For those members who are in U.S. and are following the school shooting

[MT2008]

Is there any chance we could acknowledge that maybe, in fact, there are some gun control measures that are actually reasonable responses to a massacre such as this? Even if we agree that calling for another AWB would not be one of those measures?

At times like this, what I'd like to see is actual dialogue between gun owners and gun controllers, rather than the usual demonizing of each other that tends to inevitably follow. The more you guys spout the usual BS about how we need more lenient conceal-carry laws*, and how those who support gun control are freedom-hating socialists, the more you're just going to keep digging your own graves.







*As with Aurora, I really hope that nobody believes conceal-carry laws would have made a difference in Newtown. When the perp has an AR-15 and body armor, he'll outgun anybody carrying a concealed sub-compact Glock or .38 snub.

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by MT2008

Is there any chance we could acknowledge that maybe, in fact, there are some gun control measures that are actually reasonable responses to a massacre such as this? Even if we agree that calling for another AWB would not be one of those measures?

At times like this, what I'd like to see is actual dialogue between gun owners and gun controllers, rather than the usual demonizing of each other that tends to inevitably follow. The more you guys spout the usual BS about how we need more lenient conceal-carry laws*, and how those who support gun control are freedom-hating socialists, the more you're just going to keep digging your own graves.


*As with Aurora, I really hope that nobody believes conceal-carry laws would have made a difference in Newtown. When the perp has an AR-15 and body armor, he'll outgun anybody carrying a concealed sub-compact Glock or .38 snub.

I've always been willing to discuss the issue, but in the past we've never been invited to the table to really participate in the discussion. All they've done is villify gunowners and then push for more and more restrictions. I thought that maybe the AWB in 94 would be enough, but it wasn't. They kept pushing for more and more and the other side engaged in simplistic sterotypes of gunowners.

I am a father of two teenagers. Don't think that the shooting hasn't horrified me as well. The anti's trying to take that moral high-ground isn't going to work on me or many others.

As a police officer I've attended more than a few autopsies of young people who have been murdered (to include an infant) and I've been to more than a couple gun realted homicde scenes. I even helped the coroner put a man's body into a body bag. He blew his skull apart with a .44 magnum. I have experience with the reality of firearms violence. I've pointed guns at people and I've had them pointed at me.

Yes I'm willing to work with the other side, but they need to work with us as well. Just stating that you want to have some type of dialogue and then never extend the invitation is hypocrisy. Both sides need to meet in the middle. But so-far that hasn't happened. The NRA seems to be offering feelers, but they are feelers that come from strength. Unlike situation for British and Australian gunowners in 96 who had no strength. No organization and no voice.

Just for the record I don't own any hi-cap assault rifles. I own a Glock 26. All my other firearms hold ten or less, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with a ban. And when the extremists start talking about confiscations I dig my heels in. Also why does it have to be all about gunowners. Why are we so easy going with the mentally ill now?

Here in my city we have several mental folks (autistic, retarded, bi-polar, schizophrenic, so on and so forth) that we deal with all the time. They come into the hospital they go out of the hospital. Liberals will tell you we don't have enough mental health services and conservatives will tell you we molly coddle them too much. All I can tell you is that the system is broken (I'm not sure it was ever working) and I have absolutely no idea how to improve it. Some of them are dangerous and most of them are just wrecks. And that is how it is in the United States.

In the past year it's been the mental cases who have been using the firearms to create the carnage. We need to also look at that situation as well.

Dialogue? Sure. I'm okay with that. But I want us to be able to participate in the dialogue and negotiations. Not just have things thrown onto us like the old school European nobility did to the peasants. That won't fly.

So I am sending the NRA fifty dollars becasue the NRA ensures that we are able to talk and negotiate from a position of strength. Not weakness.

[funkychinaman]

I'm ticked off everyone is spouting off solutions when we don't even know all the facts yet. After Columbine, everyone immediately blamed the NRA, but now that we know the facts, is anyone blaming the NRA? Have the cops even completed their investigation yet?

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

I'm ticked off everyone is spouting off solutions when we don't even know all the facts yet. After Columbine, everyone immediately blamed the NRA, but now that we know the facts, is anyone blaming the NRA? Have the cops even completed their investigation yet?

Yes there are people blaiming the NRA. They are the same people who were spouting for gun control even before the bodies of children were even cool to the touch. Gun grabbers are in a feeding frenzy and while I have tried they are not listening to reason and they are simply dismissing facts from government sources out of hand.


No the police have not finished their investigation yet. Last I heard the FBI is still trying to get data off the kids computer as he smashed the hard drives so they couldn't be read. We know what the scum did we just don't know his motive. We do know that to him...THIS WAS A RATIONAL ACT.

[funkychinaman]

If this kid shot himself when he knew he was surrounded, then wouldn't that indicate that he understood the consequences of his actions?

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

If this kid shot himself when he knew he was surrounded, then wouldn't that indicate that he understood the consequences of his actions?

I would think so. It has just come out today that the mother had contacted an attorney and was beginning the steps to having him committed. She couldn't control him anymore. Evidently he knew that. She was a sub at the school. Possibly he killed her then went after the children becasue "She loves them more than me". that last part is speculation of course. I've dealt with out of control autistics in the past. I wish people would understand that they aren't pets.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

I would think so. It has just come out today that the mother had contacted an attorney and was beginning the steps to having him committed. She couldn't control him anymore. Evidently he knew that. She was a sub at the school. Possibly he killed her then went after the children becasue "She loves them more than me". that last part is speculation of course. I've dealt with out of control autistics in the past. I wish people would understand that they aren't pets.

I read that too, but I'm waiting for the official word. If it is true, however, and this mother knew that her son was so dangerous he needed to be committed, why on earth would she keep so many guns in the house?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Jcordell

All they've done is villify gunowners and then push for more and more restrictions.

The vilification is not exclusive to one side. Gun owners are just as guilty of doing the same thing.

Originally Posted by Jcordell

Both sides need to meet in the middle. But so-far that hasn't happened. The NRA seems to be offering feelers, but they are feelers that come from strength. Unlike situation for British and Australian gunowners in 96 who had no strength. No organization and no voice.

That's the first reason why gun owners in America need to stop acting as though gun control laws here will inevitably lead to complete bans on firearms, as happened in both of those countries.

Originally Posted by Jcordell

All I can tell you is that the system is broken (I'm not sure it was ever working) and I have absolutely no idea how to improve it. Some of them are dangerous and most of them are just wrecks. And that is how it is in the United States.

In the past year it's been the mental cases who have been using the firearms to create the carnage. We need to also look at that situation as well.

Personally, I subscribe to the view that the issue is less one of mental illness and more of how the media glorifies these shootings. The vast majority of mentally ill people, including those prone to violent behavior, do not feel the urge to engage in mass shootings. The media, however, treats these events as a surefire way to gain eternal infamy and a place in the history books. The desire for fame (or, failing that, infamy) in our culture is, in my opinion, one of the most important reasons that these shootings take place. Mental illness and gun availability facilitate these crimes, but cannot be considered the causes.

Originally Posted by Jcordell

Dialogue? Sure. I'm okay with that. But I want us to be able to participate in the dialogue and negotiations. Not just have things thrown onto us like the old school European nobility did to the peasants. That won't fly.

I agree with you that we deserve to be able to negotiate from a position of strength, but in my opinion, the fact that there are so many gun owners is by itself a strength. Dialogue and negotiations cannot take place when both sides take part in the sort of demonizing each other that I am seeing.

Originally Posted by Jcordell

So I am sending the NRA fifty dollars becasue the NRA ensures that we are able to talk and negotiate from a position of strength. Not weakness.

The NRA also does not seem to be encouraging gun owners to keep cool heads. That has never been their tactic. They are more likely to get their constituents up in arms about bans and the "slippery slope".

Originally Posted by commando552

First of I just want to say that I am not trying to stir up anything here, am genuinely curious. How would the American gun owners on here feel about being required to have a firearms licence before buying firearms or ammunition? By this I don't mean like a license in the UK which is quite involved to get, I mean something like an hour or two classroom instruction on basic gun safety along with a background check. If you were required to show a license then the sale could be tracked if required, and would flag up instanced of criminals or the mentally ill trying to buy firearms or ammunition. If you need a license to drive a car, then it is my feeling is that there should be something along the same lines for you to be able to buy a gun which is potentially mush more of a danger to other people. I'm assuming that there has already been much discussion about stuff like this, just curious what the opinions on it were.

As an American gun owner, I think that your proposal is entirely reasonable. As Predator pointed out, the system you have suggested already exists for conceal-carry in many states. Also, what exactly is wrong with licenses like those issued in the U.K.? The system that the Brits had before the Hungerford massacre in 1987 seems to have been a reasonable one to me.

Originally Posted by predator20

I don't tell people this, but one of my older brothers is diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. (Lanza may not have been schizo, but you have got to be seriously fucked up to shoot and kill kids like that.) He doesn't live with me, so I don't have to be watchful unless he's around. But I never turn my back on him, even if he is on his meds. While he's never been violent towards any family members, but when he's off his meds he believes people are going to kill him, particularly our father. It happened to him in his late teens, early twenties like most others. He was in a care center for about seven years, now he's out on his own with his girlfriend. He was never bad enough to be put into a hospital.

I am sympathetic to you, but I hope you would never compare your brother to someone like Lanza? As I told JCordell, the vast, vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not mass murderers.

Originally Posted by predator20

body armor? I thought they were just tactical vest. Even with body armor it's still going to hurt like a bitch, unless you're the North Hollywood guys. With Aurora I don't believe someone there with a CCL would have made a difference. It was a dark and packed theater. The chances of a clear shot would have been nill. Newtown, maybe.

I heard body armor, but it might have been negligent reporting. Holmes was wearing body armor, though, wasn't he? Also, my point still stands: Armed citizens carrying concealed handguns will be outgunned by somebody carrying an AR-15. So unless we advocate for schools to have armory rooms full of AR-15s and Kevlar vests, I don't think that the "more guns, less crime" argument is one that we should use in situations like this. It's just embarrassing for me to hear it.

Originally Posted by predator20

The biggest problem I have with an AWB is that most homicides that used a firearm are with handguns. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...es/10tbl20.xls http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20 Illinois homicide rate is actually higher I think, they don't give out complete info I guess. It's probably up there with Cali.

And? I don't support a new AWB (and I was quite relieved when the last one expired). You're preaching to the choir.

I do, however, want pro-gunners to stop claiming that AR-15s are not significantly more dangerous than hunting rifles and acknowledge that maybe they should require a somewhat higher level of regulation. I say this as somebody who owns both an AK and an AR-15 carbine.

Originally Posted by predator20

The thing about criminals (this is the way I think anyway). They don't want to pay retail for a gun, like a law abiding citizen would. Especially if they have to dump it later on. So they either steal them or buy one that they know to be stolen. Or have their girlfriend do a straw purchase for a Hi-Point.

You act as though straw purchases are something that we can't do anything about. You also talk about illegal guns as if they magically appear out of thin air (or from the same international arms trade which arms terrorists and insurgencies around the world). The vast, VAST majority of the illegal weapons used in the United States start out as legally-purchased firearms from gun stores. Illegal acquisition and illegal source are two very different things; as long as most illegally-acquired weapons come from a legal source, it is dishonest to act as though gun control has no ability to reduce illegal acquisition of firearms.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

We should always promote the right to bear arms everywhere and change the way anti gun advocates think with educations.

Did you seriously just say "educations", plural? *SIGH* I know people make typos, but the difficulty you seem to have with reading and writing (demonstrated repeatedly over the years) keeps triggering my cringe reflex. The absolute last thing I would want is for somebody like you to be considered representative of American gun owners. I think you would be better off not acting as though you have superior powers of logic and analysis; you are essentially degrading gun controllers as intellectually wanting.

[commando552]

Originally Posted by MT2008

As an American gun owner, I think that your proposal is entirely reasonable. As Predator pointed out, the system you have suggested already exists for conceal-carry in many states. Also, what exactly is wrong with licenses like those issued in the U.K.? The system that the Brits had before the Hungerford massacre in 1987 seems to have been a reasonable one to me.

The UK licensing system works here, but there are a couple of parts that would never be accepted in America. First and foremost is the fact that in the UK, self defence is not an acceptable reason to own a firearm which would make a lot of Americans very unhappy. Secondly, in the UK you need to obtain permission for each new firearm you want to acquire (with the exception of regular shotguns or antique weapons), and give justification for why you want it. There are a few other parts which I think the USA could benefit from adopting, such as the requirement that firearms are locked up with only the license holder having access to them, along with limits on the amount of ammunition that can be stored, or purchased in one transaction.

Any changes in legislation that come in the following months need to be well thought out and reasoned, and not the knee jerk over-reactions that followed Hungerford and Dunblane massacres. The Firearms Amendment act of 1988 which followed Hungerford was baffling, banning all semi automatic rifle above .22 regardless of purpose or capacity, along with pump action rifles above .22 calibre but doing nothing about lever action rifles. The first Firearms Amendment act of 1997 which banned all handguns above .22 was over the top but understandable, but when Labour came ino power and followed up with a second act banning .22 pistols as well this was ridiculous. The only reason it happened was as a popularity move based on a petition which only got so many signatures as it was one of the first things of its sort distributed over the internet, and was signed by a large number of people with no knowledge of the subject (likely not realising that there was already a ban on the kind of weapons used in the Dunblane massacre) fuelled by emotion rather than logic.

[Jcordell]

Some good points MT2008. Well thought out responses.