Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by broncosteven

Now you are talking!

[jerseyguy4]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Statistically speaking, burglars rob more houses with gun owners than without. It doesn't mean they prefer to rob gun owners. It means that there is no evidence to support the claim that having a gun in the house does anything to prevent burglaries on said house. There is a big difference between those two stances, and the latter disproves the theory that since I have a gun in my house, I am less likely to be robbed.

I don't actually doubt this. Unless I have a sign out front warning people of my armed status, a burglar wouldn't know the difference from the outside of who is armed and who isn't.
What I don't like is the statement that 'there is no evidence that gun ownership deters burglary'.
If I KNEW a homeowner had easy access to a gun, I would not burglarize the house. Or, if all home owners had easy access to guns, there would be less home burglary, most especially when homeowners were home.

I do not need a phd to come to this conclusion.

Furthermore, research shows that households that have guns are much more likely to have gun accidents. So not only are you really not protecting yourself or your family, you're actually putting them in more danger.

I agree, no surprise.

That was the point of the paper.

I'm not going to belabor this point any more, because it's obvious that you do not have it in you to debate honestly. You're just claiming that (for the millionth time) a peer-reviewed article published by a medical professional is bunk because you think so.

It's clear to me that you have no background in research methodology, otherwise you wouldn't be so afraid of facts and figures published and reviewed by people with far greater knowledge of a subject.

Don't be afraid of science.

Haha, fairly incorrect. I won't mention what I do, because this is the internet and you wouldn't believe me anyway.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by houghtam

It's good to know that you know what the "true intention" of the 2nd Amendment was.

You're insinuating that the 2nd Amendment was made so that people could overthrow their government. I say that is a silly argument because a new government would not put a provision in it to allow its people to overthrow it.

Yeah, totally. There's no way that a bunch of guys who just violently overthrew their government would think it necessary to protect the ability to violently resist a government.

Luckily their words left you little material with which to delude yourself.

And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

-Thomas Jefferson
(as Constitutional as Separation of Church and State)

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by Dedhed

This is a ridiculous over-simplification of the issue and sadly par for the course.

Which is obviously over your dedhed..

Panty waisted liberals.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by jerseyguy4

I don't actually doubt this. Unless I have a sign out front warning people of my armed status, a burglar wouldn't know the difference from the outside of who is armed and who isn't.
What I don't like is the statement that 'there is no evidence that gun ownership deters burglary'.
If I KNEW a homeowner had easy access to a gun, I would not burglarize the house. Or, if all home owners had easy access to guns, there would be less home burglary, most especially when homeowners were home.

I do not need a phd to come to this conclusion.

Do the research on criminology. Or just watch an episode of "It Takes A Thief". The primary factor determining whether a burglar targets a house is how quickly they can get in and out. Having a gun in the house will not change this, and more than likely, even with your fingerprint safe and gun, your house will statistically have been burgled long before you are able to mount any response. This means that in a home invasion where the perpetrator is intent on physical harm, it's also more likely that they will get to you or yours before you get to them.

Personally, I feel safer in my house without guns (although I do own a Model 1861 Springfield rifled musket) than I would with them.

But then again, no one is asking you to give up your guns. Most of us would just prefer not to live in a society where people who admittedly never have and likely never will have the need to carry a gun on their person still want to do so anyway. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where one of the most popular rifles is not a modified M-16. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where the reason you can't get a 100 round magazine is because there is no reason a normal person (I mean this both physiologically and psychologically) needs one, not because they are sold out.

Own your handguns and hunting rifles with reasonable regulation on who can own them, with reasonable regulation on what types and how much ammunition they can carry, with reasonable regulation of muzzle velocity and caliber. I have no problem with any of that, regardless of whether racist errand thinks I'm lying or not.

What I do have a problem with is people buying an M-16 and calling it a hunting rifle. What I do have a problem with is people who perform the mental gymnastics required to come up with any legitimate reason to own a high capacity magazine. What I do have a problem with is carrying handguns like it's the 1870's and John Hardin's going to shoot you for cheating at cards. A populace walking around with holstered weapons in broad daylight is not the hallmark of a healthy, sane, or (statistically speaking ) safe society.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Yeah, totally. There's no way that a bunch of guys who just violently overthrew their government would think it necessary to protect the ability to violently resist a government.

Luckily their words left you little material with which to delude yourself.



-Thomas Jefferson
(as Constitutional as Separation of Church and State)

Gotcha, so are you in agreement with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that any bearable arms are protected? Should I be able to own a rocket launcher or a military grade sniper rifle with a silencer? Where do you draw the line? From what basis?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Gotcha, so are you in agreement with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that any bearable arms are protected? Should I be able to own a rocket launcher or a military grade sniper rifle with a silencer? Where do you draw the line? From what basis?

I think I just got done drawing my line in another post.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I think I just got done drawing my line in another post.

Good, so pretty much the only thing we disagree on is whether they should be carried in public.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Do the research on criminology. Or just watch an episode of "It Takes A Thief". The primary factor determining whether a burglar targets a house is how quickly they can get in and out. Having a gun in the house will not change this, and more than likely, even with your fingerprint safe and gun, your house will statistically have been burgled long before you are able to mount any response. This means that in a home invasion where the perpetrator is intent on physical harm, it's also more likely that they will get to you or yours before you get to them.

Personally, I feel safer in my house without guns (although I do own a Model 1861 Springfield rifled musket) than I would with them.

But then again, no one is asking you to give up your guns. Most of us would just prefer not to live in a society where people who admittedly never have and likely never will have the need to carry a gun on their person still want to do so anyway. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where one of the most popular rifles is not a modified M-16. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where the reason you can't get a 100 round magazine is because there is no reason a normal person (I mean this both physiologically and psychologically) needs one, not because they are sold out.

Own your handguns and hunting rifles with reasonable regulation on who can own them, with reasonable regulation on what types and how much ammunition they can carry, with reasonable regulation of muzzle velocity and caliber. I have no problem with any of that, regardless of whether racist errand thinks I'm lying or not.

What I do have a problem with is people buying an M-16 and calling it a hunting rifle. What I do have a problem with is people who perform the mental gymnastics required to come up with any legitimate reason to own a high capacity magazine. What I do have a problem with is carrying handguns like it's the 1870's and John Hardin's going to shoot you for cheating at cards. A populace walking around with holstered weapons in broad daylight is not the hallmark of a healthy, sane, or (statistically speaking ) safe society.

We have some crazies here, but you should check out a website that was started by people in South Dakota. The sad thing is, the guy who actually owns the site and a few others are a part of police forces in various parts of the state. Pretty sick when we have law enforcement officers touting beliefs like that. The kind of mentality they have, unfortunately, is likely shared with a majority of them.

[houghtam]

Originally Posted by Requiem

We have some crazies here, but you should check out a website that was started by people in South Dakota. The sad thing is, the guy who actually owns the site and a few others are a part of police forces in various parts of the state. Pretty sick when we have law enforcement officers touting beliefs like that. The kind of mentality they have, unfortunately, is likely shared with a majority of them.

I wonder if he's willing to have his taxes raised the billions of dollars it would take to arm and train every teacher in every school, or if he's willing to accept the monumental drop in teachers we will have if we make owning, being trained with, and carrying a gun to school a requirement of becoming a teacher.

My guess is probably not.

Someone has gone off the deep end. I feel sorry for anyone who is under his jurisdiction as an officer of the law. Not because he carries a gun, but because he comes up with such a completely useless, illogical and impossible solution as arming every teacher.

[DAN_BRONCO_FAN]

so it seems the media is tryin to blame video games and movies .so one evil fvvck tard murders several innocent children and they blame video games and movies .
great

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by houghtam

I wonder if he's willing to have his taxes raised the billions of dollars it would take to arm and train every teacher in every school, or if he's willing to accept the monumental drop in teachers we will have if we make owning, being trained with, and carrying a gun to school a requirement of becoming a teacher.

My guess is probably not.

Someone has gone off the deep end. I feel sorry for anyone who is under his jurisdiction as an officer of the law. Not because he carries a gun, but because he comes up with such a completely useless, illogical and impossible solution as arming every teacher.

Surprised you don't just suggest a 1% sales tax on all guns and ammo. With the money going to schools to beef up security. At least that might actually help. But just wanting stupid bans on certain guns is a joke. It won't help anything.

[cutthemdown]

This morphing into a war on hollywood would be funny because all the liberals who want gun control make tons off there violent movies.

how about a violent movie tax. If your movie is r rated for violence you pay an extra buck a ticket. Money goes to help crazy kids before they kill people. Come on liberals im not a taxer and i am coming up with way better taxes then you all do. You always say govt should tax behavoir they don't like, and make incentives for what they do.

So tax violent movies and music. Make people pay more for it. Make people pay a ton of tax to buy ammo and guns.

[errand]

Originally Posted by misturanderson

Well there is one real (and I use the term "real" loosely since the Mississippi shooting was not actually stopped by the principle, the gunman was just stopped from driving away) example in this thread and one fabricated example of a mass shooting being stopped by an armed citizen. Methinks your "success stories" have been vastly overstated by sites, especially social networking sites, that pander to tea party members.

the 16 yr old suspect was stopped from driving away to go to middle school and shoot even more kids.....so it is an accurate statement that the law abiding citizen that had a gun did indeed stop the shooting.

[errand]

Originally Posted by houghtam

So you're saying passing laws that say don't do X don't prevent people from doing X.

Laws do not prevent people from committing crimes....morals do.

[errand]

April 2012, Aurora CO Church shooting stopped by off-duty cop in congregation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1446969.html

March 2012, NC Church shooting stopped by armed citizen
http://www.goupstate.com/article/201...120329781/1112

December 2007, CO Church shooting stopped by armed security guard
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec...ion/na-shoot11

April 2012, Salt Lake City mass stabbing:stopped by armed citizen:
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/...iNMfH.facebook

January 2002, Appalachian School of Law shooting stopped by armed citizens:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalac...f_Law_shooting

August 2012, TX mass shooting stopped by armed citizen (including saving the life of a cop who was pinned and taking fire from a gunman):
http://www.guns.com/texas-gun-owner-...out-10236.html

[errand]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

This morphing into a war on hollywood would be funny because all the liberals who want gun control make tons off there violent movies.

how about a violent movie tax. If your movie is r rated for violence you pay an extra buck a ticket. Money goes to help crazy kids before they kill people. Come on liberals im not a taxer and i am coming up with way better taxes then you all do. You always say govt should tax behavoir they don't like, and make incentives for what they do.

So tax violent movies and music. Make people pay more for it. Make people pay a ton of tax to buy ammo and guns.

Hollywood types remind of that Rosie O'donnell shag gagger who spoke out against guns, but has an armed bodyguard herself

[errand]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Surprised you don't just suggest a 1% sales tax on all guns and ammo. With the money going to schools to beef up security. At least that might actually help. But just wanting stupid bans on certain guns is a joke. It won't help anything.

Well, like I said.....if banning all the guns will stop all the murders and crimes, then ban them.....but I wanna see the criminals turn theirs in first.

[errand]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Gotcha, so are you in agreement with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, that any bearable arms are protected? Should I be able to own a rocket launcher or a military grade sniper rifle with a silencer? Where do you draw the line? From what basis?

So pray tell where can one purchase a rocket launcher or a military grade sniper rifle with a silencer? Better yet, who can purchase one?

On edit - OK...found a website that sells silencers, but it takes 4-6 weeks as the government (ATF) checks you out, plus a $200 transfer fee....etc.

http://www.impactguns.com/silencers.aspx

Didn't notice if they carried rocket launchers.....

[errand]

wouldn't it be easier to just install solid steel doors with bullet proof glass in the schools? Maybe where the teacher just hits a panic/silent alarm button and it deadbolts until the police arrive and subdue the shooter?

But surely someone's already thought of that right?

[jerseyguy4]

Originally Posted by houghtam

Do the research on criminology. Or just watch an episode of "It Takes A Thief". The primary factor determining whether a burglar targets a house is how quickly they can get in and out. Having a gun in the house will not change this, and more than likely, even with your fingerprint safe and gun, your house will statistically have been burgled long before you are able to mount any response. This means that in a home invasion where the perpetrator is intent on physical harm, it's also more likely that they will get to you or yours before you get to them.

Personally, I feel safer in my house without guns (although I do own a Model 1861 Springfield rifled musket) than I would with them.

But then again, no one is asking you to give up your guns. Most of us would just prefer not to live in a society where people who admittedly never have and likely never will have the need to carry a gun on their person still want to do so anyway. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where one of the most popular rifles is not a modified M-16. Most of us would prefer to live in a society where the reason you can't get a 100 round magazine is because there is no reason a normal person (I mean this both physiologically and psychologically) needs one, not because they are sold out.

Own your handguns and hunting rifles with reasonable regulation on who can own them, with reasonable regulation on what types and how much ammunition they can carry, with reasonable regulation of muzzle velocity and caliber. I have no problem with any of that, regardless of whether racist errand thinks I'm lying or not.

What I do have a problem with is people buying an M-16 and calling it a hunting rifle. What I do have a problem with is people who perform the mental gymnastics required to come up with any legitimate reason to own a high capacity magazine. What I do have a problem with is carrying handguns like it's the 1870's and John Hardin's going to shoot you for cheating at cards. A populace walking around with holstered weapons in broad daylight is not the hallmark of a healthy, sane, or (statistically speaking ) safe society.

For the most part, I am with you. I also do not want to live in a society resembling the wild west. I don't want to carry a gun wherever I go.
But I do want to be safe, both me and my family.

And so my question becomes, how do you make the American people safe from those that have guns when the ones we own are gone?

I expected the answer in this country to come from the taser.
- Ban handguns and assault weapon sale to anyone but government and police
- institute a long term buy-back program, to get existing handguns and assault rifles off the street
- institute a viable taser program, where people who want personal protection can get that in a non-lethal, but effective form.

Quite honestly, I do not think the taser is yet an acceptable replacement. They are still fairly new, and they need to be further developed. They need to be so good, that someone like myself (who is not dead set on packing heat and expressing my constitutional rights), will hand over his handgun, replace it with a taser, and feel that it will be just as effective. It needs range, accuracy, multiple shot capability, penetration ability, and be affordable

And like always, it comes down to money: a LOT of money to finance a buy back program. A LOT of money to kill the arms industry.

In the end, I'd still like to be able to own and use my hunting rifles (for hunting). But I am also acceptable to having all of them not being semi-automatic. I am acceptable to them all having built-in restricted size magazines. I am acceptable to them all being a minimum length.
And should the King of England get saucy again, there would still be millions and millions of these in American hands to fight him off (said in jest)

And if you did have a taser that could replace the handgun, America would be a lot more acceptable to letting civilians carry them. Arming teachers goes from really scary to a nice precaution. Practically every mass shooting this country has seen could be minimized.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by jerseyguy4

For the most part, I am with you. I also do not want to live in a society resembling the wild west. I don't want to carry a gun wherever I go.
But I do want to be safe, both me and my family.

And so my question becomes, how do you make the American people safe from those that have guns when the ones we own are gone?

I expected the answer in this country to come from the taser.
- Ban handguns and assault weapon sale to anyone but government and police
- institute a long term buy-back program, to get existing handguns and assault rifles off the street
- institute a viable taser program, where people who want personal protection can get that in a non-lethal, but effective form.

Quite honestly, I do not think the taser is yet an acceptable replacement. They are still fairly new, and they need to be further developed. They need to be so good, that someone like myself (who is not dead set on packing heat and expressing my constitutional rights), will hand over his handgun, replace it with a taser, and feel that it will be just as effective. It needs range, accuracy, multiple shot capability, penetration ability, and be affordable

And like always, it comes down to money: a LOT of money to finance a buy back program. A LOT of money to kill the arms industry.

In the end, I'd still like to be able to own and use my hunting rifles (for hunting). But I am also acceptable to having all of them not being semi-automatic. I am acceptable to them all having built-in restricted size magazines. I am acceptable to them all being a minimum length.
And should the King of England get saucy again, there would still be millions and millions of these in American hands to fight him off (said in jest)

And if you did have a taser that could replace the handgun, America would be a lot more acceptable to letting civilians carry them. Arming teachers goes from really scary to a nice precaution. Practically every mass shooting this country has seen could be minimized.

We're still missing the point of the 2nd Amendment here. It was never about hunting. Or burglars. It was about creating a country that was impossible to rule by force. In this line, arming yourself was seen as a near-duty to your country. The day a police or government force can come knocking on most doors and have little fear of what lies inside, then according to our founders, you have no real freedom.

[BroncoFanatic]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

We're still missing the point of the 2nd Amendment here. It was never about hunting. Or burglars. It was about creating a country that was impossible to rule by force. In this line, arming yourself was seen as a near-duty to your country. The day a police or government force can come knocking on most doors and have little fear of what lies inside, then according to our founders, you have no real freedom.

Well put. A simple concept that escapes many here.

[jerseyguy4]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

We're still missing the point of the 2nd Amendment here. It was never about hunting. Or burglars. It was about creating a country that was impossible to rule by force. In this line, arming yourself was seen as a near-duty to your country. The day a police or government force can come knocking on most doors and have little fear of what lies inside, then according to our founders, you have no real freedom.

If I lost my handgun and semi-auto rifles, and was able to protect my family from criminals/nutjobs with an acceptable taser, I'd be happy.

And while I wouldn't be capable of a platoon assault on the white house, my plethora of open sight lever actions and scope mounted bolt actions would still allow me to join the Wolverines and mount a defense against a red dawn-esque attack.

You can't really expect that average citizens can arm themselves in any comparable fashion to a real army, whether they are US or USSR. But we are still incredibly numerous as an armed civilian population. Any ground assault on America would have its hands full.

I think that satisfies what you are looking to protect with the 2nd amend.

[BroncoFanatic]

Originally Posted by jerseyguy4

If I lost my handgun and semi-auto rifles, and was able to protect my family from criminals/nutjobs with an acceptable taser, I'd be happy.

And while I wouldn't be capable of a platoon assault on the white house, my plethora of open sight lever actions and scope mounted bolt actions would still allow me to join the Wolverines and mount a defense against a red dawn-esque attack.

You can't really expect that average citizens can arm themselves in any comparable fashion to a real army, whether they are US or USSR. But we are still incredibly numerous as an armed civilian population. Any ground assault on America would have its hands full.

I think that satisfies what you are looking to protect with the 2nd amend.

You can be happy with your rights being removed, but I will not allow my God given rights to be taken. Funny that you are ok losing your semi-autos, then have a picture of a "Wolverine" with a...semi-auto...