Another shooting on campus

[ChicosBailBonds]

People who go into rages and can't control their temper should not carry a weapon. I am not for everyone going around packing heat but the data overwhelmingly shows that armed, normal  citizens prevent thousands of crimes each year both aimed at themselves and others. Several of the recent mass shooters have shot themselves when confronted by armed response thus reducing the amount of possible casualties.

That's where I stand.  I don't think everyone should pack either, but I certainly would like people to have that right.  If people choose not to, that's fine.  Training, etc has to go along with it (as it currently does).  As long as the a-holes have them (and will continue to have them), then not allowing the good guys to have them seems to be a gaping hole. 

More important for me is what the other side ultimately wants to do.  Certainly there are many gun control folks that merely want to put tougher restrictions in play...I get it.  However, there are others that want total removal, complete.  For as extremist as people are about keeping assault rifles (which I don't think should be legal), I find this equally extreme.  Bagpipe talks about unlikely events, fact is bad guys break into homes all the time and it is hardly an unlikely event.  Many have been stopped or neutralized because the homeowner had the ability to do something. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Where are these facts from? The UKs gun violence rates are wayyy lower than the US's.

l also agree with BB even good people with good intentions can make mistakes. Im sure youve all had the situation where you get super pissed at someone and either want to beat the crap out of them or do beat the crap out of them. Thats not to say they are a bad person but were human, mistakes happen. I just dont like the idea that even well intention humans who conceal have that ability to let their emotions get the better of them and shoot someone.

I dont think that having concealed carry really protects anybody, so why even allow it if its not doing its job?

I think you missed the point.  I said robbery, aggravated assault, etc, are higher in the UK. I said nothing about gun related crimes.  That's the question, are those crimes higher in the UK because guns are banned...bad guys know that the homeowner isn't packing, etc.

Again, you have to be careful in comparing stats because the FBI categorizes crimes in US differently than the UK does. 

[Benny B]

Or maybe just someone who is self reflective and has enough awareness of human limitation to know that there are certain situations where imperfect humans are likely to make misjudgments?

Whereas you think you are incapable of error. Typical Boomer.

Boomer?  Please... I've barely been alive long enough to be constitutionally eligible to become president, let alone be part of a generation that screwed the country.

Self-reflective?  LOL.  I can be self-reflective, too.  You see, we Gen X'ers are able to recognize the difference between making a good decision and a bad decision regardless of what the rules say.  For example... even if carrying a firearm into a bar was legal, I don't ever have to worry about doing something I'd regret because I still wouldn't carry a concealed weapon into a bar; I don't need a law to tell me that.

Gen X isn't incapable of error... in fact the major error we're guilty of is that we are, and will be for the next few decades, cleaning up the errors of the Boomers despite the fact that we know damn well that the millenials are going to undo everything and screw things up worse than the boomers before we even get a chance to retire.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I didn't make a statement on what was too much. Of course there was an implicit judgment, but I didn't say what number should be the right number. I simply asked a question. I'll ask it again...who needs 5 guns? If the reason is that you do five different types of hunting, that each require a different kind of ammunition and gun, I guess that makes sense. That would be the rare exception. I think that is the minority of gun owners who have lots and lots of guns though.


Chicos, I get what you are saying. I own 5 watches and have 2 wrists. The difference is, if I lose a watch or it is stolen, it cannot be used by the thief to kill someone (at least not without a good deal of creativity). If my as-yet-unconceived child gets a hold of it, they cannot harm themselves with it. I'm not talking about legislating or regulating how many guns you should own. Again, I recognize the constitutional right to do so. I would just like to hear a logical reason for owning that many. I don't get it. For the same reason I don't understanding owning a semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity clip.

You do understand, however, that all guns don't do the same thing and why people would own more than one?  Right?

I'm not someone that endorses assault weapons, though the term semi-automatic has become a catchphrase demon that most people do not understand.

Gun safety is practiced very strongly by the vast vast vast majority of gun owners.  Locked in a gun safe of gun cabinet, safeties, etc.  Accidents can happen, just like accidents can happen with many things...medications, household cleaners, knives, etc.  The gun owners I know, take extreme precautions with their weapons.

[Benny B]

I didn't make a statement on what was too much. Of course there was an implicit judgment, but I didn't say what number should be the right number. I simply asked a question. I'll ask it again...who needs 5 guns? If the reason is that you do five different types of hunting, that each require a different kind of ammunition and gun, I guess that makes sense. That would be the rare exception. I think that is the minority of gun owners who have lots and lots of guns though.

Bleu... you've been watching way too many of those survivalist shows; besides, your preconception of a "multi-gun" owner has nothing to do with the argument you're trying to make.  My uncle - Vietnam vet - owns over a dozen guns... not one of them has been fired in nearly half a century, some longer - they're collector's items.

My stepfather owns at least 6-8 guns.  One shotgun and one rifle each for deer (depending on the locale of the hunt - think the shotgun doubles as a bird gun, too, otherwise add one more shotgun), one rifle for bear, pretty sure he has a separate rifle for moose and other big game (though it might be the same as the bear gun), a couple of .22's for small game, a 12g 870 that he won in a raffle (and now uses for trap), one that his father gave him that he never uses for anything (might not even work), and maybe another one or two guns that I just don't know about.

My buddy who is CPD owns four guns in addition to his service weapon... one long gun and three handguns; don't know why, and I don't care.

Incidentally, these three individuals are some of the lowest-key and most responsible people I know.  If you sat down at a bar next to these guys and didn't know who they were or what they did, it would never cross your mind that any of these guys owned a gun, let alone several -- and I guarantee they wouldn't have one on them.

[HansMoleman]

I didn't make a statement on what was too much. Of course there was an implicit judgment, but I didn't say what number should be the right number. I simply asked a question. I'll ask it again...who needs 5 guns? If the reason is that you do five different types of hunting, that each require a different kind of ammunition and gun, I guess that makes sense. That would be the rare exception. I think that is the minority of gun owners who have lots and lots of guns though.


Chicos, I get what you are saying. I own 5 watches and have 2 wrists. The difference is, if I lose a watch or it is stolen, it cannot be used by the thief to kill someone (at least not without a good deal of creativity). If my as-yet-unconceived child gets a hold of it, they cannot harm themselves with it. I'm not talking about legislating or regulating how many guns you should own. Again, I recognize the constitutional right to do so. I would just like to hear a logical reason for owning that many. I don't get it. For the same reason I don't understanding owning a semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity clip.

In response to the high capacity magazine comment, I would answer by saying that if I were ever in a situation where I needed to defend myself or my family, I wouldn't want a politician telling me how many rounds that I "need".  Once man's high capacity is another man's standard capacity.

[Coleman]

In response to the high capacity magazine comment, I would answer by saying that if I were ever in a situation where I needed to defend myself or my family, I wouldn't want a politician telling me how many rounds that I "need".  Once man's high capacity is another man's standard capacity.

By that logic, do you also "need" fully automatic guns? Where do we draw the line?

Assault weapons are offensive weapons. They are not defensive. They are designed to kill the most people in the shortest possible amount of time.

[HansMoleman]

By that logic, do you also "need" fully automatic guns? Where do we draw the line?

Assault weapons are offensive weapons. They are not defensive. They are designed to kill the most people in the shortest possible amount of time.

Assault weapons is a term invented by the media and politicians for the modern sporting rifle, the AR-15 being of this type.  These rifles are semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull), not automatic weapons and not machine guns.  Many people use AR style rifles for hunting, competitive target shooting or plain old fun at the range.  And yes, many people even use them for home defense.

I believe that the ownership of these weapons is not based on need, but on a right.  I also believe that along with that right comes the responsibility of safe gun ownership, which includes proper storage, usage and training.  And more training.

[Galway Eagle]

You don't think older generations have gone through a little bit of life's experience, accumulated a little wisdom and may also know "what would screw us up"?

I do but I take offense when someone generalizes an entire generation acting like his is somehow infallible like Benny B did.  

[Galway Eagle]

I actually gave you the entire background.  Seven states allow, Utah is one, but so are Kansas, Idaho, Wisconsin, etc.  Some are more stringent than others in terms of the ability to have it on your person as you walk to class, vs having it in a class room.   Feel free to use some of the other states if you wish. 

I'm glad you have a plan for what you would do, typically those plans go south but sounds like you feel you are prepared.  Now, you made this claim about "gun nuts".  You do realize in order to get a conceal carry permit you must go through training...right?  That's to reduce the potential danger that you have mentioned.  You don't get to just arrive on campus brandishing gun and holster. 

I don't think my view is shaped by paranoia any more than the view is by others that scream gun violence is rampant.  How many guns are there in this country?  Last estimates I saw were 270 million to 310 million, that's almost 1 per person, though obviously some people have 4 or 5 while many have none.  Despite that many guns, how many gun incidents are there?  Then, ask yourself the question where those incidents do happen, how many of them are by LAWFUL people that have lawfully obtained their firearms?  At the end of the day, how many gun incidents are a result of people obeying the laws vs the ones ignoring them? 

The proposed "solution" seems to be to restrict access to all guns, even though it is a small (very small) sample that is causing the issues and they ignore the laws anyway, so more laws are going to provide a solution to that group, how?

Already responded to the paranoia part. 

You're right about listing more states but the one you provided the most data on was Utah so I chose to specifically respond to that claim as well stupid when you think of who lives in Utah. 

I'm well aware of the training required I also know that the NRA opposes stricter psychological screening for these permits.  So you'd think that as someone who is attempting to proclaim that the people with guns are overall responsible you'd recognize the importance of having proof in that statement through say advanced psychological screening. 

I'm not anti gun at all.  I went to two High Schools with gang problems and that influenced my beliefs.  If I'd gone to high schools out in the nicer suburbs or country perhaps I'd have seen a different side of guns.  I think that the idea that you can unanimously say something like you did about gun free zones being a neon sign to come start shooting, is baseless and either formed from NRA propaganda or like I said paranoia.  Whereas I grew up in one of those gun free zones and outside of a few times all of the shootings were kept to the eastern boarder with the West side of Chicago. 

[Galway Eagle]

OK, and the flip side is that some people view that "statistically unlikely event" as a way to take guns away from law abiding people, even though it is "statistically unlikely event".   

Works both ways, right?  Let's also not forget when Piers Morgan and his followers compare to other countries, he likes to say things like "events" or absolute number of crimes.  Odd that he never mentions the USA with 330 million people vs the countries he is comparing that are nowhere close to that.  I'd also point out, that in the UK and other places he likes to compare, other crimes are higher than here in the US.  Robbery and aggravated assault, for example.  Why?  Who knows, but some academics believe it is due to the ability of folks to protect themselves here in a manner in which they cannot elsewhere. 

One has to be careful when comparing rates of crimes with the US and other nations because crimes are categorized differently.

It's much more statistically likely to be around a gang murder, than a mass murder shooting.  And the gang murders are the ones where you're constantly saying they have guns anyways. 

I could live happily in my house if I was a bit more scared about robberies than guns everywhere ie: England.  But you side stepped the fact that comparable countries have significantly lower gun problems.  I wasn't trying to act like all the countries are the same, especially those with a quarter as many people as us. 

I think you're putting me into the no guns at all costs category.  I'm anti assault weapons, and feel that gun free zones should be legal by local vote.  Because what works in Chicago isn't going to work in (insert wealthy suburb here) which isn't going to work in bufu Wisconsin. 

[Galway Eagle]

People who go into rages and can't control their temper should not carry a weapon. I am not for everyone going around packing heat but the data overwhelmingly shows that armed, normal  citizens prevent thousands of crimes each year both aimed at themselves and others. Several of the recent mass shooters have shot themselves when confronted by armed response thus reducing the amount of possible casualties.

So I am assuming then that you will blatantly say you are disappointed by the NRA's stance against stricter psychological testing for gun permits? If you aren't then you're extremely hypocritical in your first statement. 

[Galway Eagle]

That's where I stand.  I don't think everyone should pack either, but I certainly would like people to have that right.  If people choose not to, that's fine.  Training, etc has to go along with it (as it currently does).  As long as the a-holes have them (and will continue to have them), then not allowing the good guys to have them seems to be a gaping hole.  

More important for me is what the other side ultimately wants to do.  Certainly there are many gun control folks that merely want to put tougher restrictions in play...I get it.  However, there are others that want total removal, complete.  For as extremist as people are about keeping assault rifles (which I don't think should be legal), I find this equally extreme.  Bagpipe talks about unlikely events, fact is bad guys break into homes all the time and it is hardly an unlikely event.  Many have been stopped or neutralized because the homeowner had the ability to do something.  

You talk about the bad guys all the time I'm guessing you mean gang members, cartel members, potential domestic terrorists, and your regular psychos.  What about that retired cop at a movie theater who shot the father of a toddler for texting in a movie?  Was that retired cop a good guy or bad guy? What about the guy who killed an african american teen in a suburb of detroit when she was just knocking on his door seeking help after a car accident?

You keep talking about rights, well when these rights were made the guns took about 5 minutes to load.  They weren't even conceiving of the power of guns today but we're taking the statements of people firing muskets and using them as guidelines for unbelievably powerful weapons.  

I'm not talking about unlikely events.  You're examples are about mass shootings farrrrrr less likely than gun accidents, idiots firing on those who aren't armed, or idiotic people who kill without thinking about it at the time. (I don't want to flood this message board with gun fatalities by those with legal guns but I will to prove a point between studying for finals). 

[Spotcheck Billy]

terrible story in Milwaukee last week about a 4 year old finding a loaded gun in the car and accidentally killing himself while his young sister also played in the car - no word yet if the mother will be charged with anything (her gun, her car)

[keefe]

I own two rfles.  A 30.06 and a .22.

You actually own one rifle and one toy.

[keefe]

let alone be part of a generation that screwed the country.

So, you were born after 1980?

[keefe]

a lot of that depends on the shell size.

Shell size is important but the skill of the rifleman is far more critical in a satisfactory hunting experience.

[brandx]

Boomer?  Please... I've barely been alive long enough to be constitutionally eligible to become president, let alone be part of a generation that screwed the country.

You sound like an entitled know-it-all punk who hates your parents. Get some counseling before coming here attacking people you don't know.

And yes I would say your boomer parents are partially responsible for the state of our country today - they raised you.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Already responded to the paranoia part. 

You're right about listing more states but the one you provided the most data on was Utah so I chose to specifically respond to that claim as well stupid when you think of who lives in Utah. 

I'm well aware of the training required I also know that the NRA opposes stricter psychological screening for these permits.  So you'd think that as someone who is attempting to proclaim that the people with guns are overall responsible you'd recognize the importance of having proof in that statement through say advanced psychological screening. 

I'm not anti gun at all.  I went to two High Schools with gang problems and that influenced my beliefs.  If I'd gone to high schools out in the nicer suburbs or country perhaps I'd have seen a different side of guns.  I think that the idea that you can unanimously say something like you did about gun free zones being a neon sign to come start shooting, is baseless and either formed from NRA propaganda or like I said paranoia.  Whereas I grew up in one of those gun free zones and outside of a few times all of the shootings were kept to the eastern boarder with the West side of Chicago. 

Didn't you just get done saying you didn't like generalizations of millenials and you just generalized all of Utah...right?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You talk about the bad guys all the time I'm guessing you mean gang members, cartel members, potential domestic terrorists, and your regular psychos.  What about that retired cop at a movie theater who shot the father of a toddler for texting in a movie?  Was that retired cop a good guy or bad guy? What about the guy who killed an african american teen in a suburb of detroit when she was just knocking on his door seeking help after a car accident?

You keep talking about rights, well when these rights were made the guns took about 5 minutes to load.  They weren't even conceiving of the power of guns today but we're taking the statements of people firing muskets and using them as guidelines for unbelievably powerful weapons.  

I'm not talking about unlikely events.  You're examples are about mass shootings farrrrrr less likely than gun accidents, idiots firing on those who aren't armed, or idiotic people who kill without thinking about it at the time. (I don't want to flood this message board with gun fatalities by those with legal guns but I will to prove a point between studying for finals). 

I would categorize any person that does someone else harm due to malicious intent as a bad guy.  Cop, gang member, etc.   Accidents happen, mistakes happen.  Of course the press also puts those on the front page as often as they can.  Ever notice that a homeowner saving his hide in his house by using a gun to fend off an intruder isn't on the front page?  I always found that curious.  I will concede in a second that guns in the hands of the wrong people can kill, hurt, maim.  Drugs, in the hands of the wrong people, can kill, hurt, etc.  Ironically, some of the same people looking to ban guns want to legalize street drugs. 

This situation can't be perfect, and no legislation or outlawing of them will make them perfect either.  That's my concern, people think with the swipe of a pen they can legislate morality, and that is for both sides.  You can't.  The human condition will not allow for it.  You ban guns, innocent people will still die and you've taken any ability to defend themselves away.  You keep guns around, there will be deaths as a result due to mistakes, misuse. 

[brandx]

But the facts show that citizens can govern themselves when it comes to firearms.  Considering there are somewhere north of 700,000 hunters in Wisconsin alone, 900,000 in Pennsylvania and few instances of where these are misused and gun  crime statistics have been declining for more than a decade one can deduce that the vast majority of gun owners are safe, law abiding citizens.

Why do we need gun control? These are the people fighting hardest for guns!!!

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/03/christian-militia-leader-now-networking

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/04/30/back-at-the-bundy-ranch-its-oath-keepers-vs-militiamen-as-wild-rumors-fly/

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/oath-keepers-claim-government-psy-ops-behind-bundy-ranch-drone-rumor-militia-infighting

[keefe]

Assault weapons is a term invented by the media and politicians for the modern sporting rifle, the AR-15 being of this type.  These rifles are semi-automatic (one shot per trigger pull), not automatic weapons and not machine guns.  Many people use AR style rifles for hunting, competitive target shooting or plain old fun at the range.  And yes, many people even use them for home defense.

I believe that the ownership of these weapons is not based on need, but on a right.  I also believe that along with that right comes the responsibility of safe gun ownership, which includes proper storage, usage and training.  And more training.

I believe it was actually, no sh1t, Hilary Clinton who invented the term "assault weapon."

And while I agree with your statement that ownership of AR 15 type weapons is based on right rather than need that doesn't justify these being made available to the public.

And one technical point: Hand-held military assault weapons do not have a "Full Automatic" mode. There are three settings - Safe, Single, Burst. The reason Uncle Sugar decided to limit his warriors to no more than a 3 round burst in issue hand held weapons is because recoil is additive so that by the third round you are spraying bullets into the sky rather than slaying Tallies.

Also, you would expend a 30 round mag in a couple seconds, creating a tactical and logistical nightmare. Small unit doctrine calls for belt-fed crew served weapons to provide suppressing fire that channels the bad guys into a kill zone where they can be picked off by the guys squeezing off accurately placed three round bursts from their M 16s and M 4s.

Finally, "full automatic" mode has a very high probability of jamming. And the last thing anyone wants in a fire fight is a weapon that needs to be broken down, cleared, and reassembled. What is pure bull chit is the movies and games where idiots are wildly spraying rounds around from AKs or Uzis they are holding one hand with the effect of mowing down dozens of the enemy.

Hunters are much better off with purpose designed weapons that offer greater reliability, accuracy, range, and sportsmanship. An AR 15 or AK variant is designed to do one thing - put out a lot of rounds in relatively close quarter in controlled bursts. Anyone hunting deer with an M 16 is an idiot.

[Galway Eagle]

Didn't you just get done saying you didn't like generalizations of millenials and you just generalized all of Utah...right?

Knowing that a state is 60% mormon and a guy saying "typical millennial" aren't exactly the same thing.  I think you know that and are just trying to poke holes in what I was saying. 

[Galway Eagle]

I would categorize any person that does someone else harm due to malicious intent as a bad guy.  Cop, gang member, etc.   Accidents happen, mistakes happen.  Of course the press also puts those on the front page as often as they can.  Ever notice that a homeowner saving his hide in his house by using a gun to fend off an intruder isn't on the front page?  I always found that curious.  I will concede in a second that guns in the hands of the wrong people can kill, hurt, maim.  Drugs, in the hands of the wrong people, can kill, hurt, etc.  Ironically, some of the same people looking to ban guns want to legalize street drugs. 

This situation can't be perfect, and no legislation or outlawing of them will make them perfect either.  That's my concern, people think with the swipe of a pen they can legislate morality, and that is for both sides.  You can't.  The human condition will not allow for it.  You ban guns, innocent people will still die and you've taken any ability to defend themselves away.  You keep guns around, there will be deaths as a result due to mistakes, misuse. 

Ok, fair enough about the good guy/bad guy thing.  Curious though since you're so gunho about defending your home.  http://gawker.com/horrifying-audio-of-man-killing-unarmed-teens-released-1570904656

Good guy or bad guy?  Two unarmed teens sneak in, fair reason to defend yourself you don't know if they're armed and they're trespassing.  He execution kills the girl after it's fairly clear that they posed no threat and could very well have called the cops.  Legal gun, legally defending himself, absolutely evil and malicious killing.  Please defend.  Also you never answered my question about why the NRA doesn't support better psych screening please defend that as well. 

[Coleman]

I believe it was actually, no sh1t, Hilary Clinton who invented the term "assault weapon."

And while I agree with your statement that ownership of AR 15 type weapons is based on right rather than need that doesn't justify these being made available to the public.

And one technical point: Hand-held military assault weapons do not have a "Full Automatic" mode. There are three settings - Safe, Single, Burst. The reason Uncle Sugar decided to limit his warriors to no more than a 3 round burst in issue hand held weapons is because recoil is additive so that by the third round you are spraying bullets into the sky rather than slaying Tallies.

Also, you would expend a 30 round mag in a couple seconds, creating a tactical and logistical nightmare. Small unit doctrine calls for belt-fed crew served weapons to provide suppressing fire that channels the bad guys into a kill zone where they can be picked off by the guys squeezing off accurately placed three round bursts from their M 16s and M 4s.

Finally, "full automatic" mode has a very high probability of jamming. And the last thing anyone wants in a fire fight is a weapon that needs to be broken down, cleared, and reassembled. What is pure bull chit is the movies and games where idiots are wildly spraying rounds around from AKs or Uzis they are holding one hand with the effect of mowing down dozens of the enemy.

Hunters are much better off with purpose designed weapons that offer greater reliability, accuracy, range, and sportsmanship. An AR 15 or AK variant is designed to do one thing - put out a lot of rounds in relatively close quarter in controlled bursts. Anyone hunting deer with an M 16 is an idiot.

Keefe, no matter the discussion topic you always bring great knowledge and perspective. One of the reasons I love Scoop.