I think the questions we SHOULDN'T be asking are the "will it pass" type. Those are the questions that lead us to do the same thing we've always done. To me the better type of questions are "what will work". Think outside the partisan box and see if there is actually something that can work.

 

Libertarians, such as yourself, rarely, if ever, use the state as a serious solution to a problem.

I think the questions we SHOULDN'T be asking are the "will it pass" type. Those are the questions that lead us to do the same thing we've always done. To me the better type of questions are "what will work". Think outside the partisan box and see if there is actually something that can work.

See, that's what I want. But what are we hearing? What do we always hear when some nut ball does something like this? Gun control. That's not thinking outside the partisan box and I truly don't think it works. You have no idea how much I want a solid solution, but again, I don't want one based solely on emotion.

Seems 1st Amendment may fall before 2nd Amendment.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4CT4boLPrU

 

I think he might be referring to "libel" which is already on the books and "false information" that ascribes facts from the authorities can be prosecuted.

 

I would assume that is what he is really getting at. Hyperbole to ask the social media (except BGP of course) to cut the crap.

OK, Just was not sure how that statement melded with the question.

 

I have tried not to think of the carnage related to this. It had nothing to to do with any specific technology of firearm. The same carnage could have been done with almost any type of firearm. Pistol, shotgun, 5 round capacity, 14 round capacity - it did not matter. If the reports are correct the shooter had to reload multiple times if he had to reload 2x as many times the same result would occur. A 10-gauge was in the car (supposedly so was the BM at first) and a 6 shot 10-gauge shotgun could have been equally bad in an indoor enclosed area. The technology did not do this. It was not even a contributor. Limit the technology and the same thing happens with different technology. Demented minds are creative they will work around 'bans'.

 

Just to support your argument...

 

 

This thing is far from an AR-15...yet I'd argue just as effective with the right ammo.

Edited December 17, 201213 yr by Lucky Charms

TRUST ME, I am by no means asking questions on emotion.

 

P.S. I have taken nothing personal. Truly hope you haven't either.

Oh, I don't mean you on the emotional comment. I mean lawmakers.

 

Glad you haven't and I haven't either. What some of you may forget is this debate hits closer to home for me, so I take it very serious and for good reason.

First, I don't see a complete ban ever making it due to the change that would be required for a consitutional change. Too much opposition. But even if it were possible I don't see how it could be effective due to the sheer number of guns already in the hands of criminals or unregistered. It sounds like a ban would leave these criminals as the only ones with the guns. Does that make everyone feel safer?

I haven't read through the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been said. But.... Ever notice that the places where these shootings occur are the places where guns aren't allowed? Bad people will always be able to get their weapon and have it with them wherever they plan to strike. That's just an unavoidable fact. They strategically choose to go to the place with least resistance so they can wreak as much havoc as possible before either being caught or taking their own life. If we ban guns, we are opening up the entire nation as the place with least resistance. Then, nowhere becomes safe. That's certainly not the country I want to live in.

 

I'm not sure what the best path to take is, but we need to keep weapons in the hands of the good people who can use them to protect.

 

Libertarians, such as yourself, rarely, if ever, use the state as a serious solution to a problem.

 

I agree. But I do believe that there is legitimate concern our proliferation of guns isn't protecting the innocent. But right now I don't have an answer or a stance. I do believe the 2nd amendment gives us some rights to own guns. But I do not feel it gives us the right to posses whatever we choose. That much I know.

 

Even though it may sometimes seem that way I'm not an anarchist.

I haven't read through the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been said. But.... Ever notice that the places where these shootings occur are the places where guns aren't allowed? Bad people will always be able to get their weapon and have it with them wherever they plan to strike. That's just an unavoidable fact. They strategically choose to go to the place with least resistance so they can wreak as much havoc as possible before either being caught or taking their own life. If we ban guns, we are opening up the entire nation as the place with least resistance. Then, nowhere becomes safe. That's certainly not the country I want to live in.

 

I'm not sure what the best path to take is, but we need to keep weapons in the hands of the good people who can use them to protect.

 

Aurora Theater was a public place. Was conceal/carry not a possibility there?

 

Here's a list of recent mass shootings in the US.

 

Nov. 5, 2009: The Army says 13 people were killed and 30 wounded in a shooting rampage at its Fort Hood base in Texas. The suspected lone gunman has been identified as Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan, one of the 30 injured.

 

April 3, 2009: A 41-year-old man opened fire at an immigrant community center in Binghamton, N.Y., killing 11 immigrants and two workers. Jiverly Wong, a Vietnamese immigrant and a former student at the center, killed himself as police rushed to the scene.

 

Feb. 14, 2008: Former student Steven Kazmierczak, 27, opened fire in a lecture hall at Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, fatally shooting five students and wounding 18 others before committing suicide.

 

Dec. 5, 2007: 19-year-old Robert A. Hawkins opened fire with a rifle in Omaha, Neb., at a Von Maur store in the Westroads Mall, killing eight people before taking his own life. Five more people were wounded, two critically.

 

April 16, 2007: Cho Seung-Hui, 23, fatally shot 32 people in a dorm and a classroom at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, then killed himself in the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

 

Feb. 12, 2007: 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic killed five and wounded four at the Trolley Square mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. He was then shot and killed by police.

 

Oct. 2, 2006: Charles Carl Roberts IV, 32, shot to death five girls at West Nickel Mines Amish School in Pennsylvania, then killed himself.

 

March 21, 2005: 16-year-old student Jeffrey Weise killed nine people, including his grandfather and his grandfather's companion at home, and then five fellow students, a teacher and a security guard at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota, before killing himself. Seven students were wounded.

 

March 12, 2005: Terry Ratzmann, 44, gunned down members of his congregation as they worshipped at the Brookfield Sheraton in Brookfield, Wisconsin, slaying seven and wounding four before killing himself.

 

July 29, 1999: Former day trader Mark Barton, 44, killed nine people in shootings at two Atlanta, Georgia, brokerage offices, then committed suicide.

 

April 20, 1999: Students Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, opened fire at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, killing 12 classmates and a teacher and wounding 26 others before committing suicide in the school's library.

 

March 24, 1998: Andrew Golden, 11, and Mitchell Johnson, 13, killed four girls and a teacher at a Jonesboro, Arkansas, middle school. 10 others were wounded in the shooting.

 

October 16, 1991: George Hennard, 35, smashed his pickup truck through a Luby's Cafeteria window in Killeen, Texas, and fired on the lunchtime crowd with a high-powered pistol, killing 22 people. At least 20 others were wounded.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2009/11/06/partial-list-recent-mass-shootings-united-states/#ixzz2FMGKGRWX

 

The bolded are all public places. Don't know the carry/conceal laws in each but worth recognizing and asking would the concealed weapons have ended it sooner?

 

Ft Hood, the guy is on an army base but is unable to be stopped before killing many.

 

It's not just schools that are the places evil people do these things. It's much broader than that IMO.

Edited December 18, 201213 yr by Hatz

Aurora Theater was a public place. Was conceal/carry not a possibility there?

 

...

 

 

The theater had the no-firearms signs posted. Not sure the law in Colorado - if you can just post the sign and declare your business a no-CCL area or if you have to apply to 'opt-out'.

 

I posted earlier that one thing to be looked at is if areas are designated as no-firearms - including or especially not even CCL/CCW allowed - that they should have improved security. There are areas where having guns is not the answer - schools being the prime example. But if you are going this route you should take steps - lockable doors with bullet resistant glass, metal detectors, buffered vestibule entrances, etc. to protect the zone. Yes, its extra and it cost more.

 

I know in Luby's case at the time Texas, yes Texas, did NOT allow CCL inside businesses. Dr. Susan Gratia's testimony is about this case. Her parents were killed. Youtube link

In the case of Foot Hood. The post was a gun free zone. Soldiers were specifically NOT allowed to carry firearms on post. They were soldiers were disarmed.

The theater had the no-firearms signs posted. Not sure the law in Colorado - if you can just post the sign and declare your business a no-CCL area or if you have to apply to 'opt-out'.

 

I posted earlier that one thing to be looked at is if areas are designated as no-firearms - including or especially not even CCL/CCW allowed - that they should have improved security. There are areas where having guns is not the answer - schools being the prime example. But if you are going this route you should take steps - lockable doors with bullet resistant glass, metal detectors, buffered vestibule entrances, etc. to protect the zone. Yes, its extra and it cost more.

 

I know in Luby's case at the time Texas, yes Texas, did NOT allow CCL inside businesses. Dr. Susan Gratia's testimony is about this case. Her parents were killed. Youtube link

In the case of Foot Hood. The post was a gun free zone. Soldiers were specifically NOT allowed to carry firearms on post. They were soldiers were disarmed.

 

Thanks for the input. With a truck running through the front window, there's no telling how anyone could have responded that "might" be packing. The argument for "packing" is always that because you have it, you can subdue the assailant. I think that's a hard assumption that doesn't take into account human nature and reaction.

 

I keep going back to magazine size. Look up some of those killings and see the hardware and magazines with 17 shot magazines in some pistols.

 

I also note how many of those sites are just a part of life. Public places, work places, schools.

 

As to the ideas about vestibules and some of the upkeep, the cost would be crippling to public school budgets and probably privates as well. With current economic conditions in the Federal budget there is no help there. In many poor counties they can barely afford to keep up let alone revamp systems on their local tax dollars.

 

There are no easy answers but I appreciate the dialogue from both sides of the spectrum.

^ - CCL did work in Portland. And in Florida when the senior citizen defended the internet cafe. CCL keeps the bad guys from KNOWING they will have unchallenged opportunity. It is not a solve-all. But I know a lot of CCL people. I want them around if things go bad.

For those in the know, isn't there an issue with gun shows not requiring a background check before purchasing?

 

Every purchase I ever made at the one in Louisville involved a background check.

Magazine could be an issue. I know you don't think it will help but most high round magazines have not been that available to the general public till about 20 or so years ago, right?

 

In the Columbine Shooting; one gun had a 15 round capacity I think and the other semi-auto could hold many rounds.

 

Same with this week.

 

Same with the Aurora Theater shooting.

 

In fact, in the Columbine Shooting the other two weapons were shotguns and inside were used far less than the above rifle and semi-auto pistol. In fact they fired 55 and 96 from the 9mm weapons and only 12 and 21 from the shotguns.

 

I think the VA Tech shooter had 2 pistols with 10 and 17 shot mags I believe.

 

My point is that large volume means fewer pauses to reload. Fewer chances to "jump" the assailant or get away.

 

In my opinion, it's worth noting and discussing.

 

http://www.acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

 

http://www.vpc.org/studies/vatechgunsbackgrounder.pdf

 

To the bolded, no. As long as there have been military firearms with high capacity magazines there have been civilian versions. Since the 1920s all fully automatic firearms have been tightly controlled and regulated. Any of those require a Class III license or the highest ranking law enforcement official in your municipality to sign off on it. More often than not though your dealers licensed for such firearms won't sell to anyone without a Class III license which has an entirely different set of requirements to it.

Why? Because you don't like it? I provide this link:

 

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths - Max Fisher - The Atlantic

 

It seems to work...

 

The opposite is effective in Switzerland as well. Most adults have assault rifles per their country's laws and have to qualify with them regularly. 420,000 assault rifles (not just weapons that look like an assault rifle mind you, select fire weapons capable of fully automatic fire) are in the homes, 2010 reported 40 firearm related homicides.