Another shooting on campus

[keefe]

I rarely find you to be in error, so I couldn't help myself

Popularization of the term "assault weapon" is attributed by many to the 1988 book "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America" by gun-control activist Josh Sugarmann.

The term was also used by a California pol back in the '80s when introducing a gun control bill.

BTW, anytime anyone in the military uses the expression, "no sh1t," you know that a legend or fable is about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting populace. Thus, when I attributed the term "assault weapon" to the former First Lady it was with the full understanding that the statement is what is known as a "No Sh1tter."

[Galway Eagle]

This document has about the data you could Possibly want on guns, ownership, percent, murders etc. I'm sure we can all use this to make our point.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At6CC4x_yBnMdFVES2NiaU1ibHhrS2xiM1NSXzcxWlE&f=true&noheader=true&gid=5

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let's also assume that a guy expecting there to be a mass shooter brings a gun to a movie theater.  This guy feels a bit riteous and tough now that he's carrying a gun.  So he yells at a father texting his daughter about using his phone.  The father is upset because nobody has that right and turns around and says who do you think you are? Now that guy with his gun feels it's within his right to shoot that father who was just checking on his daughter leaving his wife a widow and his daughter without a father feeling guilty forever because her being scared is what made the dad text.  Oh wait we don't have to imagine that it already happened.

There's a third scenario we can imagine though.  Aurora Colorado, a gunman wants to shoot up a movie theater and can only buy single shot guns.  He goes in there's a panic but because he has to reload he's overtaken in an instant leaving one or two people dead but preventing the death in scenario two.

Yup, crazy people can act crazy sometimes, but the vast vast vast vast majority of people that legally have conceal permits don't.  They are responsible, safe, etc.  If we are to pass laws based on the actions of the extreme all the time, isn't that equally problematic?  Man drives car into crowd on purpose to kill people.  It happens.  Man takes machete to girlfriend's body and kills her.  Woman puts drano in husband's coffee.  So on and so forth. 

Question I have for you is how many people, of all the people that have concealed carry permits, are acting like that?  Should we not let Muslims on planes again because 4 of them flew planes into buildings and the ground?

[keefe]

Let's also assume that a guy expecting there to be a mass shooter brings a gun to a movie theater.  This guy feels a bit riteous and tough now that he's carrying a gun.  So he yells at a father texting his daughter about using his phone.  The father is upset because nobody has that right and turns around and says who do you think you are? Now that guy with his gun feels it's within his right to shoot that father who was just checking on his daughter leaving his wife a widow and his daughter without a father feeling guilty forever because her being scared is what made the dad text.  Oh wait we don't have to imagine that it already happened.

There's a third scenario we can imagine though.  Aurora Colorado, a gunman wants to shoot up a movie theater and can only buy single shot guns.  He goes in there's a panic but because he has to reload he's overtaken in an instant leaving one or two people dead but preventing the death in scenario two.

You have a fervid, fevered, and fertile imagination...

[muhoosier260]

Nope.  Like I said, take a look at the backgrounds of the whack jobs that committed many of these shooting crimes.  Most of them were under treatment in the past, few (almost none) were ever institutionalized and most were not considered a threat to society. 

Yet, we want to restrict gun access because of the action of these looney toons or the failure to properly diagnose\treat them.  Seems a bit odd that we're going down the path of restricting access for the 100's of millions that are just fine because we can't get our stool together regarding the mentally ill.

I'd suggest we start with the treatment of the mentally ill, first.  That includes erring on the side of public safety for some of these folks that end up not being nearly as stable as their doctors and protectors claim them to be.

It sure came off that way, when you say something as broad as "decriminalizing behavior" and the above post refers to marijuana, then you talk about guns. You're all over the place, politicizing topics unnecessarily. Status quo.

[real chili 83]

People and families I know shoot trap and pistols competitively...have done so decades.  

People drink alcohol.  The vast, vast majority don't abuse it. A few do, just like guns.

Abuse by both can lead to tragic consequences.  Both need a level of control to reduce abuse.  

At the end of the day, personal responsibility is the key.  It will never, however, eliminate all potential abuses.  It's the price we pay for living in a free society.

[Coleman]

Let's also assume that a guy expecting there to be a mass shooter brings a gun to a movie theater.  This guy feels a bit riteous and tough now that he's carrying a gun.  So he yells at a father texting his daughter about using his phone.  The father is upset because nobody has that right and turns around and says who do you think you are? Now that guy with his gun feels it's within his right to shoot that father who was just checking on his daughter leaving his wife a widow and his daughter without a father feeling guilty forever because her being scared is what made the dad text.  Oh wait we don't have to imagine that it already happened.

There's a third scenario we can imagine though.  Aurora Colorado, a gunman wants to shoot up a movie theater and can only buy single shot guns.  He goes in there's a panic but because he has to reload he's overtaken in an instant leaving one or two people dead but preventing the death in scenario two.

Check

And

Mate

[brandx]

BTW, anytime anyone in the military uses the expression, "no sh1t," you know that a legend or fable is about to be unleashed on an unsuspecting populace. Thus, when I attributed the term "assault weapon" to the former First Lady it was with the full understanding that the statement is what is known as a "No Sh1tter."

Appreciate the info.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It sure came off that way, when you say something as broad as "decriminalizing behavior" and the above post refers to marijuana, then you talk about guns. You're all over the place, politicizing topics unnecessarily. Status quo.

There has been decriminalization of many things.  The question you asked me if I was equating murder with drugs, which I am not.  That doesn't change the fact that there has been a movement to decriminalize a number of things in this country, from drug crimes, immigration, etc.  As it relates to this topic, I believe I also mentioned the lack of will to commit people to an institution that need to be committed, or allowing dangerous folks to be out in society. 

I don't see how that is politicizing anything.  That is the nature of what is going on.  Don't want to offend someone for being here illegally, so we no longer say illegal (even though they are here illegally).  Don't want to attach a stigma to someone that might be schizophrenic, so we don't hospitalize.  Etc, etc.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Check

And

Mate

I always loved this, as if you are playing a game with yourself and your bestest friends and can high five each other in the men's room.    

  

[brandx]

I have taken care of someone who was in a position to return fire, returned fire, but got hit anyway.  I've also taken care of one of the victims when there were two shooters involved and both got hit.  I have taken care of victim's shot by people with licenses who were either drunk or had a temper tantrum.  Most, however, were shot by an unlicensed handgun. I've taken care of dummies who accidentally shot themselves in the leg, both with licensed and unlicensed guns. I've been on scene when people have committed suicide with a licensed handgun.  One time, I got to be first on the scene when a boyfriend shot his estranged girlfriend, her sister, and then himself after couples counseling didn't work.  Licensed handgun.  In 24 years, I have cleaned up after between 30 and 40 shootings. I look at guns like tobacco and casinos.   Others can do what they like; I know they are not for me.

Too bad more people don't feel this way. I've never owned a gun and never felt like I needed one even though I live in a city that supposedly has a very high crime rate.

[Benny B]

Too bad more people don't feel this way. I've never owned a gun and never felt like I needed one even though I live in a city that supposedly has a very high crime rate.

Sheboygan?

[Coleman]

Too bad more people don't feel this way. I've never owned a gun and never felt like I needed one even though I live in a city that supposedly has a very high crime rate.

+1

[Galway Eagle]

Could someone who backs the NRA explain to me the logic behind blocking these guns?

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-bitter-battle-over-smart-guns-247514691537?cid=sm_facebook_video

[Benny B]

Could someone who backs the NRA explain to me the logic behind blocking these guns?

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-bitter-battle-over-smart-guns-247514691537?cid=sm_facebook_video

I'm not a backer of the NRA, but I would guess that companies like Remington, S&W, and Browning are.

Also guessing that the Armatix smart gun is probably being perceived as a competitive threat to the existing gun manufacturers, and they're simply using the NRA lobby to run said potential competitor out of town.

[HansMoleman]

Could someone who backs the NRA explain to me the logic behind blocking these guns?

http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-bitter-battle-over-smart-guns-247514691537?cid=sm_facebook_video

Basically its the fear of government mandating the sale of only these types of guns, once they've decided it's the solution to eliminating child gun accidents, gun suicides, creating a more peaceful society, etc.  Living in the state of Illinois and having closely followed the CCW debates in the Illinois GA last year, I have no doubt that the anti-gun legislators of the Chicago machine would push for this.  No doubt.  The only reason we now have a CC law is that the 7th circuit forced them to do it.

Personally, I would never buy one of these.  Need to defend yourself?  Better be wearing your watch.  Your wife needs to defend herself with your gun?  Forget about it.  Your watch battery is dead...?

The story says that police officers are in favor of this technology.  Do you think any police chief would issue these to the men and women under their command?

[Benny B]

Basically its the fear of government mandating the sale of only these types of guns, once they've decided it's the solution to eliminating child gun accidents, gun suicides, creating a more peaceful society, etc.  Living in the state of Illinois and having closely followed the CCW debates in the Illinois GA last year, I have no doubt that the anti-gun legislators of the Chicago machine would push for this.  No doubt.  The only reason we now have a CC law is that the 7th circuit forced them to do it.

Personally, I would never buy one of these.  Need to defend yourself?  Better be wearing your watch.  Your wife needs to defend herself with your gun?  Forget about it.  Your watch battery is dead...?

See... that's just garbage "NRA propaganda" that was probably written in the boardroom of a major gun manufacturer and sent in the same FedEx envelope with the mfg's annual contribution (plus a little extra juice this year) to the NRA.  IMO - None of this debate is about gun rights, gun control, etc; it's entirely about impeding commerce.  This shouldn't be a surprise... impeding commerce for the benefit of your campaign benefactors is the very foundation of our two-party system, isn't it?

The story says that police officers are in favor of this technology.  Do you think any police chief would issue these to the men and women under their command?

Absolutely.  If I were a police officer, it would make me feel a lot safer knowing that my or my partner's (or any colleague, for that matter) couldn't be turned on me.  I don't see any downside here... most police officers already wear a watch, and the likelihood of a battery going dead is a statistical impossibility considering that the department would mandate and oversee replacements well before the battery's expected service life expires.

Sure, there's probably a dozen fluke scenarios like "spilled coffee on the watch" that could render a service weapon useless, but a mechanical malfunction in the gun would be much more likely to happen than any of them.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Too bad more people don't feel this way. I've never owned a gun and never felt like I needed one even though I live in a city that supposedly has a very high crime rate.

The great thing is, you have a choice.  Pro Choice as it were.      You can feel free to own one, or not own one.  Some have it for defense, some for sport, some to display.  Bad news will always get the headlines, the 99.99% of people who use guns correctly, safely, without incident is boring, doesn't require calls to the fire department and generally isn't making the news.

[Coleman]

See... that's just garbage "NRA propaganda" that was probably written in the boardroom of a major gun manufacturer and sent in the same FedEx envelope with the mfg's annual contribution (plus a little extra juice this year) to the NRA.  IMO - None of this debate is about gun rights, gun control, etc; it's entirely about impeding commerce.  This shouldn't be a surprise... impeding commerce for the benefit of your campaign benefactors is the very foundation of our two-party system, isn't it?

Absolutely.  If I were a police officer, it would make me feel a lot safer knowing that my or my partner's (or any colleague, for that matter) couldn't be turned on me.  I don't see any downside here... most police officers already wear a watch, and the likelihood of a battery going dead is a statistical impossibility considering that the department would mandate and oversee replacements well before the battery's expected service life expires.

Sure, there's probably a dozen fluke scenarios like "spilled coffee on the watch" that could render a service weapon useless, but a mechanical malfunction in the gun would be much more likely to happen than any of them.

Great points.

I don't really see a downside to these types of guns. You'd think it would be a pretty reasonable compromise point. If you think they are a good idea, and I think they are a good idea, and we are on opposing sides of the spectrum, you'd think it would be a slam dunk.

[Galway Eagle]

The great thing is, you have a choice.  Pro Choice as it were.      You can feel free to own one, or not own one.  Some have it for defense, some for sport, some to display.  Bad news will always get the headlines, the 99.99% of people who use guns correctly, safely, without incident is boring, doesn't require calls to the fire department and generally isn't making the news.

Oh come on chicos you took all those shots at anti gun people saying they were the ones who also want to legalize drugs.  But now you're gonna proclaim pro choice for guns? Valuing a choice seems to be familiar in another controversial issue that most pro gun people go against choice. 

[keefe]

Oh come on chicos you took all those shots at anti gun people saying they were the ones who also want to legalize drugs.  But now you're gonna proclaim pro choice for guns? Valuing a choice seems to be familiar in another controversial issue that most pro gun people go against choice. 

I own no personal weapons and do not advocate abortion for any reason. I also do not believe that government should regulate either. People can and should be free to make choices but they must also live with those choices. I believe that is the essence of Mr. Jefferson's political philosophy.

 

[HansMoleman]

See... that's just garbage "NRA propaganda" that was probably written in the boardroom of a major gun manufacturer and sent in the same FedEx envelope with the mfg's annual contribution (plus a little extra juice this year) to the NRA.  IMO - None of this debate is about gun rights, gun control, etc; it's entirely about impeding commerce.  This shouldn't be a surprise... impeding commerce for the benefit of your campaign benefactors is the very foundation of our two-party system, isn't it?

Absolutely.  If I were a police officer, it would make me feel a lot safer knowing that my or my partner's (or any colleague, for that matter) couldn't be turned on me.  I don't see any downside here... most police officers already wear a watch, and the likelihood of a battery going dead is a statistical impossibility considering that the department would mandate and oversee replacements well before the battery's expected service life expires.

Sure, there's probably a dozen fluke scenarios like "spilled coffee on the watch" that could render a service weapon useless, but a mechanical malfunction in the gun would be much more likely to happen than any of them.

Hey we both have our opinions, which we're entitled to.  Mine has nothing to do with what the NRA thinks.  Like I said, I followed the CC legislation process in IL last year, attended hearings, spoke with lawmakers and it's my opinion that the anti's are frothing at the mouth to mandate smart gun technology, among many other restrictions.  And with the Machine wielding so much power, the push for these restrictions will never end.  Thank God for the downstate democrats!

As for the malfunction issue, modern, semi-automatics are nearly 100% reliable, with a failure to fire almost always being caused by ammunition.  A quick tap and rack will usually fix that.  Revolvers, even more reliable.  My opinion, as someone who knows a little bit about firearms, is that I would trust the reliability of a regular gun over one controlled by a watch any day.

[Galway Eagle]

I own no personal weapons and do not advocate abortion for any reason. I also do not believe that government should regulate either. People can and should be free to make choices but they must also live with those choices. I believe that is the essence of Mr. Jefferson's political philosophy.

 

Essentially whatever tickles your pickle?

[keefe]

gun controlled by a watch any day.

Uh, for less than $10 they could just put a lock on the damn things, too...

[keefe]

Essentially whatever tickles your pickle?

That's not what I said.

Jefferson believed in a "wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another" but which otherwise left them free to regulate their own affairs.

I highly recommend you read Jefferson's actual thoughts. An excellent one-volume summary, which includes his "Autobiography" and "Notes on the State of Virginia" is Thomas Jefferson: Writings. This one man had more impact on modern political philosophy than any other. His Declaration of Independence still stands as one of the single most remarkable and relevant documents ever crafted.