speak the country is debating nationwide I.Q. tests as a prerequisite for gun ownership. There’s also a component of this proposed legislation that makes it retroactive, meaning those of diminished mental capacity won’t necessarily have their weapons Grandfathered in.”
That might actually be something I could live with. Because once we have applied that to your Second Amendment rights, it would set a precedent that would make it much easier to apply it the NOT RIGHT to vote.
Additionally, we regards to voting, we could also make that retroactive and Mitt Romney would become our current president.
The NRA are mad simply put. What they are still doing believing that somehow if we have more guns we are more safe. Well if you believe that I have some WMD in Iraq. And maybe as some have posted here that that idea is worth a try. I say that too is mad, insane, and only fills more money into the gun corporations. Which at the end of the day is what they want. If folks do not see this they are blind.
Comment by Dave Hicks — December 21, 2012 @ 11:24 pm
“Yup. I have been clear that I support allowing high capacity magazines to be available and sold to the general public who are of age and have not been banned by adjudication in a court of law.
Why? For self defense and for taking personal responsibility for their survival and well being, as well as the survival and well being of others in their care, their family & loved ones, etc.”
Dave Hicks. Do you mean to tell me you are either the worst shot in the world and that’s why you need a high capacity magazine, or, you think you need a high capacity magazine to make you feel safe?
All of the screaming for gun control has effectively put hundreds of thousands of “Asssult Weapons” in public circulation in the past week. Your irrational calls to limit them have just put a ton more out there.
Jack @ 1:29,
Jack, Jack, Jack; You know better than to go there. If the legislation passes it’ll only mean I could have all the guns I wanted.
Although these changes wouldn’t impact the Jason’s, VRWC’s, Dave Hick’s, John W’s or your rights, the typical run-of-the-mill NRA member would hardly qualify for a cap gun. Extrapolated out, if we applied it to voting rights and subtracted the uneducated hillbilly out of the pool of qualified voters the Republican Party would never be reelected.
“Cold in P, I would say you would weed those people out the same way you weed out the bad teachers who would seek to harm their students. The problem is, so far we haven’t done a particularly good job of that either.”
Exactly Chuck, we don’t know the bad guys until they do bad things. Then it’s too late.
I still would like for JW to answer though.
Chuck,
I’m not suggesting we have a mandate. However, it’s time to talk.
The NRA position that it’s societies problem and the breakdown of the family plus lack of mental health, Religion out of the schools, Hollywood, video games, porn, anything but weapons is really getting weak and folks are getting tired of hearing the same thing after every tragedy that is happening over and over and over again.
Seems the NRA is like conservative GOPPERS. NO COMPROMISE. We are happy to make a deal, it just has to be OUR DEAL. I predict a great surprise this November. Getting an A+ rating from the NRA is not going to be so cool for those seeking office.
Hokie hater
And I’ll bet the innocent victim of that armed volunteer will just happen to be a black male. Just sayin’
Jack, if Romney were to run today he’d get beat even worse than he did last month. With any population. All the GOP has done since then is dig their hole of fail even deeper.
Maybe having a TOW missile at my house would make me feel “safe”. So what? I’m not clear that it’s my problem that other people can’t feel “safe” without an armory in their basement.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/22/fiscal-cliff_n_2351703.html
Jack, in case I wasn’t clear….
“It’s the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party,” he said, “and we are going to be seen more and more as a bunch of extremists that can’t even get a majority of our own people to support policies that we’re putting forward. If you’re not a governing majority, you’re not going to be a majority very long.”
Republican consultant and writer Craig Shirley told The Washington Post: “The national GOP is now simply a collection of warring tribal factions.”
Another reason this is a prime time for some common-sense gun control. The GOP is bleeding out and losing support all over the place. Obama needs to make hay before they wise up and join the rest of us on planet Earth.
I just dropped in on the Salem Gun and Knife Traders show (don’t you love how they say “traders” as if it’s only a big swap meet?). Out in the lobby, where no ticket was needed, were the tables for the group that exploits ordinary gun owners on behalf of gun manufacturers (the NRA) and the extremist group led by a gunkisser who all week’s been praising the child slaughter weapon as fun (the VCDL).
Despite his invitation to visit, gun worshipper John Wilburn was not there. But guess who was manning the VCDL booth: an over thirty-five white guy in a blue Roanoke Tea Party shirt! Who could have guessed that the VCDL draws from the same shrinking pool of reactionaries that the Tea Party does?
(Here’s a hint: anyone.)
#72 Someone is irrational alright. IMO it’s the paranoid people who are buying up the assault weapons. A lot of folks out there seem to believe that the government is suddenly going to show up and take away all their guns. They’re preparing for a war that’s never going to happen.
Jack supports eliminating all speed limits in school zones, because they won’t stop someone determined to recklessly speed toward schoolchildren, and it’s not feasible to get rid of cars. Right, Jack? Or do you support mandating a big government program to post traffic radar cops at every school all day?
All of the screaming for gun control has effectively put hundreds of thousands of “Asssult Weapons” in public circulation in the past week. Your irrational calls to limit them have just put a ton more out there.
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — December 22, 2012 @ 3:15 pm
Sadly, I thinkmyou are right about this.
BTW, why are solidiers required to keep their guns in the armory when on base? Is this just for Ft. Hood or do all bases have this rule?
@Warren: “Jack supports eliminating all speed limits in school zones, because they won’t stop someone determined to recklessly speed toward schoolchildren, and it’s not feasible to get rid of cars. Right, Jack? Or do you support mandating a big government program to post traffic radar cops at every school all day?”
I’m not sure where you cam up with any of that. I don’t recall mentioning anything about speed limits. Also, I do not believe that posting police officers at each school is a good idea, either.
Thats right…NRA`s Lapierre`s proposal is brilliant…put an armed officer in EVERY school, and now the liberal media and the schoolhouse nobility are torn between mocking Lapierres proposal or just running away in fear. And, gun control is about nothing more than `control`…not the guns themselves.
Well, Warren..guess us`n `ol Tea Party members just luv our`n guns…ain`t nary a thang you kin do `bout it neither….Sept worry yourself to def…like the rest of your`n bunch do. Go TEA PARTY.
Cold n P:
“After you answer how you would weed out the bad guys who might volunteer to protect the children when in fact they have bad intentions? Surely you won’t dodge this simple question? I want your honest opinion on this.”
How do they weed out teachers with bad intentions? Criminal background check, interviews, resume, etc. I might have answered sooner, but I was busy at the gun show Warren thinks I didn’t attend.
Debbie:
“With all due respect John Wilburn, I believe the chance of Warren putting your safety in jeopardy are about as great as my chance of becoming POTUS.”
The current POTUS should not have had any realistic chance, either….
Warren:
“Despite his invitation to visit, gun worshipper John Wilburn was not there.”
I was there from about 10:30-3:30. I spent the morning working the VCDL booth selling raffle tickets and the afternoon on the floor. In fact, a reporter from WSLS was there, can’t think of his name right now, and they got a picture of a sign next to our booth leading down to the show floor. My left hand was resting on the sign, so I may have proof if they use that in their feature. If you actually wanted to meet me, you would have asked for me, I was there.
Seriously…. you’re stalking me now.
BTW, why are solidiers required to keep their guns in the armory when on base? Is this just for Ft. Hood or do all bases have this rule?
Comment by Nosaj — December 22, 2012 @ 4:14 pm
————–
All of them. Unless you are in an active combat zone, weapons are secured on base except for the range and other designated firearms training sites. This is why Hasan had to go out and purchase a weapon to commit his crime. The armory will not just issue the weapon. It has to be signed out for specific documented purpose (i.e. scheduled training).
Jeff Doto,
Is your real name Tex Grebner? I swear to God this guy is a dead ringer for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3kJ6SU3ycs
(Warning; Tex has a bit of a potty mouth on him, making this video not safe for the easily offended)
The recent mall shooting in Oregon is a perfect example of lives being saved by the presence of a gun…BUT YOU WILL NOT HEAR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MENTION THAT PART OF THE STORY!!!!!!!! It seems in article after article, they fail to mention the part of him being confronted by a legally permitted concealed carrier at all. Imagine that.
————–
Before the tragedy in Connecticut, a shooter at an Oregon shopping mall was stopped by an armed citizen with a concealed carry permit who refused to be a victim, preventing another mass tragedy.
In the target-rich environment of the Clackamas Town Center two weeks before Christmas, the shooter managed to kill only two people before killing himself. A far worse tragedy was prevented when he was confronted by a hero named Nick Meli.
As the shooter was having difficulty with his weapon, Meli pulled his and took aim, reluctant to fire lest an innocent bystander be hit. But he didn’t have to pull the trigger: The shooter fled when confronted, ending his own life before it could be done for him.
We will never know how many lives were saved by an armed citizen that day.
Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121712-637367-sandy-hook-tragedy-prevented-at-clackamas.htm#ixzz2FpRoujHO
So now the gun nuts say if I do not carry a gun, I am “part of the problem”? Oh hell no Ed Knutson!
“The only way to fight fire is with fire, so if you’ve got somebody that’s armed and you’re not, you’re part of the problem not part of the solution,” said Ed Knutson, from the La Rifle And Revolver Club.””
Seriously, what is wrong with you people?
“How do they weed out teachers with bad intentions? Criminal background check, interviews, resume, etc. I might have answered sooner, but I was busy at the gun show Warren thinks I didn’t attend.”
Thank you for answering JW. Your response is exactly why I think the gun show loophole should be closed and background checks must be ran on each and every gun sold in the US. To weed out the bad guys and prevent them from purchasing guns, just like we would conduct background checks on anybody trusted to guard our children.
In answer to your question as to why I believe a 30 day waiting period should be put in place my answer is this:
I believe if we make guns harder to purchase then just maybe we will save a few lives. Not all crimes will be stopped. But just maybe someone who is really hot about an issue may cool down over 30 days. In my opinion.
A serious Gun enthusiast would and could still purchase their weapon of choice, good things come to those who wait. The 30 day waiting period would be a minor inconvenience. Again, just my opinion.
80.#72 Someone is irrational alright. IMO it’s the paranoid people who are buying up the assault weapons. A lot of folks out there seem to believe that the government is suddenly going to show up and take away all their guns. They’re preparing for a war that’s never going to happen.
Comment by Debbie — December 22, 2012 @ 4:06 pm
———————–
A vast majority of the people I’ve talked to who are buying up semi-auto weapons that are black with synthetic stocks and other aesthetic features that do not impact function and the large capacity magazines are doing so more out of financial motivation. Stock up on all of this stuff now and double or triple your money in short order if a ban of sorts goes through. I have a buddy back in Virginia whose collection value has increased $50,000 in the last week. Just imagine the value impact if a ban goes into place.
Personally, I’m not an investor or collector. Just a target shooter. I can’t see putting $2,000 into a rifle to poke holes in paper. I do not even own a single semi-auto rifle or shotgun (not even in .22). All pump, lever, bolt, or single. Handguns, mostly revolvers and small single stack carry pistols. No value impacts on my stuff.
“The recent mall shooting in Oregon is a perfect example of lives being saved by the presence of a gun…BUT YOU WILL NOT HEAR THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA MENTION THAT PART OF THE STORY!!!!!!!! It seems in article after article, they fail to mention the part of him being confronted by a legally permitted concealed carrier at all. Imagine that.”
-Comment by Bug
Excuse me, Bug, but how in the world did you find this out, except for the MSM that you so revile?
And forgive me if I am incorrect about this, this, but you’re s hospital administrator, right? Does your hospital have a policy banning firearms being carried by employees (except for security) or the general public? And, if so, how do you reconcile your strongly held beliefs with your desire to collect a paycheck?
Which takes precedence?
Re: gdad @ 9:39 am
Well as no one else has answered you while I have been otherwise busy, I take a quick pass at it.
I have often cited Australia’s program as an example — as it removes some but not all of the apples to orange issues. However, causation is still clouded by the general drop in crime in much of the world.
FWIIW, there have been conflicting studies and studies disputing other studies on and about the Australian 1996 National Firearms Agreement banning many guns and implemented mandatory gun licenses and registration of all firearms .
True since the enactment of their law there has not been a mass school shooting and it is generally (but not uniformly) agreed that the law did reduce suicides.
See: http://tinyurl.com/26kdo9d
**
Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 17/08
ISSN 1328-4991 (Print)
ISSN 1447-5863 (Online)
ISBN 978-0-7340-3285-0
August 2008
Abstract:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996, where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
**
—–
However:
1) Check out the various annual reports at http://tinyurl.com/c3aqz2s for yourself. The general trend is a slight change downward in the overall rate of homicides. In many of these Australian government’s reports they report that there has been a “pronounced change in the type of weapons used” — with firearm use declining and being offset by an “upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments.”
For example: http://tinyurl.com/ckn5evq
**
How (cause of death and weapon used)
Three-quarters of male homicide victims were stabbed or beaten to death in 2006–07, and 10 percent were shot (see Figure 24).
As Figure 25 shows, the outstanding difference between males’ and females’ causes of death was females’ many times greater likelihood of having been strangled or suffocated.
As Figure 26 demonstrates, there has been a pronounced change in the type of weapons used in homicide since monitoring began. Firearm use has declined by more than half since 1989–90 as a proportion of homicide methods, and there has been an upward trend in the use of knives and sharp instruments, which in 2006–07 accounted for nearly half of all homicide victims.
2) http://tinyurl.com/d3ylch
**
Australia’s Gun Laws: Little Effect
By Daniel Williams/Sydney Thursday, May 01, 2008
SNIP
But these changes have done nothing to reduce gun-related deaths, according to Samara McPhedran, a University of Sydney academic and coauthor of a soon-to-be-published paper that reviews a selection of previous studies on the effects of the 1996 legislation. The conclusions of these studies were “all over the place,” says McPhedran. But by pulling back and looking purely at the statistics, the answer “is there in black and white,” she says. “The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence.”
Firearm homicides in Australia were declining before 1996 and the decline has simply continued at the same rate since, McPhedran says. (In 2002-3, Australia’s rate of 0.27 gun-related homicides per 100,000 people was one-fifteenth that of the U.S. rate.) Of course, it’s possible there might have been a spike in firearm homicides — and one or more Port Arthur-style events — if not for the gun law reforms. “It’s very easy to raise what-ifs,” McPhedran counters. “The what-ifs are interesting as discussion points. But, ultimately, for policy making, we have to deal with what is.”
SNIP
**
3) http://tinyurl.com/blhah4j
**
Should the U.S. adopt Australia’s strict gun laws?
By James D. Agresti
December 20, 2012
U.S. homicide rates have dropped more rapidly since the federal ban on assault weapons expired than homicide rates dropped in Australia after its strict gun laws were implemented. To be precise, seven full calendar years have transpired since the federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines elapsed in 2004, and over this entire period, the U.S. murder rate has averaged 3.9% lower than it was when the ban expired. Correspondingly, in the seven years that followed the implementation of Australia’s gun laws in 1997, the Australian murder rate averaged 0.4% lower than it was when the laws took effect.
If association equals causation—as the ABC article suggests—the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban was 10 times more effective in reducing homicides than the enactment of Australia’s tight gun laws and gun buyback.
SNIP
[emphasis added]
**
And therein lies the problem with assigning causality via simple correlation coefficients and historical trends, IMHO
Oh stop whining, JohnW. You announced your presence there and asked for people to look you up. Embrace your lack of anonymity.
“you’re stalking me now.”
Delusion of heavily armed poster John Wilburn
So attending a crowded public event in one’s hometown, at which coincidently some out of town gun extremists had announced their intention to attend, triggers this sort of paranoia in one of them?
What sort of irrational mind would slip into such disordered thinking? The sort who approves of praising child slaughter weapons as fun, perhaps?
That easy one hour, multiple choice online Va. CCP test that the VCDL insists is adequate for reciprocity in other states does have a mental health component, right? Right? RIGHT???
For any of the rest of the blog who are sanely responsible gun hobbyists and wonder if I attended the gun show today, if you saw a lower middle class, middle aged white guy in a camo jacket and baseball cap, that was me.
All of them. Unless you are in an active combat zone, weapons are secured on base except for the range and other designated firearms training sites. This is why Hasan had to go out and purchase a weapon to commit his crime. The armory will not just issue the weapon. It has to be signed out for specific documented purpose (i.e. scheduled training).
Comment by (o\ ! /o) — December 22, 2012 @ 6:52 pm
Why is this the policy on our military bases?
Thank you for answering JW. Your response is exactly why I think the gun show loophole should be closed and background checks must be ran on each and every gun sold in the US. To weed out the bad guys and prevent them from purchasing guns, just like we would conduct background checks on anybody trusted to guard our children.
In answer to your question as to why I believe a 30 day waiting period should be put in place my answer is this:
I believe if we make guns harder to purchase then just maybe we will save a few lives. Not all crimes will be stopped. But just maybe someone who is really hot about an issue may cool down over 30 days. In my opinion.
A serious Gun enthusiast would and could still purchase their weapon of choice, good things come to those who wait. The 30 day waiting period would be a minor inconvenience. Again, just my opinion.
Comment by Cold n P — December 22, 2012 @ 8:39 pm
Well said, Cold n P. Removing assault style weapons, limiting magazine capacity, and instituting a 30 day waiting period are, in my view, common sense provisions that may have an impact on safety and will not infringe on the rights of the hunter, collector, target shooter, or individual interested in self-defense.
Is there a restriction or regulation that gun rights advocates on this blog can support?
FWIIW & for those who care, Very good read and links @ http://tinyurl.com/chvjmka
I particularly agree with, Jonathan Adler (Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation; Case Western Reserve University) and Dave Hoffman (James E. Beasley Professor of Law; Temple University)
**
Can We Talk (about Guns)?
Jonathan H. Adler • December 21, 2012 9:41 am
SNIP
In a related vein, David Hoffman notes how difficult it is to have calm, reasoned discussions on this sort of issue.
“…
Reading discussions on the web, you might come to believe that we don’t all share the goal of a society where the moral order is preserved, and where our children can be put on the bus to school without a qualm.
But we do.
We just disagree about how to make it happen.”
If anything, Hoffman understates the problem. It seems increasingly rare in political discourse for either side to consider that the other may be arguing in good faith. Why is this? One contributing factor is ideological cocooning. Many people, academics in particular, have relatively little meaningful interaction with people of opposing views. As a consequence, alternative viewpoints seem alien and hard to fathom. For many it is bewildering that someone of reasonable intelligence, good will, and good faith could reach diametrically opposing conclusions. Thus arises a need to ascribe contrary views to idiocy or bad faith.
SNIP
**
Re: Jason Perdue @ 11:23 pm
Because many who support gun control are about authority & control and as a group the commanding officers of bases tend to be very much into authority & control?
“Is there a restriction or regulation that gun rights advocates on this blog can support?”
Ball is in your court NRA members. Step up and man up.
Dave Hicks at 11:49 p.m., thanks for the very interesting links. I like Adler’s comments as well, but I was powerfully impressed by the article by Megan McCardle.
So let’s have the discussion, but going in, let’s agree that the suggestions we make, any comments in opposition, are made to advance toward a solution (if there is one) and may come from a decidely different but worthy point of view.
A possible preventive measure would put more police officers in schools as school resource officers, especially at the elementary school level. I can agree with this, especially if these officers are well integrated (help with discipline and establish a positive presence) into the school.
I would also like to see a restriction on high capacity magazines, a waiting period for gun purchases, and background checks at gun shows and private sales. I do acknowledge that these initiatives would not have prevented the recent tragedy.
Can anyone else join me in this middle ground?
@ 93. Excuse me, Bug, but how in the world did you find this out, except for the MSM that you so revile?
And forgive me if I am incorrect about this, this, but you’re s hospital administrator, right? Does your hospital have a policy banning firearms being carried by employees (except for security) or the general public? And, if so, how do you reconcile your strongly held beliefs with your desire to collect a paycheck?
Which takes precedence?
Comment by Dan Casey — December 22, 2012 @ 9:50 pm
———————-
Dan, it was only mentioned in the “obscure stream” local and never heard of media sources. Do a search and not a single one of the major national news sources mention this part of the story at all. They consistently and conveniently leave this single aspect out completely.
As for my workplace, there is a no weapons policy for the public and employees and I abide by it. We also do not have armed security. I personally see the shortcomings of the situation but also have the freedom to choose to work there or not. I’m not a single issue type person and my beliefs regarding the 2A do not singularly control nor dictate my life. It is just one element of who I am, just like my love of Antique Volkswagens, 60s music, Art, History, and my absolute disdain for drugs and alcohol. I am free to choose to work there or not and I do so accepting the risks of their policy. Just like I accept the relative risk of driving a 1963 Volkswagen given its safety shortcomings. Just like you accept the risks of many decisions you make each day.
Thank goodness Florida has the employee parking lot keep it in your car law. Just the other day at work my boss said something about, “If that happens here I’m heading to his office (pointing to me).” I replied, “I won’t be there…I’ll be at my car. Due to our policies, all I can do is sit in my car and wait for them to come to me.” He said, “You wouldn’t come in and try to stop it?” and I replied, “No, I’m a law abiding citizen and I adhere to our policy regardless of its shortcomings. All I can do is stand outside.”
Here’s a response to some of Mr. LaPierre’s earlier intelligent, well thought out remarks.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/22/president-bushs-letter-of-resignation-from-the-nra/
Cold n P:
“Your response is exactly why I think the gun show loophole should be closed and background checks must be ran on each and every gun sold in the US. To weed out the bad guys and prevent them from purchasing guns, just like we would conduct background checks on anybody trusted to guard our children.”
Those two don’t even relate to one another.
“But just maybe someone who is really hot about an issue may cool down over 30 days. In my opinion.”
Seung-Hui Cho. And how has the repeal of one gun per month adversely affecting us now?
Even attendees at the gun show advocated outlawing “assault” weapons. So I guess they’re about authority and control too.
Dan, the last hospital I worked at, also a gun-free zone, had 2 shootings, and the one my wife worked at had one. My wife was also in the VT Campus post office the morning of that mass shooting…these gun free zones are really working out well. People intent on committing murder really care about signs and laws.
Jeff Doto @ 4:58
“Thats right…NRA`s Lapierre`s proposal is brilliant…put an armed officer in EVERY school”
You’re right, Jeff Doto, LaPierre’s plan to but an armed guard at every school is brilliant; what could possibly go wrong? Makes you kind of wonder why nobody ever tried this before?
http://www.businessinsider.com/there-were-police-officers-at-columbine-2012-12
(o\ ! /o),
That mall also had a “no guns” rule. He will be crucified on this blog for his actions.
Jeff Doto,
I have to ask; were any of your ancestors Mayans? You seem to share their amazing talent for prediction.
Kevin Myatts article today is interesting….looks like we may be shoveling some global warming from our sidewalks, soon.
“. . .looks like we may be shoveling some global warming from our sidewalks, soon.”
OMG. Not this again. Let’s get a few things straight here, OK?
1) A snowfall is not proof that the Earth is not warming, just like a thunderstorm during a drought does not prove there’s no drought.
2) Warming mean GRADUALLY less snow, not necessarily an end to it.
Doto, I was in DC and Richmond this week and there were cherry blossoms blooming.
“Those two don’t even relate to one another.”
JW, you are dead wrong and misleading people with your response and reasonable people see right it. The NRA never had the moral high ground on gun control, however, the organisation has done a good PR job of making people think it was protecting Americans right to bear arms when their real agenda is to sell guns for profit. The people on on to the scam and high sounding rationalizations will no longer carry the day.
Like I said, thanks for answering. You are a perfect example of the myopic NRA. Your own words prove it.
Kristen:
“Even attendees at the gun show advocated outlawing “assault” weapons”
Now we know why Warren was there.
Kristen, let’s not forget that many, if not most, of those who are at gun shows, but advocate a ban are likely sitting on LOTS of ARs and AKs. Their stash will increase in value exponentially and they know it.
Also, lots of instructors are against repealing the need for a CHP. It’s a self-serving position to take. I support constitutional carry despite knowing demand for the basic CHP class may drop off.
I spoke to some fool on the floor yesterday that said the government can never take away our guns because it is a right. He also thinks Jesus is his infinite protection. You can draw your own conclusions….
Cold n P:
“Like I said, thanks for answering. You are a perfect example of the myopic NRA. Your own words prove it.”
Are you enjoying YOUR semi-automatic, high capacity-capable, bayonet-bearing, more powerful than an AR-15, SKS carbine, Cold n P?
Cold n P:
“JW, you are dead wrong and misleading people with your response and reasonable people see right it.”
Then show me where working with other people’s children is a Constitutional right.
Dan ..
Im sure you can recognize the trademark
of these types…they tout their wizardry
of basic math.
That is, they are very good at drawing graphs..
as long as there only 2 dots to connect.
“I spoke to some fool on the floor yesterday that said the government can never take away our guns because it is a right. He also thinks Jesus is his infinite protection. You can draw your own conclusions….”
That gun shows attract nuts with limited understanding of the constitution?
JasonPerdue, military bases are full of 19 year old kids hopped up on hormones and the freedom of being away from home for the first time. They party, fight, and generally display behaviors typical to 19 year olds. The big infantry bases are now also being deluged in troops rotating in and out of deployments with varying levels of stress issues and undiagnosed post-combat syndromes. It’s probably a better idea to keep most of them unarmed, except for MPs.
I fully understand your point, Cold N P. Background checks on all guns sold makes sense and would not infringe on anyone’s right to own a firearm. It might help by reducing the incidence of all kinds of gun violence – suicide, murder, massacres.
Jason Perdue @ 1:13 am
As a number of the authorities and some folk here point out the availability and cost of police officers in all schools as school resource officers is or will be received as prohibitive.
Therefore, I would support SWAT Officer/trainer (who I linked to earlier) in the creation of Parents/Teachers Armed Associations as a good approach for schools. They would be a roster of volunteers, who meet together, train together and arrange for a low key, but constant armed presence in all schools — as well as his recommendations for:
1) Making it easier for teachers to discipline students without fear of litigation.
2) Making it easier to expel permanently, the dangerous student.
3) Making it easier for society in general to identify medicate and institutionalize for long term treatment someone, who is dangerously mentally ill.
4) Lock protections in place so that people can come forward and report someone who is dangerous to society without fear of litigation, even doctors and lawyers.
In light of Dan’s call for every park, mall, church, etc. Lets make the alleged Gun Free Zone not apply to CHP holders as well as police and others who are not required to have any training — such as assistant commonwealth attorneys.
Cold in P,
As I said, I’m not against reasonable, effective gun control efforts. I would have some arguments about the efficacy of the last assault weapons ban as it seemed to focus on a lot of cosmetic issues and only a few substantive ones. I still contend that it was largely a measure based in political pandering and posturing. However, again, I’m not opposed to limiting access to certain types of weapons and there are damn sure plenty of nuts, criminals and whack-jobs who have no business with a gun of any type.
However, I am still interested in an answer from the left on whether or not they think gun control alone is the solution. I favor a comprehensive solution to the issues of gun violence and school safety, one that includes gun control but also recognizes that gun control laws will only address a portion of the issue. The arguments that you say are tired are also a very legitimate part of the issue to be discussed. Mental health, violent video games, the breakdown of the family all ARE part of the problem and solving those issues WILL do more to prevent future violence than will any gun measure. Gun laws might make the prep work harder or more time consuming, but they will do nothing to change the individual’s belief that this type of horrendous act is the appropriate solution to their ills.
I have no idea how much research you have done into school violence, but there is some pretty strong evidence out there tying this kind of violent act to the systematic desensitization to violence that is achieved through repeated exposure to violent video games and movies. Go back and look at the West Paducah, KY shooting in 1997. A little known fact is that the shooter had never before fired a gun. However, he did have a full-sized Hogan’s Alley style arcade shooting simulator in his
home. This game awarded higher points for headshots. in that era, prior to more realistic force-on-force training, the average police shooting yielded an accuracy rate of about 20%. In other words, when trained police officers who practice several times per year where in shootings, about one out of every five police bullets actually hit the intended target. When Michael Carneal opened fire on the morning prayer group, witness accounts indicate that he stood stationary and scanned side to side, shooting targets of opportunity as they passed in front of him, just as you do with an arcade game. Carneal shot eight times with eight hits, five of them head shots. Do you really think there was no connection between his video game practice and this shooting?
So again I wait for an answer as to why liberals are so dismissive of and opposed to any measures other than gun control? Why not a comprehensive solution? Why not acknowledge that guns are only part of the problem? Why such vehement opposition to putting SRO’s in schools? Why such opposition to locking school doors and installing metal detectors? Why not acknowledge that returning unstable mental health patients home for “community based services” is a theory that if not failed, has some serious problems?
It won’t hurt my feelings a bit if a law is passed saying the average citizen can’t own an AK-47 or AR-15. However, what does annoy me is the drastic push for gun control alone as “the solution” to this problem.
Dan, I’m sorry but I have no idea what you’re saying about heroine. Maybe try using a little less and making your point again.
Oh, and one more thing. Can someone explain to me how a ’12-round’ pistol magazine is “more deadly” than a ’10-round’ pistol magazine?
Chuck,
On Saturday you wrote: “I’m not a huge fan of armed volunteers patrolling schools. However, at the very least it is an idea.”
I believe that statement is ridiculous. And to highlight that, I wrote, “I’m not a huge fan of heroin, but at least it is a drug.” What the heck does that mean? Ask yourself that about your own statement. It’s weird. Hell, banning cars because of traffic deaths is an idea, too. But that doesn’t make it any less dumb.
With regard to gun control, it is not the ONLY solution. But just like, with regard to closing the budget deficit, raising taxes is not the ONLY solution, either. It’s part of a solution.
The problem with such admissions on this blog is that once you do it the RWers jump in and say, — “SEE, you yourself ADMIT it’s only a partial solution!!!” And then they dismiss it out of hand, because “IT DOESN’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM!!!”
“Oh, and one more thing. Can someone explain to me how a ’12-round’ pistol magazine is “more deadly” than a ’10-round’ pistol magazine?”
Seriously? Let’s see: you can kill 10 people with 10 rounds; and 12 people with 12 rounds. That’s two more potential victims, ergo the 12-round magazine is potentially 20 percent more deadly in terms of the number of victims you could kill with it, without reloading.
Kristen:
“JasonPerdue, military bases are full of 19 year old kids hopped up on hormones and the freedom of being away from home for the first time. They party, fight, and generally display behaviors typical to 19 year olds. The big infantry bases are now also being deluged in troops rotating in and out of deployments with varying levels of stress issues and undiagnosed post-combat syndromes. It’s probably a better idea to keep most of them unarmed, except for MPs.”
In contrast, I would like to thank our troops for their service.
Chuck, some gun control is A solution. Not THE solution. But just because we can’t solve all of our gun problems in one fell banning doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try anything at all.
Sometime back in an earlier thread [ http://tinyurl.com/cl2axly ]Sandi agreed that:
**
[She] would certainly have no objection to actual “Minutemen” being utilized in any community situation needing security; providing they are under the auspices of the police department and have the same oversight. Clearly police officers cannot be everywhere and security guards are expensive and have no greater security expertise. It is sad to see such an effort needed in elementary schools, but not sadder than this loss of life.
[She] agree[s] with all of the calls for updating school safety reviews and procedures. Awareness and secure locks are certainly part of any solution. As is preparedness.
[She] would not object to an armed teacher or professor in a school if they have proven training and capability.
**
and
**
No one can deny that it [mental illness] is not the root cause of someone trying to use a gun for such heinous activity.
[Albeit I misread her on this point the first time through. Sorry about that, Sandi.]
**
Why are the rest of the more-governmental-restrictions folk not joining her in supporting the search for a comprehensive middle ground approach?
Re: Comment by Dan Casey @ 1:37 pm
The problem with such admissions on this blog is that once you do it the RWers jump in and say, — “SEE, you yourself ADMIT it’s only a partial solution!!!” And then they dismiss it out of hand, because “IT DOESN’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM!!!”
—————–
So, Dan, other that more governmental restrictions on firearms, what do you support as part of a comprehensive middle ground approach that would be more than a partial solution?
Re: Chuck @ 1:29 pm
Thanks, Chuck.
I was looking for a citation for the West Paducah, Ky tragedy. Could remember the location or date [old age].
—–
Dan et al, why don’t the more-governmental-restrictions folk address that point rather than jump Chuck for seeking a middle ground and not chanting the approved mantra?
JW, of course I enjoy my guns. I’m not against the 2nd amendment. I just believe, like Chuck that a comprehensive solution will include some type of gun control.
Chuck, I agree with you we are just debating the chicken and the egg. What comes first, gun control or societal change? Yes, they are tied to the solution we need to stop the carnage in the US.
JW, “Then show me where working with other people’s children is a Constitutional right.”
That is simply a dodge JW. We are not debating whether the 2nd amendment should be abolished. We are debating whether folks who purchase guns and protect our children should go through a similar screening process. I think they should. Again, your myopic view of gun control shines through and reasonable people just aren’t buying your argument. It just doesn’t wash anymore.
I don’t agree that all mass murderers are by necessity mentally ill. Was McVeigh mentally ill? The 9/11 hijackers? And the overwhelming majority of those suffering mental illness will never try anything like Lanzas move. The problem is a LOT more complicated than “solving” our mental health care problems, which are no different than the rest of our health care problems.
There’s not going to be one “fix” to our energy needs, and there won’t be just one for our gun crisis either. But that’s no reason to refuse to try anything.
Dave Hicks – my suggestions would be NO armed guards patrolling the halls of elementary schools, including kindergarten classes.
I would suggest all gun carrying citizens have to carry insurance.
All “assault weapons” – [I know you disagree on the definition], or weapons that can be either modified or are purchased to fire high capacity magazines – should [if not banned] have a serious federal tax that goes towards funding mental health treatment and towards victims killed or injured when these weapons are used in a crime,
Ban high capacity magazines – who needs to shoot of 30 rounds [or more] in less than 30 seconds. 100 round drums should be completely and totally banned. If anyone wants to shoot weapons using these high capacity magazines, join the military.
Background checks that are more than in name only.
Federal gun regulations instead of this patchwork of regulations from state to state including concealed carry.[sorry Jack and John W]
Reinstate a new assault weapon ban, that does not ban a specific weapon, but a ban that is defining and descriptive of what is banned since the gun manufacturers just change the name or tinker with a few parts and Whan! they just went around the ban…as was done with the original AWB.
Use the model of other countries that banned those with mental disorders from owning guns, {Germany is one} – minimize the opportunities for these customers. Anyone who has been banned from purchase because of a mental disorder, should be allowed to reapply in 3 years, for example.
Eliminate private sales at gun shows. Only licensed dealers should be permitted to sell guns. No if, ands, or buts.
EVERY GUN owned must be registered and the penalty for not registering is jail time.
Strawman purchases get cracked down on and when caught – both parties are charged criminally and sent to prison.
That’s just for starters. I, much like a whole host of people, are sick and tired of those espousing their “gun” rights while trampling all over those of us who wish to live in a society that doesn’t solve every problem with an AR-15 – who would like to stop worrying about going to a mall, or movie, or sending 6-7 year olds to school for god’s sake. Somewhere there are reasonable people who can make reasonable decisions and regulations…
BTW, I’ve said many times on this board. I consider myself an independent who has mostly voted Republican in my life. In 2006 GW Bush cured me of my republicanism. I’m not saying that I would not vote for a republican in the future, I am saying the party has changed and become farther right than I can support. When the adults regain control of the GOP I will consider voting for them again.
Until then I cannot vote for a GOP who wants to balance the budget on the backs of the poor and continue to export Americanism to countries who do not want it. I cannot support a party that has it’s head in the sand regarding climate change and I can’t support a small tent party in which you must kiss the ring of Grover Norquist, go to church on Sunday and bring babies into the world regardless of the women’s opinion on the matter. I cannot support a party who will not comment on tragedies like the Connecticut shooting until the NRA puts out their talking points. I cannot support a party who gerrymanders itself into rampart like defensible districts that do not promote democracy and 1 man one vote. I cannot support a party that refuses to grant freedoms and rights to all it’s citizens regardless of their religion, race, sexual orientation or level of wealth.
I just wanted Chuck and the rest of you to know that I really don’t consider myself a liberal, just an average American who does not like the direction our country has moved towards these past 30 years or so. When I was younger, I voted like my father. When I became a man and could think for myself, I started voting my own believe system which has evolved throughout my life. I’m comfortable with my own judgement but realize nobody gets it right all the time, unlike some posters on this board.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody on this board, it’s been an incredible year. May 2013 bring you happiness and joy.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too, Cold. May the New Year bring you happines and joy also.
A picture I just saw on Facebook has this caption. “The FBI and ATF killed more children at Waco than were killed at Sandy Hook. Where was the outrage then?”
It’s getting sicker and sicker on the web.
Cold n P:
“We are debating whether folks who purchase guns and protect our children should go through a similar screening process.”
Well that’s changed, then, because you were asking how people who buy guns IN GENERAL are any different thant those who are working with the school to protect the children. Becasue of this difference, the Constitutional argument is no dodge.
Kristen:
“But that’s no reason to refuse to try anything.”
Yes, so let’s have armed guards in the schools, which would have stopped Lanza, offer help to our fellow man who is disturbed, and be better role models to our bext generation. of course, since I didn’t suggest a GUN-related measure, Kristen thinks I’m not interested in doing anything.
Hillary:
“I, much like a whole host of people, are sick and tired of those espousing their “gun” rights while trampling all over those of us who wish to live in a society that doesn’t solve every problem with an AR-15 – who would like to stop worrying about going to a mall, or movie, or sending 6-7 year olds to school for god’s sake.”
We have a right to keep and bear arms. You do not have a right to not be afraid of that.
Cold n P:
“Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody on this board, it’s been an incredible year. May 2013 bring you happiness and joy.”
Same to you!
Debbie:
““The FBI and ATF killed more children at Waco than were killed at Sandy Hook. Where was the outrage then?””
I guess it was in the same place the Fast and Furious outrage was.
Cold n P, your post at 3pm is a wonderfully honest and thoughtful message. Being another person who admits I don’t get it right sometimes, but who shares your opinion of today’s GOTP, I would just like to add that I urge all the gun absolutists who oppose any new gun regulation at all to closely align themselves with the GOTP. Insist that your GOTP candidates hew strictly to the NRA dogma, and denounce anyone who says there can be a moderate approach to anything and still be a Republican.
Happy Christmas and Merry New Year to you too, Cold.
Regarding Wayne LiePierre’s claim that only a gun can stop a gun: just as fire is far from the only way to fight fire, there are numerous ways to stop a gun besides a gun, ways both more lethal and less. LaPierre is wrong, and is stoking and exploiting his grassroot constituents’ fear.
Re: Waco:
Remember that gun fanatics at Waco started the killing BEFORE the standoff, by shooting government officials who went to check on children’s welfare.
Such revisionism as the FB Waco post reminds me how I once asked Dave Hicks if he could name even one example of a gun fanatic, and he wouldn’t even cite David Koresh or Phil Spector, but only tried to turn it around as if anyone seeking saner gun regulation was a fanatic. That’s not something anyone without an apologists’ blind spot for guns would do.
Kristen first says:
Re: Kristen @ 2:46 pm
**
The problem is a LOT more complicated than “solving” our mental health care problems, which are no different than the rest of our health care problems. [albeit, I (Dave) think it is in far worst shape.]
There’s not going to be one “fix” to our energy needs, and there won’t be just one for our gun crisis either. But that’s no reason to refuse to try anything.
**
Then in the very next post only talks about gun control — and ends the comment with “That’s just for starters.” Thanks for the honesty, Hillary. That is likely one of the most honest comments made in this debate.
Is there any wonder why the pro-RKBA folk are suspicious of the pro-more-restrictions folk?
To repeat the quote from Jonathan H. Adler that I posted above, yesterday @ 11:46 pm
“It seems increasingly rare in political discourse for either side to consider that the other may be arguing in good faith. Why is this? One contributing factor is ideological cocooning. Many people, academics in particular, have relatively little meaningful interaction with people of opposing views. As a consequence, alternative viewpoints seem alien and hard to fathom. For many it is bewildering that someone of reasonable intelligence, good will, and good faith could reach diametrically opposing conclusions. Thus arises a need to ascribe contrary views to idiocy or bad faith.”
Yup. I do ascribe contrary views to idiocy or bad faith. However, I am willing to work at correcting that. Are the pro-more-restrictions folk on this blog.
Reasonable middle ground will never be found without it — be it RKBA, energy issues, deficit reduction, health care financing, the inexcusably scandalous state of our mental health care, etc.
Folk here like to point to the Tea Party but never look in the mirror and think of Pogo and his truth.
Dave Hicks, regarding your comments of December 23, 2012 @ 1:24 pm:
I don’t think police officers in school will be as prohibitively expensive as you might think, though it will cost more. We already have uniformed police officers in most middle and high schools. I am very skeptical about armed teachers/parents/volunteers in a Parent/Teacher Armed Association. First and foremost, I do not think it is healthy for our children to grow-up thinking, “I need a gun to be safe in this world.” I honestly think that is the message we will send if we have a PTAA. Second, if the PTAA is to come to fruition, effective training will be paramount. If local police will be providing this training, why not commit those resources to putting a member of the police force in schools. Finally, you may be talking about a volunteer contingent of between 250,000 and 750,000 volunteers. That seems massive to me. I also don’t support the “Minuteman” approach.
Making it easier for teachers to discipline students without fear of litigation will be all but impossible. I sense that most parents will not relinquish their ability to litigate disagreements with schools. I do think we need to take a good, hard look at how long public schools have to put up with chronically disruptive and potentially dangerous students. Students with chronic discipline problems suck up a lot of the instructional time in the classroom. That is counterproductive on many levels.
I wholeheartedly think we need to take a look at the role of violent media influence and the efficacy of our mental health treatment system. I have said before and say again, I favor a balance of solutions to include some gun control measures I have mentioned.
I like a lot of what Cold n P has to say as well as Hillary. Few of the genuine suggestions here are idiotic, and if they are, it does no good to identify them as so. I don’t think we are that far apart.
Dave Hicks – because the present “gun control” is a pretense, without a doubt, I want the government to do some regulating. There are thousands of things regulated by the government for the benefit of the “common good” – and everyone who is regulated whines about the regulations [think polluting industries like coal].
Prescription drugs are regulated to keep those who would abuse them from doing so. Do some still abuse them? Of course, but the controls on these drugs have helped minimize illegal access. RX drugs kill when abused – pharmacies must keep records of who gets which drug. Do those that “need” these prescriptions still have to sign for them? – why yes. Do some think it is “inconvenient”? Of course – but they still get to use the drugs prescribed by their physicians while the drugs are being “regulated”.
Guns kill when the “right to bear arms” is abused. or get into the wrong hands by legal means or illegal means. Therefore, it seems reasonable and logical that they too need to have some controls. What those controls are will need to be worked out with gun owners, sportsman and collectors – and those on the other side. But these regulations shouldn’t simply be written by the legislators in the pocket of the NRA.
Unlike many who fear our government – I don’t. Unlike many who fear their fellow citizens – I don’t. Unlike those who bemoan regulations and safeguards – I don’t. I like the FAA – makes me feel safer on a jet that has some mandatory maintenance and pilot flight time restrictions. I like the FDA that regulated not only the drugs we ingest, but the food we eat. Have a sick cow that’s down? Those that raise them for a living – cannot bring that cow to the slaughterhouse – this regulation protects us from mad cow’s disease. Those that raise beef for the food market may complain that it is lost revenue for them, so should we just let that meat get into food chain? No, the regulations are for safety of all, not convenience of an individual. Tags on your cattle – again a “regulation” to track each and every one from calf to processing plant – again, done to prevent mad cows disease from making its way into our hamburgers.
So do I think there should be laws regulating guns – you bet – but again, it can be done in a reasonable way to ensure the “gun guys” their rights as well as those of us still looking out for the “general welfare”.
Chuck @1:35,
“Can someone explain to me how a ’12-round’ pistol magazine is “more deadly” than a ’10-round’ pistol magazine?”
I see the problem here. You only have ten fingers. Thus, higher digits, as it were, really aren’t helpful in your case.
Don’t worry, Bro; I already figured out how to break this down for you.
Here’s the deal Chuck; if you get up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and then find out your dog peed in your Wheaties and you get the red ass and decide to take it out on a handful of strangers at the post office, mall or elementary school, do you a- reach for your bow and arrow, b- grab your muzzle loader off the mantel, or c- get your 9mil with the 10 shot clip?
Hope this helps; don’t hesitate to reach out if I may be of further assistance.
Dave Hicks, it’s incredibly disingenous of you to make such a misleading juxtaposition of Kristen’s posts. I took her “just for starters” postscript precisely to refer to non-firearm related strategies which she’d leave for another post. By your distorted interpretation of Kristen’s posts, you show that you’re pre-disposed to read and use others posts only in a guncentric defensive way.
When I questioned you about having not once called out any gun extremists for using the counterproductive and meaningless label “antis”, your own defense was that you naturally weren’t going to respond to every post, when I was only making that point that there hadn’t even been one. Yet that very same rationale you used is one you won’t extend to Kristen by allowing that she not have to be all-inclusive with every post!
You pretentiously declared to Kristen “I do ascribe contrary views to idiocy or bad faith. However, I am willing to work at correcting that”.
But that begs the question your own flawed posts raise: do you ascribe your own views to logical infallibility or freedom from bias, and are you willing to work on that?
To everyone else besides Dave Hicks:
Any gun apologist who willfully ignores gun violence statistics as abstractions that don’t pertain to them, yet makes frequent public posts pretentiously implying their own objectivity and mastery of logic, might at least humbly recognize the objective logic actuarial tables offer about the inexorable rate at which all gun fanatics fingers will eventually resemble Charlton Heston’s. Unless, that is, they’ve found doctors who’ll use guns to save their lives, per NRA/VCDL logic.
I wish ‘em good luck with that.
Sorry, I changed my identity from nosaj to Jason Perdue. The 5:37 p.m. post should read “Comment by Jason Perdue.”
I might have missed this one, but can one of the gun folks explain to me where we’ll be getting the cash to put armed guards in all the schools? Raise taxes? Even if people volunteer (sketchy to say the least), it’s still going to take money to run the program
Wayne LaPierre of the NRA really has a point about those violent video games. Why just today I was walking downtown today concealed carrying a copy of the computer game “Resident Evil” when I passed a kid that looked at me in a threatening manner. Thankfully, I had been playing this ultra-violent shoot ‘em up video game earlier that morning and thus was already prepared to get some killin’ done. Now, it was game on! We circled each other mano-y-mano, carefully sizing each other up. At this point I pulled out my copy of “Resident Evil” out from my waistband where it was hidden from his view. As soon as he saw my computer game, he totally freaked out and busted out a copy of “Call of Duty; Black Ops” from a holster he had on under his jacket. What a sucker! That’s totally like bringing a knife to a gun fight! He came at me with his computer game and all full of piss and vinegar acting like some kind of tough guy but he really never had a chance; due to the bone crushing weight (2.15oz), razor sharp points (perfectly round) and finely honed edge (dull), my “Resident Evil” video game dropped him like a sack of dirty laundry. As I stood over his bleeding and soon-to-be-lifeless body, I thanked my lucky stars I was not only carrying my video game but practiced playing it earlier that morning and thus was completely prepared for dangerous evil doers; people, this is the difference between living and dying. A tool might as well be a toy if you don’t know how to use it.
The po po rolled up on me a couple minutes later. I explained the situation to them. No charges were pressed as the cops clearly saw I was well within the “Stand your Ground” legislation, and I was free to go.
Yeah, you totally got a point there, NRA.
Jason Perdue:
“I do not think it is healthy for our children to grow-up thinking, “I need a gun to be safe in this world.””
What is unhealty is fostering a taboo about guns. Youth firearm and character education is the way to go.
gdad:
“150.I might have missed this one, but can one of the gun folks explain to me where we’ll be getting the cash to put armed guards in all the schools? Raise taxes? Even if people volunteer (sketchy to say the least), it’s still going to take money to run the program”
First of all, I thought the left wanted job creation? Second, you want the FDIC insuring your money, but how dare any tax-payer money go to protect our kids. I bet there would be enough qualified volunteers to cover the schools anyway.
Adding a SRO to Roanoke County Schools that don’t already have one would be $2 million just for startup costs.
Source: phone conversation with school board member last week.
Comment by Steve C — December 23, 2012 @ 5:40 pm
Thanks for the expert information. To further elaborate, could you give me an example of a 9mm that uses a clip?
gdad: “I might have missed this one, but can one of the gun folks explain to me where we’ll be getting the cash to put armed guards in all the schools?”
Sorry, I can’t help here as it is not a plan I favor.
Re: Hillary @ 5:39 pm
Well done, Hillary.
Not pointing at you in particular, however, I would still be far less cynical of the more-restrictions crowd were far more of them talking about ponying up to meet the other needed parts of the solution — as I still believe that Jonathan H. Adler and Pogo are right.
Re: Warren @ 5:43 pm
Prove me wrong.
Show me precise references and citations to all non-firearm related strategies being proposed or formulated by congress and/or the Virginia legislature on both sides of the aisle. Please include the names of all the sponsors.
Re: Warren @ 5:43 pm
You pretentiously declared to Kristen “I do ascribe contrary views to idiocy or bad faith. However, I am willing to work at correcting that”.
—————–
What part of the truth according to Pogo http://tinyurl.com/crhvlxn don’t you understand?
Where are your comments that show wonderfully honest and thoughtful messages, which show that you admit you don’t get it right sometimes? Or is the latest just another kettle meets pot?
Are you working on the solution to violence other than more restrictions on firearms? What are you proposing?
JohnW, tell me one gun or ammunition related limitation you’d accept.
“Show me precise references and citations to all non-firearm related strategies being proposed or formulated by congress and/or the Virginia legislature on both sides of the aisle. Please include the names of all the sponsors.”
Impossible demand by Dave Hicks
Show you All of them, huh?
Being proposed or (being) formulated?
Logicmaster Dave, why don’t you explain how anyone is supposed to know all the ideas being formulated, including by those whose thoughts may result in as yet unfinished formulations?
There are numerous ideas that I support, both firearms related and others, and I’ll be covering them in various posts, not in some supposedly exhaustive list, because such a complex set of issues necessarily puts ideas in flux, unlike your own manifest belief that every step is already defined. For starters, I know for a fact that anyone who’s ever supported the Tiahrt amendment or anything short of it’s total repeal isn’t interested in an honest debate on gun policies. Do you support the Tiahrt amendment’s barriers to informed debate, Dave?
Meanwhile, I’ll consider your request something other than a passive aggressive non-response if, by the very criteria you demand, you provide the details of posts not yet made by others, including the poster’s names. Grow up, indeed!
But first, answer about the Tiahrt amendment, and then the request that proceeded your own, and which your defense mechanisms glaringly instructed you to ignore:
“Do you ascribe your own views to logical infallibility or freedom from bias, and are you willing to work on that?”
If yes, explain how, with full citations and examples of your strong commitment to deserving an evident self-image as King Rational.
But don’t dare risk your VCDL standing by critiqueing the effectiveness or validity of the label “anti’s', or offering any sign that gun murders farther away from you than Montgomery Co. are more than an abstraction; you’ve got an unbroken streak of not doing so to protect.
“can one of the gun folks explain to me where we’ll be getting the cash to put armed guards in all the schools? Raise taxes?”
question from gdad
gdad, Grover Norquist is on the Board of Directors of the NRA.
Draw your own conclusions.
Kristen:
“JohnW, tell me one gun or ammunition related limitation you’d accept.”
Tell me an expansion of firearm freedom you would accept.
Even if you do, this is not a fair question as we have lost firearm freedom decade after decade. We have a lot to restore. So, suppose you made an offer of an expansion you could live with, it would very likely be something that was warrantlessly stolen from us in the past. Once we roll back all of the junk from 1934 to the present, your question might be a fair one.
160 = 282 words to say “I don’t know”.
“What part of the truth according to Pogo don’t you understand?”
Repetitive question from Dave Hicks
Dave Hicks, what part of Einstein’s aphorisms below don’t you understand?
We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.
Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
Force always attracts men of low morality.
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
Re: Warren @ 9:20 pm
Well I see you are still on the attack and are not putting up any positive evidence of non-firearm related strategies being proposed or formulated by congress and/or the Virginia legislature on both sides of the aisle.
And to prove you wrong, yet again, I will agree that I let my typing get ahead of a reasonable request.
BTW, if you have been following this recent exchange, you will have noticed that I acknowledged that I misunderstood Sandi, argued, then apologized and agreed with her. That is twice in recent days that I have acknowledged “Being another person who admits I don’t get it right, sometimes.”
Your turn.
Let’s try again. Show me precise references and citations to some of those non-firearm related strategies being proposed or formulated by congress and/or the Virginia legislature on either sides of the aisle, which you know of and which you support. Please include the names of the known sponsors.
Again your turn.
“Second, you want the FDIC insuring your money, but how dare any tax-payer money go to protect our kids.”
Now THERE’S a non sequitur. You folks will say anything.
Re: Warren @ 9:20 pm
“Do you support the Tiahrt amendment’s barriers to informed debate, Dave?”
——————
Huh?
The Tiahrt amendment is a barrier to a lot of things — some of which might actually be in need of a barrier, IMHO.
But a barrier to informed debate? How so?
BTW did folk here know that the Tiahrt Amendment is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, as it allows municipal police departments full access to ATF trace data in any criminal investigation.
A little detail that folk who want access for their own purposes tend to not mention, for some reason. Just another one of those little details that make folk increasingly unlikely for either side to consider that the other might be arguing in good faith.
(The Tiahrt amendment) a barrier to informed debate? How so?
question from a VCDL gunner
By inhibiting the dissemination of all relevant gun data to anyone who seeks it. That’s how.
BTW, Dave Hicks, your frequently ostentatious dissections of others’ posts may not always come across as humble…IMHO.
Re: the Tiahrt Amendment
http://tinyurl.com/d7g6urw
**
What is the Tiahrt Amendment?
Politics
January 30, 2009
By: Daniel White
SNIP
This is the relevant text:
“That no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based upon such data, in any civil action pending on or filed after the effective date of this Act in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of such an action or proceeding.”
The data in the Firearms Trace System database is clearly available to law enforcement. In fact, that was what it was created for.
What it is not for is to let anti-gun politicians use this information for their own agendas. The trace data is only useful in direct conjunction with a criminal investigation. Any other use would not yield viable results because of the nature of the data. For example, a trace might be run on a firearm that had nothing to do with a crime, such as to verify a firearm isn’t stolen. This would yield a false positive if attempting to use the data out of context on a witch hunt to try to find problems that don’t exist.
SNIP
**
Nope, Dave Hicks, that provison of the Tiahrt amendment was included to give cover for it’s other effects, because full access to PD’s of ATF data could have been created without its’ being tied to the other Tiahrt provisions. That’s a transparent enough ploy to discredit anyone who seeks to cite it in debate.
One of the other effects of the Tiahrt amendment is to prevent anyone from making a statistical case that a child slaughter weapon is anything but fun. A little detail that folk who want to limit access for their own purposes tend to not mention, for some reason. Just another one of those little details that make folk increasingly unlikely for either side to consider that the other might be arguing in good faith.
“can one of the gun folks explain to me where we’ll be getting the cash to put armed guards in all the schools? ”
Cut off foreign aid? Bill Clinton thought we could do it.
“What is unhealty is fostering a taboo about guns. Youth firearm and character education is the way to go.”
Comment by John Wilburn — December 23, 2012 @ 7:04 pm
As the structure of this sentence implies, you do not separate firearm and character education. They appear as one. One cannot have adequate character education without adequate firearm education.
I stand by my earlier statement. I do not think it is healthy for our children to grow-up thinking, I need a gun to be safe in
this world.
Putting additional School Resource Officers in our public schools will, indeed, be expensive. Putting groups of volunteers with guns in schools with adequate training will also be expensive, budgetarily and administratively. Both are options, but is either viable given the pros and cons?
Revisit the link Dave Hicks posted above at #100 December 22, 2012 @ 11:46 pm. Jonathan Adler and Megan McCardle make some provocative points.
Dave Hicks, it’s amazing how you insist others give chapter and verse, then selectively cherrypick to cut and paste what you decide is “the relevant text”, only to (what a surprise) leave a self-servingly distorted impression. The FOP (a fraternal order, not one exclusively devoted to professional LE policy) was vastly outnumbered by LE groups who oppose the Tiahrt amendment’s chilling effects.
The Tiahrt Amendments, named for their original sponsor, U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt (R-KS), are provisions attached to federal spending bills that make it harder for law enforcement officers to aggressively pursue criminals who buy and sell illegal guns.
•The amendments restrict cities, states and even the police from fully accessing and using Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) gun trace data, which can show where illegal guns are coming from, who buys them and how they get trafficked across state lines and into our communities.
•The Tiahrt restrictions are blocking Congressional oversight of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Explosives & Firearms (ATF) and its controversial “Operation Fast & Furious.” According to allegations, ATF allowed guns to be illegally trafficked to Mexico, possibly putting law enforcement officers in danger. ATF is prevented by Tiahrt from releasing trace data connected to Fast & Furious, forcing Congress to request the data from the Mexican Government.
•The Tiahrt provisions require the Federal Bureau of Investigation to destroy certain background check records within 24 hours, making it nearly impossible to use those records to help solve crimes or to identify gun buyers with criminal histories who were mistakenly approved.
•The Tiahrt Amendments also block ATF from requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to detect loss and theft, which law enforcement says is a dangerous back channel source for criminals who are in the market for illegal guns.
And here’s one for those Obama-phobic paranoiacs who scream about Fast and Furious (e.g. the NRA):
•The Tiahrt restrictions are blocking Congressional oversight of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Explosives & Firearms (ATF) and its controversial “Operation Fast & Furious.”…ATF is prevented by Tiahrt from releasing trace data connected to Fast & Furious, forcing Congress to request the data from the Mexican Government.
http://protectpolice.org/facts
Dave Hicks, you’re very close to sounding as if the murder of law enforcement officials further away than Blacksburg has caused you no more sleeplessness than your bladder.
Semper Fi, sleepyhead.
“I will agree that I let my typing get ahead of a reasonable request”
Lamely rationalized excuse by Dave Hicks @10:25pm
No Dave Hicks, keyboards don’t embarrass people with poorly reasoned demands of others, people embarrass themselves with poorly reasoned demands of others. Or is that logic about the role of inanimate objects somehow faulty?
So you didn’t prove me wrong at all, because what you did, all on your own, was instruct your typing to reflect what your mind wanted to write.
Re: Warren @ 11:35 pm
Relevant text from actual amendment, please.
——————
Re: Warren @ 11:47 pm
I didn’t blame the keyboard. “I [an individual, personally] let my typing [an action taken by me, not an inanimate tool] get ahead of a reasonable request.”
Now, your turn. Tell us where you have been wrong typed something of substance wrong, or the like on this issue.
“Once we roll back all of the junk from 1934 to the present…”
Statement of agenda from a VCDL member
John Wilburn goes on record as referring to the machine gun ban as “junk” that he’d like to see repealed.
As I mentioned previously in trying to explain the accelerated aging evident in Phil Van Cleave’s appearance, it’s already a matter of some serious speculation that those with frequent exposure to lead, such as firing range instructors, may be at risk of developing neurological impairment. If NASCAR driver Rick Mast could be forced into early retirement by car fumes, it’s certainly plausible that excessive gun mania could add an unhealthy bit of bluing to the brain.
But for VCDL members to want the repeal of the machine gun ban?
That veers into psychosis.
Jason Perdue:
“As the structure of this sentence implies, you do not separate firearm and character education. They appear as one. One cannot have adequate character education without adequate firearm education. ”
That’s how you want to paint the statement, obviously. You are assuming my positions without objectively reading them. They are independent, but BOTH are sorely needed.
“I stand by my earlier statement. I do not think it is healthy for our children to grow-up thinking, I need a gun to be safe in
this world.”
I don’t think their being killed is healthy. That does not have to be the message. Youth firearm education, demystifying, and breaking the taboo with honest education would solve this. The hoplophobes are terrfied to give this a chance for fear that we are right.
“Tell us where you have been wrong typed something of substance wrong”
(sic)
Incomprehensible request from VCDl member with many years of gun fume exposure
Take several deep breaths and try again, Dave.
This isn’t tag. As I clearly said before in the post where I cited the Tiahrt amendment as but one of the priorities I support, (which you and JW pretended I hadn’t):
There are numerous ideas that I support, both firearms related and others, and I’ll be covering them in various posts, not in some supposedly exhaustive list, because such a complex set of issues necessarily puts ideas in flux, unlike your own manifest belief that every step is already defined.
So I’ll be doing so at the pace of my own thoughful deliberation, not to suit the schedule of another, not even one who evinces a belief in the righteous power of guns. Which is also why many of the items in the docket of the 213th Congress and the 2013 Va. General Assembly are not yet ready for citation.
Breathe, Dave.
It has been quite a shootout, but Warren is out of ammo…
Glad Dave has a high capacity mind.
thoughtful
Jason perdue, Adam Lanza has been taught by his mother that guns are the answer to all problems. Many preppers are teaching their kids similarly, mostly with home armories significantly larger than Lanza ‘s. This won’t be the last prepper related disaster. The households are mental illness Petrie dishes.
JohnW, gun owners gave proven themselves incapable of handling the guns the already have responsibly, or taking responsibility AFTER the fact of some gun-delivered disaster. With the rate of gun deaths in this country, I’d say there’s lots of “freedom”. Now for a little common sense.
“can one of the gun folks explain to me where we’ll be getting the cash to put armed guards in all the schools”
If this is the NRA’s idea, then how about taxing the sale of guns and ammo to the extent that it pays for this? I’m sure they would be ok with that.
Excellent idea, Bill Perdue. Start by tripling the price of ammunition.
I see that neither Dave H, John W, nor any other gun fan can refute what Warren said about the Tiahrt Amendment. All John W can do is make a joke about it. Pretty telling.
Wow Kristen. You know what Adam Lanza’s mother taught him?
And Steve C @ 147. Thank You for demonstrating why this issue, or no other is likely to result in real, effective compromise. The small-minded don’t like being faced with questions they can’t answer so they result to personal attacks and sarcasm. It may draw a laugh from oh so witty liberal friends, but here in reality it really doesn’t add anything to the debate. If you’re so smart, answer the questions. Do you think gun control alone is the answer? My point that sailed right past you, is that you can do just as much damage with a 10-round magazine as you can a 12 or 15 round magazine. That is a cosmetic, feel good measure intended to pacify the uninformed.
Oh, and the next time you decide to throw around your witty little insults, remember something. I’ve walked through the carnage left behind by gun violence. Have you?
John Wilburn,
That’s how you want to paint the statement, obviously. You are assuming my positions without objectively reading them. They are independent, but BOTH are sorely needed.
I don’t think their being killed is healthy. That does not have to be the message. Youth firearm education, demystifying, and breaking the taboo with honest education would solve this. The hoplophobes are terrfied to give this a chance for fear that we are right.
Comments by John Wilburn December 24, 2012 @ 12:57 a.m.
The structure of your sentences say much about the meaning. Quite objectively, you paired firearm education and character education in a way that makes them equal concepts. Your follow-up statement, “I don’t think their being killed is healthy,” further indicates your enthusiastic endorsement of guns is the hub thought processes. Many people go through life unharmed without carrying a gun, but then it seems obvious you will not be moved from your position. So be it.
Warren:
“As I mentioned previously in trying to explain the accelerated aging evident in Phil Van Cleave’s appearance, it’s already a matter of some serious speculation that those with frequent exposure to lead, such as firing range instructors, may be at risk of developing neurological impairment.”
“Incomprehensible request from VCDl member with many years of gun fume exposure
Take several deep breaths and try again, Dave.”
Sure signs of a failing argument.
Bill Perdue:
“If this is the NRA’s idea, then how about taxing the sale of guns and ammo to the extent that it pays for this? I’m sure they would be ok with that.”
Once we tax cars to caver cover drunk drivers.
Chuck:
“That [a magazine limitation] is a cosmetic, feel good measure intended to pacify the uninformed. ”
Gun control in a nutshell!
Warren:
“But for VCDL members to want the repeal of the machine gun ban?
That veers into psychosis.”
Speaking for no one but myself, I’ll say there is a lot of stuff in the NFA of 1934 that makes no sense at all. Full auto is less lethal as it wastes a lot of ammo, whereas belt-fed semi-autos, which are legal, are more potent. Also, A Taurus Judge .410 shotgun-shooting revolver with very short barrel is perfectly legal, but a single-shot shotgun with a 17″ barrel is not unless registered and a $200 tax paid. A short-barreled rifle (under 16″), is less accurate and has many much better pistol-based alternatives, but is still regulated under an antiquated, prohibition-based fear-based reasoning that should never have been implemented. The problem was criminalizing the liquor trade, not the guns. The NFA is a joke today, but there are some people like Warren who still try to imply that is making us safer.
Before you tell us of our “psychosis” Warren, why don’t you get a clue what the NFA is.
“So I’ll be doing so at the pace of my own thoughtful deliberation, not to suit the schedule of another”
Kind of like how you troll for my attention all day when I’m at work, huh? Your anti-liberty position is a loser. Deliberate all day or for the rest of your life, I don’t care.
A number of lefties:
“can one of the gun folks explain to me where we’ll be getting the cash to put armed guards in all the schools”
This would be a much better question coming from people who didn’t just reelect a president who spent trillion dollar deficits each of the last four years. Don’t tell me you all are worried about how we are going to pay for THIS.
Jack @ 8:12 pm
Missed the question earlier.
The rare Mauser C-96 (a.k.a. broomhandle) in the 9mm Mauser Export cartridge and the more common WWI C-96 in the 9×19mm Parabellum.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_eqgpgBNWs5Y/SLGy-CNcvgI/AAAAAAAAAdM/kvNNhQTxiL8/s400/Broomhandle+with+clip+of+ammo.JPG
.
.
Re: gdad @ 10:09 am
I did.
Also see: http://tinyurl.com/cxabapv
**
[David Kopel, July 12, 2007 at 11:21am] Trackbacks
The Tiahrt Amendment:
A reader asked for analysis of the Tiahrt Amendment, which will be voted on today in the House Appropriations Committee. The amendment, which has been a BATFE appropriations rider since 2004, protects the privacy of law-abiding gun owners by restricting disclosure to third parties of various federal records of lawful gun purchases, by enforcing a prior federal law requiring the prompt destruction of National Instant Check System records on lawful purchases, and by forbidding the creation of a computerized federal gun-owner registry. The amendment also partially limits the disclosure of information from federal gun traces–which Chicago Mayor Daley and other politicians have sought, in order to support their lawsuits against gun manufacturers. More detailed information is available from a 2004 article I wrote for National Review Online.
The gun control lobby, with New York City Mayor Bloomberg as the point man, are seeking to eliminate the Tiahrt Amendment entirely, but their public campaign has said almost nothing about the most of the provisions of the amendment. (Even though those provisions are contrary to the lobbies’ support for comprehensive gun-owner registration.) Instead, they claim that the trace provisions interfere with local law enforcement. Notably, Kansas Rep. Tiahrt offered to negotiate technical modifications of the trace language, to the extent necessary to address legitimate law enforcement (as opposed to lawsuit) needs, but Mayor Bloomberg broke off the negotiations.
**
And
http://tinyurl.com/c5adhcu
And
http://tinyurl.com/ch3xbxo
And
http://tinyurl.com/d7g6urw
And
http://tinyurl.com/d7g6urw
And
http://tinyurl.com/crrf4ex
**
Letter to Appropriations Subcommittee in support of Tiahrt Amendment 04/19/2007
16 April 2007
The Honorable Alan B. Mollohan and Rodney Frelinghuysen
Chairman and Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative Frelinghuysen,
I am writing on behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to express our strong support for the inclusion of language in the FY 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill to prohibit disclosure of firearms trace data by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) firearms to non-law enforcement entities.
The FOP has supported this language since the original version was first enacted several years ago because of our concern for the safety of law enforcement officers and the integrity of law enforcement investigations. For example, the disclosure of trace requests can inadvertently reveal the names of undercover officers or informants, endangering their safety. It may also tip off the target of an investigation, as appears to be the case in New York City. According to media reports last year, law enforcement sources cited that as many as “four cases were compromised and an additional 14 were put at risk” by private investigators employed by the city who acted on the basis of trace data. In this case, the investigators conducted “sting” operations for the city’s civil suit against several gun stores that had been identified through firearms trace data. As a result, several gun trafficking suspects under investigation by law enforcement changed their behavior to avoid scrutiny. This is exactly the type of interference that caused the FOP to originally support language restricting the use of the data to law enforcement.
While we recognize that court decisions have reduced the effectiveness of this provision by allowing disclosure of trace data in civil suits, we continue to believe that its inclusion is extremely important and, on behalf of our more than 325,000 members, we urge that it be included in the bill when it is introduced. Thank you in advance for considering our view on this issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director Jim Pasco if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
Chuck Canterbury
National President
cc: The Honorable David R. Obey, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Jerry Lewis, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations
**
“The small-minded don’t like being faced with questions they can’t answer so they result to personal attacks and sarcasm.”
Yes, Chuck, we have seen a good bit of that from the gun lovers.
Chuck @ 10:14
Sorry. I obviously used too many words and gave you too many choices. I can see now how that would have confused you. Here’s an abbreviated do over for your benefit;
You get up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and then find out your dog peed in your Wheaties and you get the red ass and decide to take it out on a handful of strangers at the post office, mall or elementary school, do you
a-grab your muzzle loader off the mantel ____
b-get your 9mil with the 10 shot clip ________
Pick one (1) of the above and get back to me and then I think if we go really slow I can probably explain it to you in a manner you can understand. No, really, I used to teach 5th grade math so I can handle explaining it to you if you have like 45 minutes or so.
Take care and try not to hurt yourself with the above question. It’s okay if you have to use your fingers; I used a weapon with a ten (10) shot clip for a reason.
Wait a sec; I just had a great idea! Instead of just stationing cops at schools, how ‘bout we also mandate that a cop ride shotgun with the fire dept. on all there emergency calls, too?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/firefighter-shot-at-scene-of-blaze-in-western-ny-2-homes-burning-as-police-search-for-shooter/2012/12/24/a73d0b34-4dd2-11e2-835b-02f92c0daa43_story.html?hpid=z2
I mean, just because Wayne LaPierre said that “The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” and in the space of just four days four cops got capped in two separate incidents, that don’t prove him wrong, does it? I know, I know, it probably just my suspicious mind extrapolating things out to logical conclusions again. When people start randomly shooting fireman it in no way, means or fashion does it suggest that we don’t have a gun problem in our country.
Obviously, we need to take LaPierres suggestion and just apply it more broadly; armed cops at the gym, the doctor’s office, church, the lake, the bread Isle at Krogers, the front door at your house and also at work, each street corner, the gas station, up on Mill Mountain, pretty much everywhere where people congregate.
Just to keep us all safe. Makes perfect sense.
Actually, I’m surprised LaPierre didn’t suggest that we all get deputized and we all be required to pack heat. That way we’d all be even that much safer.
Dave Hicks, hoping no one will notice, is trying to only use selectively chosen arguments from earlier years, when in fact the Tiahrt amendment has been subject to debate and revision almost every year since it’s pasage by the Bush era right wing Congress that also gave us domestic spying, waterboarding, huge debt and the Iraq War.
Dave cites the FOP and ignores the far more numerous law enforcement groups that support repeal. More importantly than the fact that they outnumber the FOP position by so many, is that unlike the FOP, (a trade union/fraternal group which takes policy positions along with it’s social, charitable and other activities), they are groups that professionally focus on policy alone. Like the NRA, the positions of the FOP union leadership may or may not reflect the amount of support for those positions among their own members. It’s not too unlike debating defense policy by citing the VFW’s opinion and ignoring dozens of defense policy study groups and the Pentagon itself. To call Dave’s selective FOP citation misleading is an understatement; police leadership across the country overwhelming oppose the Tiahrt amendment.
Dave hasn’t had the intellectual honesty to do more than hint at this, but it appears that his main objection, as it is the NRA’s, is that repeal might give courts better information in civil actions involving guns. From the perspective of a smalltime member of gun goups like Dave Hicks, that might mean, possibly, somehow, greater expense in pursuing their gunner lifestyle in the future. So it’s their own selfish interests, and that of gun manufacturers, that oppose giving everyone as much information as possible about guns in America. They’ll try to invoke privacy boogiemen and rare, often hypothetical scenarios, but there are many very real problems caused by the amendment, so the onus is on the amendment’s defenders to explain why what wasn’t law until 2003 was needed then or now.
since its’ passage
groups
Due to popular request, I’d like to call attention to a mistake I made in a recent post. I wrote “the 213th Congress and the 2013 Va. General Assembly” when in fact of course it’s the 113th Congress that convenes early next year. The Va. Assembly’s “2013″ number must have wanted to jump in there, or maybe I just hit the adjacent “2″ key instead of “1″.
I would also like to offer an example of a gun apologists’ argument that has persuaded me over to their position. That is that the 1994 assault weapons ban was flawed from the start, and did not have definitions of weapons and ammunition that were clear enough or inclusive enough to create a meaningful ban. For their tireless efforts at explaining this, all supporters of new legislation that will accomplish real progress should be grateful.
My father had a Mauser – have no idea where he got it, but as a WWII vet – landed at Normandy – Omaha Beach to be exact – and wounded in the fight at St. Lo, France – probably brought it home as a souvenir. We use to take turns shooting it at targets as kids, but it was a bolt action and the adults would have to get it ready for us to fire. As I remember, it had some serious kick for a 7 year old. My brother now has the rifle since my father passed. Hadn’t thought of the Mauser in many years….thanks for bringing it up!
Hillary:
“My father had a Mauser – have no idea where he got it…Hadn’t thought of the Mauser in many years….thanks for bringing it up!”
Something like this?
http://www.gunslot.com/files/gunslot/images/34664.jpg
Re: Tiahrt Amendment
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/320/repeal-law-that-limits-gun-tracing-by-law-enforcem/
**
Tiahrt amendment modified, not repealed
Updated: Thursday, December 17th, 2009 | By Wes Allison
Wading into the dicey field of gun rights, candidate Barack Obama promised to repeal a law that’s near the top of the most-wanted list for the gun control lobby: the so-called Tiahrt amendment, which limits how much information the federal government can disclose about guns it traces.
SNIP
The ATF now can share information with state and local police about any gun it traces, regardless of whether it was used in a crime. That change was then included in the $1.1 trillion spending bill that cleared Congress in December.
The other elements of the Tiahrt amendment remained the same, including the ban on releasing gun-tracing data to the public. Although the White House pushed for — and got — a change to the most contentious element of the amendment, the change falls far short of a repeal, as Obama had promised gun control advocates.
SNIP
**
So, most of the quotes about not sharing information with state and local police about any gun the feds traces is bogus.
Also see:
http://tinyurl.com/bqxy88d
http://tinyurl.com/cjhl68g
http://tinyurl.com/bucmkbp
http://tinyurl.com/29s8k7a
http://tinyurl.com/bmbdjl2
http://tinyurl.com/cq2p2t3
http://tinyurl.com/cxq6hqc
John W. – My father’s looked a lot like that – long time ago since I last saw it – but the wood was much much darker as I remember. I also recall the kick [husband calls it a recoil] after firing and it sounded loud back then.
Line by line, let’s look at Dave Hicks’ 6:18pm aggregation of links that he thought would bolster the case for keeping the Tiahrt amendment, which exempted gun data from the FOIA, required the FBI to destroy gun data, prohibited annual inventory checks of gun dealers by the government, and after initially blocking most sharing of gun data by the ATF, has been amended to allow some limited disclosure for active criminal cases only.
The first thing to know, which Dave’s use of tinyurls hides, is that except for Politifact, all the sites Dave linked to are hard right wing and/or pro-gun sites. Then, bearing in mind that the amendment undergoes annual discussion and renewal, realize that with only two exceptions Dave’s links are extremely stale, from four to six years old, with only one link out of the eight being less than eleven months old.
The first link, from Politifact and over three years old, addresses the initial efforts of Pres. Obama in keeping a campaign promise to amend the Tiahrt provisions. It’s bottom line rating is that it was a “Compromise”. Hardly damning of the president, and it only addresses process outcomes, not the amendment’s substantive validity.
Next, Dave linked to a nearly two year old OPINION COMMENTARY by none other than the amendment’s author himself, former Congressman Tiahrt. If that’s an unbiased source giving objective analysis, Dave’s a monkee’s uncle’s gun.
Next, he linked to a nearly year old blog opinion post. It appears on a site that aggregates blog posts from anywhere. Again, if Dave Hicks believes that blog opinion posts are the same as objective reporting, he must think Suzie is Bob Woodward’s alter ego.
The next link was a five and a half year old opinionated press release from a conservative astroturf front group, “Project 21″, that claims it’s been a leading voice of black Americans since its’ inception in 1992 by another (not so black) conservative group. Ask one of your black friends if they’ve ever heard of Project 21.
Then we were offered an over six year old commentary (there’s that word again) from the Guntalk pro-gun radio program.
Dave Hicks’ next shot was a critique of AP reporting of the amendment by a site, Newsbusters, whose header proclaims its’ mission as “combating liberal bias”. One wonders if the name “Unskewed Newswires” was taken.
In case anyone hadn’t guessed the ideological slant of the opinion pieces he’d already linked, Dave gives us an over four year old piece on Redstate.com about a tv station in Tiahrt’s district refusing an ad about the amendment. That’s right, Redstate.com, owned by the company whose publishing of fringe works ranges from the founder of the John Birch Society to Ann Coulter. The same Redstate.com whose co-founder Ben Domenech had to resign for plagiarism after only one week working for the Washington Post. This is the site Dave Hicks presents among his best sources.
The last is the most hilarious of all. It’s an amateur youtube video posted over five years ago, which after all that time has, as of this writing, a grand total of 177 views. The video’s poster may not be grateful for Dave Hicks’ endorsement when viewers see how inept the video is, including, after a shot of Mayor Bloomberg at a gay pride parade, a quarter second flash frame of a NORML ad. Dave Hicks must think being one of the select view to watch this feeble video will make you say “A-HA! Proof that the Tiahrt amendment is all that stands between freedom and subjugation!”, because apparently he did just that.
What Dave Hicks hasn’t done is offer his own words for why the Tiahrt amendment was needed in 2003, why it didn’t initially include the fuller sharing of ATF data with law enforcement that was finally included years later by a Democratic Congress, why any of its’ provisions can’t be addressed on their own without being tied to the others, or why we need it at all.
Clearly it’s easier for Dave Hicks to just shotgun a bunch of dated opinion links and hope his use of the word bogus doesn’t ricochet back at him.
Good luck with that, VCDH.
Here is another proposal, which Dan may have alluded to and I know that I have: http://tinyurl.com/chd59sf
**
Reducing Gun Violence By Legalizing Drugs
Ilya Somin • December 21, 2012 10:50 am
In the wake of the Newtown massacre, there has, understandably, been a new wave of advocacy of policy proposals aimed at preventing future incidents of the same kind. However, gun violence in schools is already extremely rare, with the average child far more at risk of dying in a car accident or backyard pool accident than in school. And we are unlikely to reduce the already low incidence of mass shootings by gun control or other policy changes. Fortunately, as Yale law professor Dan Kahan explains at the Cultural Cognition Project blog, we can achieve a significant reduction in gun violence by legalizing drugs:
[W]hile the empirical evidence on the relationship between gun control and homicide is (at this time at least) utterly inconclusive, there certainly are policies out there that we have very solid evidence to believe would reduce gun-related homicides very substantially.
The one at the top of the list, in my view, is to legalize recreational drugs such as marijuana and cocaine.
The theory behind this policy prescription is that illegal markets breed competition-driven violence among suppliers by offering the prospect of monopoly profits and by denying them lawful means for enforcing commercial obligations.
The evidence is ample. In addition to empirical studies of drug-law enforcement and crime rates, it includes the marked increase in homicide rates that attended alcohol prohibition and the subsequent, dramatic deline of it after repeal of the 18th Amendment.
SNIP
**
Oops, I see that Israel says Wayne LaPierre was lying about their gun policies and about their past school shootings. IOW, don’t point to us to try to justify more guns in the U.S.
Comment by Dave Hicks — December 24, 2012 @ 10:42 pm
Legalizing marijuana and cocaine – I definitely support this idea. Not only would it reduce violence, but the incarceration rates of the poorest folks in our society would significantly decrease. Law enforcement and prison industries will oppose vehemently. Worth a good look in my opinion.
Hmmm, good enough for The Goose, but the gander is just out of luck. More “do what I say, not what I do.”
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service
I’m all for legalizing drugs. The criminal drug trade is 21st century prohibition, but with far worse consequences.
Jason Perdue @ 1:33 am
Thanks.
I have been championing it for a long time — for the reasons you cite and as a way to reduce the secondary and often for more violent crime that it spins-off.
Did we learn nothing from Prohibition.
Yet another interesting read:
http://tinyurl.com/bp8sm6v
**
Suicide risk can help us understand school shootings
By Daniel J. Flannery, Special to CNN
updated 9:14 AM EST, Mon December 24, 2012
Editor’s note: Daniel J. Flannery is the Dr. Semi J. and Ruth Begun professor and director of the Begun Center for Violence Prevention, Research and Education at the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences at Case Western Reserve University.
(CNN) — It is hard not to feel a sense of despair, loss and anxiety over the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. We want answers. We may not know for a very long time, if ever, what really motivated the shooter.
Previous studies of school shooters show us that some common mental health symptoms characterize many of the perpetrators, including poor anger management ability, narcissism, low self-esteem and lack of empathy. However, there are still many more differences across shooters than similarities, so to date there is no distinct profile of school shooters.
What can we do, aside from the psychological autopsying of recent incidents, to try and prevent more homicide school shootings? There is no simple answer. But we can take some lessons from what we know about risk for suicide.
SNIP
**
http://tinyurl.com/bocgn76
**
The case for gun rights is stronger than you think
By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor
updated 3:54 PM EST, Wed December 19, 2012
STORY HIGHLIGHTS:
√ – William Bennett: Arming, training one person in a school could help prevent shootings
√ – He says armed people have stopped instances of mass killing
√ – Killers may target places where they know they can’t be shot down, Bennett says
√ – Bennett: Guns help prevent crime and improve public safety
SNIP
**
Dave Hicks, do you recall that Bill Bennett was the Drug Czar under Reagan and George H. W. Bush? As Drug Czar, Bennett had a key role in escalating the war on drugs, a war we both agree was ill-conceived, yet you now cite him as a credible source for arming educators. Interesting dichotomy, in my opinion. I acknowledge that I do not care much for Mr. Bennett’s brand of moralizing.
Actually, you will recall that the Democrats controlled most of the government when the War on Drugs began.
Yes, Chuck, we have seen a good bit of that from the gun lovers.
Comment by gdad — December 24, 2012 @ 1:09 pm
And from you.
I’m guessing that in the minds of our gun owners it doesn’t matter that the nut who killed the firefighters had easy access to some of our 300 million guns. If he couldn’t have gotten a gun, he would have just attacked them with a knife or his car.
#198…You got any better ideas, stevie C ? No, of course not…just attack any idea that doesn`t fit into your little utopian bubble.
Gun Sales UP in Virginia again…Nice when responsible people do the right thing.
I’m sure everyone’s read by now that the guy who shot those firemen used the same Bushmaster Lanza used in the school. That nice agile easily-maneuvered “defensive” weapon.
Maybe we need to start arming firefighters? Or Send an armed guard with each fire truck?
I saw a sign once saying something like, “When a pre-schooler hits another child with a rock – you don’t give all the other kids rocks. You take the rocks away.”
Quit picking on the Bushmaster, Kristen! It’s simply a tool, like a hex wrench. The guy could have just as easily killed them with some Beanie Babies or other just-as-threatening objects.
Lots of AR-15s, short shotguns, and a Mini-14 on the range yesterday. The brass was flying and families were having a great time.
I hate to be a blog nanny, but seriously Dan, is Jeff Doto exempt from the civility rule regarding other bloggers names or has the civility rule been done away with?
220.He could have gotten a gun regardless of ANY anti-gun law.Do the current drug laws on the books prevent people from buying drugs ? We have always had guns and we always will…laws or no laws…get used to it Gdump.
Comment by Jeff Doto — December 26, 2012 @ 9:54 am
Debbie, those posts are gone. Thanks for the catch.
Debbie, Cold n P and gdad are just aliases anyway. It isn’t the same as making fun of someone’s real name, IMO. It’s childish, but says everything about Jeff Doto and nothing about Cold n P or gdad.
You’re welcome, Dan.
Interesting gun article from the Journal of the American Medical Association here (proceed with caution; this contains actual facts and does not take sides!):
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
“Injury prevention research can have real and lasting effects. Over the last 20 years, the number of Americans dying in motor vehicle crashes has decreased by 31%. Deaths from fires and drowning have been reduced even more, by 38% and 52%, respectively. This progress was achieved without banning automobiles, swimming pools, or matches. Instead, it came from translating research findings into effective interventions.
Given the chance, could researchers achieve similar progress with firearm violence? It will not be possible to find out unless Congress rescinds its moratorium on firearm injury prevention research. Since Congress took this action in 1997, at least 427,000 people have died of gunshot wounds in the United States, including more than 165,000 who were victims of homicide. To put these numbers in context, during the same time period, 4,586 Americans lost their lives in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I agree, John W, but the civility rules were for screen names too, not just real names. You either enforce it completely or not at all.
Lots of AR-15s, short shotguns, and a Mini-14 on the range yesterday. The brass was flying and families were having a great time.
Comment by John Wilburn — December 26, 2012 @ 11:49 am
What a great way to spend Christmas day, the day that represents more than any other the spirit of peace and loge. Can’t think of anything I’d rather do than take my family and kids out to learn how to use weapons of killing and destruction. Sickness abonds.
I must be making some valid points.
Good old Doto, always the classy guy.
So had Wayne LaPieree retracted his lies about Israel yet? Or is he too busy scaring people and selling guns?
To spend Christmas on a gun range shooting off rounds I find so against what Christ was trying to teach. I guess there are no
Christians on the gun range.
Bill Hudson, what on earth is wrong with families enjoying marksmanship on a day they can all be together? Enjoy your selective Christianity and let them enjoy theirs.
The NRA response to twenty first graders in Connecticut being slaughtered with a Bushmaster rifle?
Greatly increase guns in the school environment. (No other response given).
The NRA response to mass murder with a Bushmaster rifle in a Colorado movie theater?
That was not the time to talk about guns. (No other response given).
The NRA and VCDL philosophy applied to the D.C. snipers killing people with a Bushmaster rifle while those people loaded groceries and pumped gas?
If those murdered didn’t have a hidden handgun, they had chosen to stay in a “victim pool”(!). (No other response given).
The NRA response to the sniper killings of two upstate New York firemen with a Bushmaster rifle?
History indicates it’s to fight fire with firearms. (But no other response given).
Can you spot the similarities?
If not, the NRA and VCDL are committed to giving you more examples until you understand their position. And they insist that no other response will be given.
Guess which poster reported having had “a great time” with guns the very next day after two responding firemen were killed by a sniper?
Whoever it was, they proved they regarded those killings of someone they don’t know personally as merely an abstraction, because while they had something enthusiastically positive to say about their own great time with guns, they had nothing to say in sympathy to the victim’s families.
The word “mindset” applies here.
Are the lives that guns allegedly save ever expected to give a damn about others?
Planning a trip to the northern NYC suburbs?
Here’s a handy map to help you plan your trip:
http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1
(NO VCDL members were harmed in the making of this map).
Actually, you will recall that the Democrats controlled most of the government when the War on Drugs began.
Comment by Henry — December 26, 2012 @ 8:06 am
Henry, I think you will find that both Republicans and Democrats have enthusiastically supported the war on drugs because it made them look tough on crime, which helped get them re-elected. Neither party can lay claim to any high ground regarding severe drug laws and the disproportionate impact on the poor.
Interesting gun article from the Journal of the American Medical Association here (proceed with caution; this contains actual facts and does not take sides!):
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470
Comment by Say What? — December 26, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
Excellent link! Well worth the read.
We also recall that William Bennett was revealed to be a compulsive gambler who lost millions of the dollars he made selling morality advice.
Bennett’s a less extroverted version of Dick Morris.
So Jason Perdue was more than fair to Dave Hicks to say there’s a dichotomy in citing the armed schools opinions Bennett’s selling while ignoring his authoritarian bona fides.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2003/05/bill_bennetts_bad_bet.html
It is not being so selective but oh boy I never have read turn the other cheek or I’ll turn my gun on you. If one was to take the essence of what Jesus was all about it is the opposite of what you might be professing. Or are you saying if Jesus was around these days he would have a warm AR-15? Man, that is so very strange.
Bill, apparently you never read where Jesus told his disciples to sell their cloaks and buy swords either. The Bible is a very violent book, too. If Jesus and the disciples had a 2012 counterpart, an AR-15 worn on a sling would be right at home on the disciples’ back.
I would imagine that in these families that shoot together as “entertainment” , the parents are extremely respectful towards their kids.
I’m guessing the Menendez parents didn’t take Lyle and Erik to the shooting range, Kristen.
Kristen:
“I would imagine that in these families that shoot together as “entertainment” , the parents are extremely respectful towards their kids.”
The key word in your post is “imagine”. There are lots of loving families who shoot together. Getting to go to the range is an incentive for good behavior and good grades too. Range time ranks higher than a trip to the mall for a lot of kids.
“Interesting gun article from the Journal of the American Medical Association here (proceed with caution; this contains actual facts and does not take sides!):”
Interesting read, and quite depressing to once again behold the efforts the gun lobby will go to — even when they know what they’re doing will end up costing some people their lives.
Debbie:
“I’m guessing the Menendez parents didn’t take Lyle and Erik to the shooting range, Kristen.”
Being from anti-gun NJ, you’re probably right.
gdad:
“Interesting read, and quite depressing to once again behold the efforts the gun lobby will go to — even when they know what they’re doing will end up costing some people their lives.”
You mean like when people fight to keep armed security and teachers out of schools knowing that WHEN the next murdered goes into the school, it will cost people their lives?
Well as I might of guess your selective version is so way off base, really way off. So I guess your version of turn the other cheek is I will blow them away..oh boy.
As to if I did not study what Jesus was saying, I did 5 years with the O.F.M. Caps back in the 60′s and carrying fire arms never came up. I think you are reading maybe a bible from Texas.
Given their love of violent video games, I am more than certain some teens would cherish a day at a live shooting range. I believe there was footage of the Columbine shooters “practicing” too. We know the Newtown shooter went to the range for fun and to “prepare” as well. Oh what fun!
“The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).”
From the link “Say What” offered.
Obviously this is about much, much more than self defense and gun rights. This effort to suppress and repress any discussion, research, education and prevention of death is very telling IMO. Gun advocates have much to answer for. Protecting and defending irresponsible gun owners and practices is just the tip of the iceberg.
Sandi Saunders:
“Gun advocates have much to answer for.”
Folks who insist on keeping schools unarmed and vulnerable should be in the hot seat WHEN the next school slaughter happens.
“Protecting and defending irresponsible gun owners and practices is just the tip of the iceberg.”
Anti-rights people can’t be credible when they say they want some long list of stuff banned and then say “That’s just for starters”. Talk about tip of the iceberg.
Sandi or other bloggers, have you ever shot an AR-15 or AK-47? It’s really cool. I’m sorry you have peers that you are afraid to let know you have fun if you shoot one.
Bill Hudson:
“So I guess your version of turn the other cheek is I will blow them away..oh boy.”
That is crazy nonsense!
Kristen: “I would imagine that in these families that shoot together as “entertainment” , the parents are extremely respectful towards their kids.”
My husband, my 11-year old daughter, and myself go to the range together. I have a few pictures of her shooting her .22 rifles, and also our AR-15.
Maybe the regular bloggers here who have met my daughter can opine on whether I need to fear being murdered in my sleep
@255 Mr. Wilburn, I personally have never shot an AR-15 or AK-47 but would like to some day. I imagine it would be a lot of fun.
Forgive me because I’ve not read most of the comments so my assumptions about your position could be wrong! Can’t we go to the shooting range and rent a gun instead of putting them into the hands of private individuals.
By the same token, I think it would be OK if someone wanted to rent a tank at a closed course with knowledgeable people and shoot things with that. That would be REALLY FUN.
But most people don’t need a tank either.
VT Hokie LOL. If nothing else, her dad won’t have to worry about her dates getting too frisky.
Unless your daughter is mentally disturbed she should be able to maintain her composure and never shoot you or anyone else VT Hokie, have you had to? That is your responsibility to insure. If she was mentally unstable, isolated, combative, and had trouble in school, would you still take her to the range and allow her to shoot guns at targets shaped like humans?
I personally would never have allowed my perfectly stable and normal 11 year-old to shoot a semi-automatic military styled weapon, but that is certainly your call to make.
I have never shot a gun of any kind in my life and I have no intention of ever doing so. I see no need.
I maintain that gun advocates have far more to answer for than those who do not believe more guns is the answer to gun violence John Wilburn.
The ATF is “tasked with stopping guns from being trafficked into Mexico’s vicious drug war.
Some call it the “parade of ants”; others the “river of iron.” The Mexican government has estimated that 2,000 weapons are smuggled daily from the U.S. into Mexico. The ATF is hobbled in its effort to stop this flow. No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking within the U.S., so agents must build cases using a patchwork of often toothless laws. For six years, due to Beltway politics, the bureau has gone without permanent leadership, neutered in its fight for funding and authority. The National Rifle Association has so successfully opposed a comprehensive electronic database of gun sales that the ATF’s congressional appropriation explicitly prohibits establishing one.”
http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
Even in the most seriously high traffic areas, the NRA and gun advocates tie the hands of law enforcement. The blood is on their hands. There is no other way to look at it.
Gun advocates admit that there are many other guns that could serve the purpose of the military styled assault rifles favored by gangs, drug lords, mass shooters and video gamers who idealize them, but still refuse the idea of banning them. They admit that there are other fast loading magazines and gun combinations that would do the defense job easily, yet they still refuse the idea of banning the high round magazines.
There is something wrong with people who think these thug guns should remain in circulation. Even if they are “fun” to shoot. Marijuana was not always illegal, neither was “Moonshine”.
#256 Of course that is nonsense but the idea of peace and love (Jesus’s message)fly in the face of the logic that somehow one can own heavy duty firearms and believes down deep in the message of what Jesus was saying. Or another words that is pure nonsense.
I am way behind in my blog and RSS feed reading, having spent most of the 26th in the ER, having leep in most of the morning, and now not feeling so good & on restricted activities. Not all that serious, but a pain, nevertheless.
But before I go back to bed, I want to respond Re: Bill Hudson bible study 11:03 am comment:
Matt 5:39 “That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
A slap on the cheek is neither a deadly force assault, nor likely to cause serious harm.
At that time and in that culture, a slap on the face was simply an insult. Evil? Yes. Deadly? No. Causing serious harm? No.
The same is true, today, under Virginia’s common law stand-your-grounds-court cases.
An insult is not worth fighting over — killing or being killed over. No Christian should respond to a simple evil with deadly force. Additionally, we should not do anything else to escalate the situation into a deadly encounter. “Resist not evil” is still in play. [As an aside, under Virginia law typically you cannot use deadly force to stop the simple evil of property crime.]
Nothing here involves a threat to an innocent’s life. Jesus is just giving good tactical advice for many situations, which do not call for the use of deadly force.
Under Virginia common law you must have reasonable grounds to believe that you or some innocent person are/is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Heated words, vague threats, and the possibility of future harm are not enough. The harm must be serious and imminent.
The danger needs be such that you reasonably believe that you could only save yourself or another innocent by the use of deadly force.
The standards for the use of any non-deadly force (other weapons, bare hands, feet, etc) is the same as shooting. So it is good advice to “resist not evil” — so as to avoid escalating the situation into a deadly encounter.
Be well and take care of yourself Dave Hicks!
Take care, Dave Hicks. Rest and get well soon.
Indeed, be well Dave Hicks.
Thank you for that feedback Dave and here is hoping you get better. We are only on this earth for such a short time so we might as well get along, why not the alternative is not something I want to go to.
Sandi Saunders:
“I personally would never have allowed my perfectly stable and normal 11 year-old to shoot a semi-automatic military styled weapon…”
Why? I really want to know what the reason would be for not allowing this. With proper supervision, it is very safe. Much safer than skateboarding, FWIW.
“I have never shot a gun of any kind in my life and I have no intention of ever doing so. I see no need.”
Well, asked and answered…. the fear of the unknown. Don’t you at least want to have some tangible experience with a gun?
From CNN:
200 Utah educators take class on handling, having concealed gun in class
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/utah-teachers-weapons/index.html
What else would you expect in Utah. That state, along with Idaho probably leads the nation in conspiratorial nut groups per capita.
Straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Confiscation for all but the extremely wealthy. Handguns included.
I see no point to handling guns, not for myself and certainly not for children 11 years old. There were many things my children wanted, even asked for that I explained they could get or do when they were legally adults and not until. They never had a gun, ATV, snake, or trampoline either. The “loss” does not seem to have stunted them in any way. They still don’t have any of them. If I would not allow my 11 year old to have a trampoline or an ATV, why would I want them handling a gun? If I do not believe in carrying a gun or a gun as a solution to a problem, why would I teach either to my children? Being adults now, they are free to make such decisions for themselves, regardless of my opinion. Which is how it should be IMO.
I have told you many times, I do not fear guns. I grew up around guns, my husband has guns. I choose not to have one, not to handle one and not to depend on one. I can see how you could not fathom that, but there are millions just like me and it has nothing to do with fear. I do not fear death either.
“I served a tour of duty with a Marine rifle company in Vietnam; while covering the Lebanese civil war as a newspaper correspondent, I was seriously wounded by AK-47 fire.”
“From both the giving and receiving end, I am intimately familiar with what these weapons are designed to do, and that is to kill people. As many as possible as quickly as possible.”
“I’m also a hunter who owns shotguns and bolt-action rifles, none of which can hold more than five rounds. Not only do regulations in most states prohibit hunters from entering the field with the firepower of an infantry platoon, it’s considered unsportsmanlike.”
“Apparently, we value the lives of our deer and ducks more than we do the lives of our children. That’s partly why the NRA’s suggestion that all U.S. schools should have armed guards is as insulting as it is absurd.”
http://silive.com/opinion/columns/index.ssf/2012/12/semiautomatic_firearms_are_wea.html
I have always wanted to shoot a minigun. Kind of a bucket list thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nug5FZgxuk
I’m planning a trip to Knob Creek in April and should have the opportunity.
Sandi, your comments on December 27, 2012 @ 8:50 pm are profoundly well reasoned and quite logical. That you understand why John Wilburn feels they way he does is entirely in keeping with your demonstrated intellect on these threads. Perhaps eventually, gun rights advocates will come to understand why so many of us choose not to bear arms.
Debbie, thanks for the link at 2:53 p.m. on December 28, 2012. A strong statement in favor of restricting unnecessary weapons and high-capacity magazines, and an equally strong statement in support of the rights of sportsmen.
Sandi Saunders:
“I personally would never have allowed my perfectly stable and normal 11 year-old to shoot a semi-automatic military styled weapon…”
Why? I really want to know what the reason would be for not allowing this. With proper supervision, it is very safe. Much safer than skateboarding, FWIW.
Well, asked and answered…. the fear of the unknown. Don’t you at least want to have some tangible experience with a gun?
Comment by John Wilburn — December 27, 2012 @ 5:20 pm
John Wilburn, in 2011, 42 skateboarders died as a result of skateboarding accidents. Not sure what percentage of skateboarders that represents. Best I can tell, there were no suicides by skateboard nor any intnetional skateboard deaths.
Annually, guns cause around 575 accidental deaths. Suicides and intentional gun deaths total another 29,000 or so. Tell
me again which is safer …
“Fear of the unknown” is your construct, John Wilburn, to rationalize your unwavering support of firearms and their character building properties. It goes without saying that you are very knowledgeable in this area, far more so than I. However, sadly, there is precious little “unknown” about the dangers associated with firearms.
Jason Perdue:
“Debbie, thanks for the link at 2:53 p.m. on December 28, 2012. A strong statement in favor of restricting unnecessary weapons and high-capacity magazines, and an equally strong statement in support of the rights of sportsmen.”
Actually, it seems that he is trying to relate rules for hunters to rules for murderers. ????? My dad was a rifleman in Vietnam also with lots of experience in combat and three bronze battle stars to his credit. He has seen all that the AK-47, M-14, and M-16 (military version of the AR-15) can do and remains 100% on the pro-rights side of the gun ownership issue.
wayne goodman in response to Utah teachers training to carry in their classrooms:
“What else would you expect in Utah. That state, along with Idaho probably leads the nation in conspiratorial nut groups per capita.”
In contrast to his disparaging remarks about these teachers who not only care enough about their students to actually protect them, but are willing to endure insults by thankless anti-gun zealots, Utah teachers, I salute you.
What I find fascinating about the Utah teachers is the quaint notion that they should have to undergo any in-person training whatsoever.
Obviously, they’ve never heard of Virginia’s 100 percent, 1-hour, ONLINE “handgun competence” course, in which you can kick back, put up your legs, and sip beer in the comfort of your own home while becoming fully qualified (from a “training” aspect) to carry concealed in the Old Dominion.
Those silly Utah teachers! They’re so behind the times!
/sarcasm font off
Dan, I’m training a Virginia teacher in my next class!
“My dad was a rifleman in Vietnam also with lots of experience in combat and three bronze battle stars to his credit. He has seen all that the AK-47, M-14, and M-16 (military version of the AR-15) can do and remains 100% on the pro-rights side of the gun ownership issue.”
Comment by John Wilburn — December 28, 2012 @ 7:05 pm
A strong statement as well. My thanks to your father for his service to our country.