[jatboylover]

Gun ownership should be restricted to police and the military and everyone else caught with a gun should go to prison.

[Tattle]

Gun ownership should be restricted to police and the military and everyone else caught with a gun should go to prison.

Just what country are you from?

[Bohica60]

... I wish that a well trained, sane, armed citizen had been present at any of those massacres.

Not that I see a need to go wandering around a school with a gun, BUT - this could NOT have happened - unfortunately.
In my state (and most others), schools are one of the places we (CCW permit holders) are NOT allowed to carry.

This (as well as some other locations - public parks(?)) makes no sense to me. People who ARE trained, checked out, inspected to a fine degree are the ones NOT allowed to carry in some of the places they may be able to do the most good.

If one of those teachers/school officials (JUST ONE!) had been a CCW permit holder and HAD been allowed to carry there, this story might have had a MUCH less tragic ending!

[Beukies]

Gun ownership should be restricted to police and the military and everyone else caught with a gun should go to prison.

In the REAL world this is an impossibility. Anyway, if that did happen, then the government will have ALL the tools to enforce a dictatorship and slave-state.

Where do you live? Dreamland?

[Beukies]

In my state (and most others), schools are one of the places we (CCW permit holders) are NOT allowed to carry. !

Except where Obama's kids and other so-called "VIP's" kids go. They have armed personell everywhere at that school!

[★★★★★]

I see my topic got going without me noticing.

If one of those teachers/school officials (JUST ONE!) had been a CCW permit holder and HAD been allowed to carry there, this story might have had a MUCH less tragic ending!

You do not believe that the possibility (through negligence or unforeseen circumstances on behalf of the holder) of a student using the weapon of a holder in a school outweighs the potential benefits of allowing weapon holders to carry in schools? School shooting are very rare. When they happen they are terrifying and attract deserved attention. The casualties from my earlier described scenario would be far lower than from a gunman entering and unloading, they would happen with a frequency that would in all likelihood dwarf columbine-style shootings in total casualties. If your argument is that permits should only be given to people who will ensure that nobody other than themselves will be able to get their hands on the weapon, you are absolutely right, but that is exactly what is being argued for, stricter gun control, not the elimination of the right to bear arms. Adam Lanza obtained his weapon from a permit holder who was obviously not qualified to be in possession of assault rifles.

In the REAL world this is an impossibility. Anyway, if that did happen, then the government will have ALL the tools to enforce a dictatorship and slave-state.

Statements of this sort scream ignorance. If you truly believe that it is your possession of guns that is preventing America from becoming a dictatorship you are beyond reason.

Except where Obama's kids and other so-called "VIP's" kids go. They have armed personell everywhere at that school!

The protection you or your kids require is not equivalent to what Obama's kids require, no matter what you think of your children's needs or of the status of humans. The events that would take place in the event of the kidnapping of the president's children would amount to a national catastrophe. Kidnapping your child would not. Moreover the payoff (and consequently the threat) to kidnapping the president's children is incomparable to the payoff one could get from kidnapping the children of any other person in the world. Are you also upset about Obama having bodyguards 24/7 while you do not?

[Bohica60]

I see my topic got going without me noticing.

If one of those teachers/school officials (JUST ONE!) had been a CCW permit holder and HAD been allowed to carry there, this story might have had a MUCH less tragic ending!

You do not believe that the possibility (through negligence or unforeseen circumstances on behalf of the holder) of a student using the weapon of a holder in a school outweighs the potential benefits of allowing weapon holders to carry in schools?

This is always POSSIBLE, but not very likely. First of all, CCW permit holders do NOT normally run around announcing that they HAVE a CCW permit and are carrying, nor do they wear a sign or any other visible means of being identified as such. I realize that I have mentioned here that I have one. In public, you would never realize I was armed, even if I was standing right next to you.
Unless someone mentions that they are a CCW permit holder and are carrying, it is highly unlikely that any student would even KNOW that the teacher/administrator had a permit and was armed.
Even if say, the Principal had been a permit holder and kept her handgun in a small handgun safe in her desk, she would at least have been a little better ready to deal with an armed psychopath, instead of running into his sights empty-handed.

School shooting are very rare. When they happen they are terrifying and attract deserved attention. The casualties from my earlier described scenario would be far lower than from a gunman entering and unloading, they would happen with a frequency that would in all likelihood dwarf columbine-style shootings in total casualties.

They are not so rare here and seem to be happening more and more frequently.
Columbine - 13 killed --- Sandy Hook - 26 killed
I would say that this one already dwarfs the Columbine shooting as far as the number of casualties goes.

If your argument is that permits should only be given to people who will ensure that nobody other than themselves will be able to get their hands on the weapon, you are absolutely right, but that is exactly what is being argued for, stricter gun control, not the elimination of the right to bear arms.

There is no possible way for this to be an absolute. Even professional LEOs (Law Enforcement Officers), FBI, etc., can and have had their own weapons taken away from them. The laws, rules, and regulations are already strict enough - for the law-abiding citizen. Making them stricter on the law-abiding citizen is NOT going to have ANY effect those they are supposed to affect - the criminals.

Adam Lanza obtained his weapon from a permit holder who was obviously not qualified to be in possession of assault rifles.

Adam Lanza obtained his weapon from a family member - ALWAYS easier than having gotten them from a stranger. It does not say HOW or WHEN he got them. "Investigators later found her body, clad in pajamas, in her bed with four gunshot wounds to her head." Once he killed his mother, it probably wasn't too hard to get the keys to the gun safe, but what mother EXPECTS to be killed by her own child?

(Please note that while I agree 100% that SOMETHING should be done to try and prevent anymore senseless tragedies of this nature, I do NOT believe that making things harder on the law-abiding citizen is going to do anything to keep the criminal psychopath from doing this kind of thing. And even if you did remove EVERY gun from private hands, SO WHAT? IT WOULD DO NO GOOD! This type of individual would simply move on to some OTHER weapon of choice - knives, bombs, etc. The answer is to deal with the individual, not the tool.
I can very much sympathize with the families and friends of those affected by this, but the VERY first knee-jerk reaction to something like this is ALWAYS "WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS." Not true. We need better ways to prevent this from happening again, but not by taking it out on the very people that would try and help if they could.)

[★★★★★]

I am not disagreeing with your first point. In fact I may even agree that it is preferable for there to be a gun hidden and locked somewhere in a school building in case of an emergency. I do not however agree that there needs to be a teacher carrying, which is what your point about a CCW licenses seems to suggest. I would argue, that the danger from a student seeing the gun and somehow managing to use it (possibly as a joke), considering the average number of deaths per year in schools between 1992 and 2010 is 45.89 (see link below), is far outweighed by the dangers of every school having someone carrying concealed.

They are not so rare here and seem to be happening more and more frequently.
Columbine - 13 killed --- Sandy Hook - 26 killed
I would say that this one already dwarfs the Columbine shooting as far as the number of casualties goes.

You just named 29 deaths in 14 years. More people die from falling off bridges while wearing red shirts. I have no data on whether or not they are happening more frequently but I do have data on their total number: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindica ... e_01_1.asp They are decreasing.

The laws, rules, and regulations are already strict enough - for the law-abiding citizen. Making them stricter on the law-abiding citizen is NOT going to have ANY effect those they are supposed to affect - the criminals.

There are plenty of things that can be done. Many countries (France, Australia) require gun owners to renew their licenses. If something happens that suggests the person may be directly or indirectly becoming a danger to society, his gun rights will be revoked during the checkup that accompanies renewal. In the US, unless something major happens to the record of an individual, his gun rights will remain untouched.

[Beukies]

In the REAL world this is an impossibility. Anyway, if that did happen, then the government will have ALL the tools to enforce a dictatorship and slave-state.

Statements of this sort scream ignorance. If you truly believe that it is your possession of guns that is preventing America from becoming a dictatorship you are beyond reason.

If "Statements of this sort scream ignorance" and proves me "beyond reason", then I have to say that you, like most people, fall in this catagory.
Look at the facts:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.
1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.
1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.
1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 6 million Jews.
1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.
1964 – Guatamala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.
1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/tyran ... z2JFZjCNL4
and here: http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/gun_facts.html

So, don't say: "It cannot happen here!"

Except where Obama's kids and other so-called "VIP's" kids go. They have armed personell everywhere at that school!

The protection you or your kids require is not equivalent to what Obama's kids require, no matter what you think of your children's needs or of the status of humans. The events that would take place in the event of the kidnapping of the president's children would amount to a national catastrophe. Kidnapping your child would not. Moreover the payoff (and consequently the threat) to kidnapping the president's children is incomparable to the payoff one could get from kidnapping the children of any other person in the world.

First of all, my children are AS important to me as anyone else's are to them. Secondly, I don't expect the same protection for mine as the Obama kids, BUT I do expect the right to protect them by any means possible!

Are you also upset about Obama having bodyguards 24/7 while you do not?

That is a childish question. I didn't think that this debate will become personal and descend into name-calling.

[★★★★★]

Your figures have no statistical relevance. The events that led to the murder of millions of citizens are far more complex than their lack of gun rights. Millions of Russians were murdered under Stalin not because they didn't have guns. There wasn't even the slightest attempt of trying to resist the purges, because frankly nobody had knowledge of what was going on until it was too late. Most people when arrested defended their innocence and genuinely believed both in the greatness of their government and that they would be acquitted. Suggesting otherwise reveals a complete lack of any knowledge of Russian history.

The claim that Nazis took away guns is mostly contradictory to historical facts. Hitler signed a law in 1938 that completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition. What he did do was forbid Jews from owning firearms. But the claim that if some of the 522,000 Jews living in Germany before the beginning of the Holocaust would have stood the slightest of chances against an army that conquered France in 45 days, took all of Europe and inflicted 22 million casualties on the Soviet Union is so ridiculous that it questions your sanity. Could they have inflicted some damage? Maybe. Would it have prevented the murder of 6 million? Not in the slightest. The number of lives saved would have been a rounding error.

My questions are not in the slightest childish. You compared the needs for protection of your children to those of Obama, which is laughable. So far you're doing a great job discrediting the many sane arguments for gun ownership. By all means carry on.

[Bohica60]

I am not disagreeing with your first point. In fact I may even agree that it is preferable for there to be a gun hidden and locked somewhere in a school building in case of an emergency. I do not however agree that there needs to be a teacher carrying, which is what your point about a CCW licenses seems to suggest. I would argue, that the danger from a student seeing the gun and somehow managing to use it (possibly as a joke), considering the average number of deaths per year in schools between 1992 and 2010 is 45.89 (see link below), is far outweighed by the dangers of every school having someone carrying concealed.

They are not so rare here and seem to be happening more and more frequently.
Columbine - 13 killed --- Sandy Hook - 26 killed
I would say that this one already dwarfs the Columbine shooting as far as the number of casualties goes.

You just named 29 deaths in 14 years. More people die from falling off bridges while wearing red shirts. I have no data on whether or not they are happening more frequently but I do have data on their total number: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindica ... e_01_1.asp They are decreasing.

39 deaths. I simply compared the numbers from the incident you mentioned with this one. I did NOT say that they were the ONLY ones that took place. There have been several more incidents than these two.

The laws, rules, and regulations are already strict enough - for the law-abiding citizen. Making them stricter on the law-abiding citizen is NOT going to have ANY effect those they are supposed to affect - the criminals.

There are plenty of things that can be done. Many countries (France, Australia) require gun owners to renew their licenses. If something happens that suggests the person may be directly or indirectly becoming a danger to society, his gun rights will be revoked during the checkup that accompanies renewal. In the US, unless something major happens to the record of an individual, his gun rights will remain untouched.

Not sure where you are getting THIS information, but it is incorrect. They will snap up an individual's gun rights in a minute.
- Convicted felon - don't even THINK about it.
- Ever had a domestic abuse call to your residence - forget it.
- Ever been under psychiatric care - voluntary or involuntary - not a chance.
Take a look at that BATF form again. One wrong answer on that and you can forget about getting the sale approved. Period. Because it WILL come back denied.
And we are required to renew our licenses (CCW) too. They are not permanent. We have to go through refresher training, range time, pay a renewal fee, etc.
If you change your address and don't file a change-of-address form - Bye-bye permit. Get caught in an off-limits area while carrying - Bye-bye permit (and possibly jail/prison time.)
They are pretty strict about what you can and cannot do, where you can and cannot go. Any violation of these rules and you are done.

[XVI]

In 1996, we had a mass shooting that killed 35 people were killed and 23 wounded using AR-15 semi-automatic rifle.
The rules applying to firearms in general were tightened, making it harder to qualify to own a gun, and especially to own more than one.
The Government started to a gun buy-back scheme .The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns, with only 3% being Military style .
The tight gun laws has pretty much stopped the average guy from buying a semi auto and taking out a packed Movie Theater.

Only people with guns here is the Police, Army and Criminals.
But your more likely to get stabbed here than shot.

[Bohica60]

Only people with guns here is the Police, Army and Criminals.
But your more likely to get stabbed here than shot.

My point exactly with this part:

... even if you did remove EVERY gun from private hands, SO WHAT? IT WOULD DO NO GOOD! This type of individual would simply move on to some OTHER weapon of choice - knives, bombs, etc.

If a drunk driver plows into a crowd and kills a bunch of people, do we then start enforcing/enacting newer, tougher "Driver Control" laws? HAH! Never happen! The drunk would probably not even lose his license, or if they did, they would get it back after a while. This has happened, over and over, time after time.
And if we DID do something like this:
Does this have any effect on the drunk driver? No.
Does it stop other drunk drivers? No.
Does it affect all those safe, sober drivers, or soon-to-be-new drivers? Yep.
I realize it's not the same thing, but the comparison is valid.

Gun ownership should be restricted to police and the military and everyone else caught with a gun should go to prison.

Well, I wont go that far

But you could have some control over assault grade weapons getting in to the hands of the general public. The right to bear arms is one thing but do they really need assault grade weapons to fell safe and secure?

[Beukies]

Some (here) argue that criminals' abuse of firearms justifies gun control, especially control of military-type firearms. While hard data prove that criminals rarely abuse military-type rifles, it is nevertheless unclear why criminal activity should define the rights of the law-abiding.

The Chicago Police Department (CPD) has backed gun control for at least 30 years. CPD published data documents 21,204 known murders in Chicago from 1965 to 1992. No more than nine of these murders (four- hundredth of one percent) involved rifles that, by bullet size, could have been military-type rifles (Chicago Police Department, Murder Analysis Report, 1965-1992).

Some of these nine were likely not military-type rifles. It is clear that military-type rifles are not criminals' favorite firearms. This proof has long been known to those who make public policies (See "Control Criminals, Not Guns," J.E. Simkin, _Wall Street Journal_, March 25, 1991, p. A10).

Even if criminals abused military-type firearms, this should not justify robbing the law-abiding of the only defense against attacks or invasions of any kind, home or country.

Another example:

An armed citizenry is close to being genocide-proof, and there is hard evidence at hand. In December 1979, the ex-Soviet Union invaded neighboring Afghanistan. Most of the 16 million Afghans are devout Muslims. They rejected the atheism of their Soviet-backed government.

Afghanistan has never been "governed" by whomever held power in the capitol, Kabul. Afghans look after themselves. Most adult males are armed. Afghanistan had no gun control before the Soviet invasion. Thus, armed Afghan civilians put the Afghan and Soviet armies on the defensive. In 1989, the war-weary Soviets withdrew their 115,000 troops. The Afghans offer a shining example of how armed civilians without heavy weapons can wreck armies. The Afghans undoubtedly saved themselves from genocide and/or enslavement.