Shooting at Conn Elementary 27 dead including kids

[Pony Boy]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Ms. Lanza didn't properly secure her weapons. 20 kids paid the price for her irresponsibility.

Uh-oh.

No, but don't you see that shouldn't matter because the federal government had passed legislation to make that a gun-free zone ......... so WTF, how could a gun show up in a gun-free zone? It's just like clips that hold over ten rounds, once the Feds pass a law it will be impossible for them to ever be used by a mad-man again. Federal legislation is a thing of beauty ..........we need more and more and more.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Without rehashing this whole thread, what is your solution? I am totally in favor of gun safety before someone buys their first gun.

How would that be enforced? Ideas?

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

You add 100k injuries and deaths. Are these accidental injuries and deaths or does your statistic include injuries and death that were because of self defense?

According to the CDC, there were

11,078 firearm homicides in 2010;
19,392 firearm suicides in 2010;
73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries in 2010.

There isn't sufficient data to determine self-defense deaths and injuries from what I could find.

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

Also, how many of those that were accidental injuries or deaths were from illegal obtained guns? Please provide link.

Since the NRA has forbidden most research into gun violence, because they perceive it as a threat, data are hard to come by.

Obama has changed that. Then we can get the facts and go from there.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

No, but don't you see that shouldn't matter because the federal government had passed legislation to make that a gun-free zone ......... so WTF, how could a gun show up in a gun-free zone? It's just like clips that hold over ten rounds, once the Feds pass a law it will be impossible for them to ever be used by a mad-man again. Federal legislation is a thing of beauty ..........we need more and more and more.

Since all laws are broken by someone, they serve no purpose.

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by Pony Boy

No, but don't you see that shouldn't matter because the federal government had passed legislation to make that a gun-free zone ......... so WTF, how could a gun show up in a gun-free zone? It's just like clips that hold over ten rounds, once the Feds pass a law it will be impossible for them to ever be used by a mad-man again. Federal legislation is a thing of beauty ..........we need more and more and more.

Yeah, the 10 round gun clip isnt going to slow someone down too much. I don't own these type of guns but I figured out that if you want a lot of bullets strafing an area, why not tape two clips butt to butt and when one is out, flip it over and start shooting within 4 seconds. Hell, tape another one to the side and you got 30 shots off and you waste maybe 8 to 10 seconds in between. It is a difference but is it a huge difference?

[broncocalijohn]

Originally Posted by W*GS

How would that be enforced? Ideas?

How hard would it be for any new gun buyer to take a safety class within the two week period they get their gun (In California). Everywhere else that doesn't have the restriction would be to take the class before purchasing the gun. I would favor the class be taken before anyways so they can also teach you what type of gun is best used for home safety, hunting, etc. I had to take a day long class to get my hunting license so not sure how hard it would be for individuals to take a gun safety class. They can also have a shortened class to renew every 10 years. I would not make it where they lose their guns but they couldn't purchase more if they don't renew.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by broncocalijohn

How hard would it be for any new gun buyer to take a safety class within the two week period they get their gun (In California). Everywhere else that doesn't have the restriction would be to take the class before purchasing the gun. I would favor the class be taken before anyways so they can also teach you what type of gun is best used for home safety, hunting, etc. I had to take a day long class to get my hunting license so not sure how hard it would be for individuals to take a gun safety class. They can also have a shortened class to renew every 10 years. I would not make it where they lose their guns but they couldn't purchase more if they don't renew.

How would that work? Get a signoff from someone (who?) that Joe Blow had taken the course and would now be allowed to buy a gun?

[W*GS]

It all depends on whether or not one finds ~100,000 injuries and deaths from the use of guns each and every year acceptable, or not.

Whether the 2nd Amendment is an impenetrable barrier against any kind of gun control, or if we can craft laws that recognize it but realize it's neither absolute nor unlimited.

I don't know the answers. Ideas?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by W*GS

These "few retards" account for ~100,000 injuries and deaths every year. They're busy.

We learn a lot of neat stuff from Wags. For instance, nations of 300 million with say 250 million private firearms would be much easier for our military to control than a nation of 30 million illiterates holding a million or so guns. Because Afghanis have Superhuman Nutsacks.

And now of course, without Firearms, there would be no more suicide. Or accidents.

1.2 million football related injuries last year Wags. Most of them children. How in the world can you live with yourself if you really care about the children?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

We learn a lot of neat stuff from Wags. For instance, nations of 300 million with say 250 million private firearms would be much easier for our military to control than a nation of 30 million illiterates holding a million or so guns. Because Afghanis have Superhuman Nutsacks.

Afghanis have a lot more and a lot more powerful weaponry than yer typical gun-totin' 'Merkin. They also have decades of experience in asymmetrical warfare.

The Swiss take their RKBA seriously and responsibly. Of course, that means actual militia service, mandatory military service, and a token professional military. If the NRA and the other gun rights groups advocated those things, instead of just more guns in more hands in more places, they'd be more credible.

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Afghanis have a lot more and a lot more powerful weaponry than yer typical gun-totin' 'Merkin. They also have decades of experience in asymmetrical warfare.

The Swiss take their RKBA seriously and responsibly. Of course, that means actual militia service, mandatory military service, and a token professional military. If the NRA and the other gun rights groups advocated those things, instead of just more guns in more hands in more places, they'd be more credible.

Please. Most estimates put the Taliban at a troop strength of around 40,000. Which by other estimates is made up of about 20% hard core jihadists with the rest just along for the ride because they had no real alternative, or at least any better opportunity to make a living.

In a full on civil insurrection in the US, you'd see many times that many people fighting with actual military background and training. In a nation 15 times the size.

Simply put, our military does not currently have anything resembling the means to impose its will on the US population by force. It's not even up for rational debate.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

Simply put, our military does not currently have anything resembling the means to impose its will on the US population by force. It's not even up for rational debate.

It's quite debatable.

Who says the gun owners will all fight against the military?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by W*GS

It's quite debatable.

Who says the gun owners will all fight against the military?

Didn't say they would. Hypotheticals are funny like that. Like I've said, things would be pretty bleak on either side if military suppression became a thinkable option.

Not every free gun owner would fight. Probably not even half. But the military wouldn't stay completely cohesive and just follow orders in such a dire situation either. It's pretty dumb to even try to guess what would've had to happen in the lead-up.

But it's plain enough to anyone with eyes that a military struggling to keep a couple third-rate 3rd world countries under wraps isn't up to the task of occupying a well-educated country with the 3rd most populous (and by far best armed) citizenry in the world.

And as far as a Constitutional argument goes, like I said earlier... If you're saying current gun restrictions have rendered America easily occupied, then you're essentially arguing that current restrictions have gone too far and violate the clear intent of the Constitution and it's authors and ratifiers.

I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. The main thinking in my argument is that our Constitutional rights should never hinge on headline politics and child-flanked political grandstanding.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

But it's plain enough to anyone with eyes that a military struggling to keep a couple third-rate 3rd world countries under wraps isn't up to the task of occupying a well-educated country with the 3rd most populous (and by far best armed) citizenry in the world.

Again, the Afghanis have a few decades of experience in fighting asymmetric war, lots more better weapons, and a safe haven in Pakistan. The same cannot be said of Americans.

Chances are that the rebels would be painted as traitors and anti-American subversives. There may be a few holdouts here and there, but they wouldn't pose any serious threat to a tyrannical regime.

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

And as far as a Constitutional argument goes, like I said earlier... If you're saying current gun restrictions have rendered America easily occupied, then you're essentially arguing that current restrictions have gone too far and violate the clear intent of the Constitution and it's authors and ratifiers.

In that case, you better push to rescind the current gun control laws, to put us on a more-even footing with our potential overlords.

Sad, though, that you think our democracy is a fragile sham. Why?

Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis

I don't necessarily believe that to be the case. The main thinking in my argument is that our Constitutional rights should never hinge on headline politics and child-flanked political grandstanding.

What are your ideas to reduce the death toll we suffer from thanks to the use of guns? Any? Acceptable? The price of freedom?

[BroncoBeavis]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Again, the Afghanis have a few decades of experience in fighting asymmetric war, lots more better weapons, and a safe haven in Pakistan. The same cannot be said of Americans.

Chances are that the rebels would be painted as traitors and anti-American subversives. There may be a few holdouts here and there, but they wouldn't pose any serious threat to a tyrannical regime.

A truly tyrannical regime would have far more people resisting than the few thousand hard core and military-grade-level armed Taliban fighters. This is evidenced by the fact that most of our casualties in Afghanistan come from opportunistic IEDs, not from direct engagement.

In that case, you better push to rescind the current gun control laws, to put us on a more-even footing with our potential overlords.

Sad, though, that you think our democracy is a fragile sham. Why?

Democracy isn't the goal. Never was. Freedom was the goal. Our founders viewed pure democracy as a potential danger in and of itself. Which is why they structured a Federal Republic designed to reign in some of the worst excesses of it. Democracy is not the same as freedom. They valued individual liberty far more than any form of pure democracy. See Federalists 9 and 10. This is a common mistake in modern progressivism. Checking boxes on a ballot is not freedom. For every 51%, there's a 49.

What are your ideas to reduce the death toll we suffer from thanks to the use of guns? Any? Acceptable? The price of freedom?

I've pointed to many actions that would save far more lives than the current slate of proposals in DC. Yet you won't give explicit support to any. Do you care less?

I've said repeatedly, my personal issue isn't so much with the proposals but with the complete lack of reasoning behind them. There is a certain segment of our population that simply don't view arms as a right, or a priority, and so to them it's "free" to force others to give them up. So it becomes their low-hanging fruit. An easy first priority.

Truth be told, this is a terrible example of exactly the kind of factionism the antifederalists predicted would be our eventual downfall.

[Meck77]

Obama is saying things like America wants increased gun control yet his own party doesn't agree.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...-feinstein-gun

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by Meck77

Obama is saying things like America wants increased gun control yet his own party doesn't agree.

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworl...-feinstein-gun

Yeah a couple red state Democrats are representative of the entire party.but then again what seperates the dems from rethugs is that we allow room for disagreement in our party.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Yeah a couple red state Democrats are representative of the entire party.but then again what seperates the dems from rethugs is that we allow room for disagreement in our party.

if Fienstien can't convince all democrats how do you expect her to convince enough republicans to get it passes. Also Dems never seem to offer anything juicy to repubs to get them to vote their way. I doubt any deal gets done, the assault weapons ban won't even make it to house IMO.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

if Fienstien can't convince all democrats how do you expect her to convince enough republicans to get it passes. Also Dems never seem to offer anything juicy to repubs to get them to vote their way. I doubt any deal gets done, the assault weapons ban won't even make it to house IMO.

if rethugs would back off their my way or the highway approach to negotiations,they would.
As I've said an AR ban is highly unlikely,but universal background checks will likely pass.

[cutthemdown]

We already have those in CA and i don't think they have made us safer. Most criminals don't care if they got caught without having went through a background check. When they finally get caught doing something they always have more to worry about then a charge like that.

That is funny to me though. Typical Dem stir people up like you are doing something big, then just pass a background check and tell people they are safer now. maybe create an agency that is tasked with background checks so you can hire a few more govt workers. In the end that is all this govt intrusion into our lives does. Create more jobs for the machine.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

We already have those in CA and i don't think they have made us safer. Most criminals don't care if they got caught without having went through a background check. When they finally get caught doing something they always have more to worry about then a charge like that.

That is funny to me though. Typical Dem stir people up like you are doing something big, then just pass a background check and tell people they are safer now. maybe create an agency that is tasked with background checks so you can hire a few more govt workers. In the end that is all this govt intrusion into our lives does. Create more jobs for the machine.

Yeah,but the seller would give **** if he's selling a gun to someone who doesn't pass a background check.
Again no one is saying that this will bring an end to all gun violence but to do absolutely nothing is not an option.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Yeah,but the seller would give **** if he's selling a gun to someone who doesn't pass a background check.
Again no one is saying that this will bring an end to all gun violence but to do absolutely nothing is not an option.

The only reason doing nothing isn't an option is because dems have decided they have to make it look like they did something. Also they never waste a chance to make more paperwork and some federal employee to look it over.

If you want to make people safer keep criminals locked up. The re-offending rate for people who commit violent crime is high.

You act like the only think we are saying no to is a background check. I don't mind that but i would rather just see a federal law that says all states must set up a background checking procedure and be done with it. The tacking on of things like pistol grip, clip size, flash suppressor, foldable stock is a joke it won't make things enough safer or at all to be worth it for the law abiding citizens who want those options. What isn't an option is letting the liberals start whittling away at the right for us to own firearms.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

The only reason doing nothing isn't an option is because dems have decided they have to make it look like they did something. Also they never waste a chance to make more paperwork and some federal employee to look it over.

If you want to make people safer keep criminals locked up. The re-offending rate for people who commit violent crime is high.

You act like the only think we are saying no to is a background check. I don't mind that but i would rather just see a federal law that says all states must set up a background checking procedure and be done with it. The tacking on of things like pistol grip, clip size, flash suppressor, foldable stock is a joke it won't make things enough safer or at all to be worth it for the law abiding citizens who want those options. What isn't an option is letting the liberals start whittling away at the right for us to own firearms.

I can agree to some extent as long as there is a minimum set of standards that meet fed requirements,like, you buy a gun from whoever you got go through a background check.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

I can agree to some extent as long as there is a minimum set of standards that meet fed requirements,like, you buy a gun from whoever you got go through a background check.

I think background checks like Calif does are reasonable. Things like pistol grip or stock are silly. i guess grenade launcher also but i was thinking is there really a way to buy grenades? I'm trying to think of one time you here in the news a man with a grenade launcher blew up something today etc. Right? I mean do you really think we need a law saying no grenade launchers? but whatever I can go along with a backgrounc check for every sale of a gun at a dealer or store. But between family members and friends i think it should be easier. maybe just something you download, fill out, and mail back to govt.

But i won't argue its reasonable to make sure felons and people with diagnosed with mental illness dont get guns. I do worry though that if it got to the point govt has access to your mental health records people would be reluctant to seek help. What do you think about that issue peace?