26 dead in Connecticut

[the_savior21]

I have been to a lot of different banks over the years and never once have a been buzzed in by a teller. I have went through drive thru style banks but never had to be buzzed to enter a bank thats the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. And we do not live in a perfect world year everything can go exactly as you plan it. Shit is gonna happen people are going to die everyday the only thing we can do as people is limit the number of deaths when it comes to a tragedy like this or any other for that matter. Its ridiculous to say that we shouldn't have to accept death and that all death is easily avoided. How you think that is a logical response of any kind is just crazy.

[Lacquer Head]

Rule #1 in case of armed maniac invading. Lock your doors:







Rule#2 when theres a volcanic eruption:
Duck and cover.

Nice (lack of) logic ya got there

I have been to a lot of different banks over the years and never once have a been buzzed in by a teller. I have went through drive thru style banks but never had to be buzzed to enter a bank thats the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. And we do not live in a perfect world year everything can go exactly as you plan it. Shit is gonna happen people are going to die everyday the only thing we can do as people is limit the number of deaths when it comes to a tragedy like this or any other for that matter. Its ridiculous to say that we shouldn't have to accept death and that all death is easily avoided. How you think that is a logical response of any kind is just crazy.

I've been to plenty vOv. But in all seriousness, try a cashland, idk if they're all that secure, but the ones I've been to were. I don't see how this is supposed to be such a hard concept to accept, that some how it's impossible...when it is very much so. There's a reason army bases tend to be secure, because it works. Bullet proof doors aren't some unknown hypothetical technology ffs. None of this is, it exists in the modern world, all we need to do is utilize it more. I can guarantee that upping security in schools would cost less than building a new one, which tax payers have easy took care of in the past. There's just no logical downside other than "noep, too futuristic and expensive"...which isn't logical at all.

Also, I was watching some house hunters show where a dude used glass planes as every wall for his second story, said glass could withstand ROCKET PROPELLED GRENADES. Now, I'm sure this particular glass is a bit pricey, but bullet proof glass is pretty damn available in todays age.

[Rowan]

There's a reason army bases tend to be secure, because it works.

Also that everyone is armed to the teeth with guns. You literally just compared the security of an army base to an elementary school.

[Lacquer Head]

If the guns are what keep them secure, they should just stay out in the open :3

Also, instead of forcing teachers to keep a gun, how bout a tazer? I wouldn't mind that so much, as long as they aren't allowed to use it for capital punishment. Non-lethal and all that. Not really any less accessible than a gun. Keep some mace as well, for good measure.

[Heartless Angel]

Rule #1 in case of armed maniac invading. Lock your doors:







Rule#2 when theres a volcanic eruption:
Duck and cover.

It really works!

Did I say everything? There's plenty of money being wasted on failed policies, instead of investing all this money for the "war on drugs", we could invest it into mental health research. If a girl can be cured of leukemia, surely doctors can DIAGNOSE a mental illness.

And while we're researching ways to maybe conceivably prevent people from becoming murderers later in life, the ones who already murderers are already murderers, and you time and money do nothing against them. Learning how to stop things from happening is great. When they're already happening, it isn't the best time to implement that as a solution to the problem. In any case, it's not at all likely you're going to discover the physiological cause of every single psychological disorder a person could ever have, and even if you did, that wouldn't do a damned thing for the large percentage of criminals with absolutely nothing wrong with them. SHould we devote more resources to medical research? Yes. Is that going to prevent all crimes to a point that it is an effective system of defense? Not even close.

I don't view anyone as more important than anyone else, so I'd prefer neither.

As Rush so brilliantly put it, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Once again, this is reality, not Sun-Shiney Happy Land. Not all situations can be resolved peacefully, not every problem has an ideal solution. There is a such thing as a no win situation, not liking them does not cause them to cease to exist. As for people being more important than others, that's another debate entirely, but I gladly submit that there are many people who are objectively more fit to exist than others. In the case of a criminal, likely worthless to society, a danger to himself and others, I should think it's rather easy to decide whether or not his existence has greater merit than that of a law abiding citizen.

Yes, because criminals murdering people is just like completely changing a persons job.

As close to it as owning a piece of equipment you may never have to use. You know, I have a chainsaw in my garage, it was my grandfather's, not sure why he bought it, I don't think it's ever been used, but I have it, and if the need arose, I would be capable of using it, so I'm clearly a lumberjack (and I'm Okay, I sleep all night, I work all day!). Sound logic there.

1. Is an army private not a soldier til he's been in the shit?

An army private is a soldier because he is a member of the army, not because he has been issued military equipment. Again, I own a chainsaw, am I lumberjack? Of course not.

2. If we're going on such rare statistics, how bout we make all teachers be basic geologists and meteorologists to prevent natural disasters. We could also force them to get bitten by radioactive spiders to develop spidey sense awesomeface.jpg

You are using a rhetorical device to support an unfair, illogical, and intentionally ridiculous comparison. If your entire argument is to be based on such nonsensical points, I have no desire to continue this debate and will happily agree to disagree, because it's clear rational discourse will not work here.

No, actually you do. If they haven't killed anyone, you try to appease them to prevent the hostages from being harmed. But if you think a childs life should be forfeit because a gunman might kill some one...

You say it's stupid and a clear choice, and I disagree. You never accept ANY deaths. That is never acceptable. You say a few deaths are acceptable, I say none, along with most people.

You might, I wouldn't. A well thought out hostage taking terrorist doesn't show up to a school and pick somebody up, they have them in a secure room where they can't be reached without being alerted in such a way that they're capable of carrying out their threats before being stopped, they have clear demands and get in touch with a negotiate as quickly as possible. Somebody showing up and grabbing a random person as a shield with a gun, is a desperate, frightened animal. Now, let's look at the simple mathematics aspect of this. Say for sake of argument, every time you get a criminal who IS just playing dirty and kills the kid after you drop your weapon and then proceeds to commit a massacre, you end up with 20 theoretically dead people. What this means, is that if more than 1 in 21 hostage takers are actually there to commit a massacre, by giving in to the criminal's demands and hoping for the best, you are increasing the overall casualty rate. I know you (and many others) have issues with comparing something simple like numbers when something not so simple like life is what's being represented by said numbers, but truthfully, it's a very simple comparison to make. 100 deaths is worse than 1 death, if you must choose between one certain death and 100 certain deaths, the choice is clear. It's not always a matter of certainty I understand, but 1 certain death is also better than 1000 deaths with a 90% probability of occurring. Life itself can be reduced to a mathematical calculation, regardless of how much that bothers people. In certain situations, it is statistically in one's best interest to cut your losses and confront the attacker. In many cases, accepting that a person is beyond saving is simply the logical thing to do, and being too weak to accept that loss dooms even more innocents.

Because thousands of people die, it makes it ok? Death CAN be prevented, easily.

Death is the inevitable conclusion of all life. It is irrefutable truth, all men must die. It can not be prevented, it can only be delayed. To deny this truth is foolish, and futile. Life is not some some wonderful divinely significant gift to be revered and respected. Life is a series of bio-mechanical processes that will inevitably come to an end. Approximately 150 thousand lives end each day, approximate 350 thousand begin. Changing the conclusion of a handful of them every so often is not significant in the grand scheme of things. Neither outcome is significant in the grand scheme of things, comparatively, one is better than the other, the choice comes down to simple logic.

There are plenty of other buildings that can afford it vOv there are already schools that have such security methods in place. If you school is a fortress, you don't NEED armed guards. If you can hold them off til the police make it there. you're doing pretty good.

If it were cheap or simple, every building ever constructed would have such security measures. It isn't cheap, it isn't easy to set up. It is not plausible to have this kind of thing everywhere. The reason it works at military bases, is because they're full of armed guards, a would be attacker knows even if they did do what was necessary to breach these defenses, they would stand no chance against the resistance within. Without those armed guards, your only opponent is a wall. A wall can be easily defeated. I don't know how many different ways it can be said, there is not a viable magical solution that will stop all crimes. It doesn't exist. Ignoring obvious avenues of advancing towards a world less dominated by crime to pursue a pipe dream of a world free from it is illogical.

Funny, I work at a gas station and I know that we tend to have 1-2 people working at anytime. We don't hide in a monitoring room either. If the criminal busts in, shoots one person and holds you up, there's not much you can do. That's to say they don't take you both by surprise. Unless the cashiers have a gun in their hand, there's no way they could react in time.

Again, there is no perfect world in which you never face a no-win situation. All you can do is try to minimize them.

It's sad when I don't even need to post new material for a rebuttal.

I've been to plenty vOv. But in all seriousness, try a cashland, idk if they're all that secure, but the ones I've been to were. I don't see how this is supposed to be such a hard concept to accept, that some how it's impossible...when it is very much so. There's a reason army bases tend to be secure, because it works. Bullet proof doors aren't some unknown hypothetical technology ffs. None of this is, it exists in the modern world, all we need to do is utilize it more. I can guarantee that upping security in schools would cost less than building a new one, which tax payers have easy took care of in the past. There's just no logical downside other than "noep, too futuristic and expensive"...which isn't logical at all.

Once again you neglect the concept of money. Things require money. Nice things require LOTS of money. Construction is not cheap, security measure are not cheap, constructing things to accommodate security measures and then adding security measures is not cheap. Public schools are not known for being overly well funded. Again you are operating in a hypothetical world in which the school system has unlimited funds and resources, that is not the world we live in. Nobody has denied the existence of high security technology. The logical downside is that we can not afford to equip every building that a criminal could conceivably target and harm innocent people with military base level security systems. The reason a place like a bank with such a security system isn't targeted now, is because there are other banks that don't have it, why choose a difficult target when an easy one is equally profitable? For security systems to prevent crimes, every building ever constructed would have to have them, this is not viable.

Also, instead of forcing teachers to keep a gun, how bout a tazer? I wouldn't mind that so much, as long as they aren't allowed to use it for capital punishment. Non-lethal and all that. Not really any less accessible than a gun. Keep some mace as well, for good measure.

Should have that at the very least; though gun should absolutely be an option, disarming laws and regulations do not help anyone.

[Lacquer Head]

It really works!

**** you, now I wanna watch that episode .-.

And while we're researching ways to maybe conceivably prevent people from becoming murderers later in life, the ones who already murderers are already murderers, and you time and money do nothing against them. Learning how to stop things from happening is great. When they're already happening, it isn't the best time to implement that as a solution to the problem. In any case, it's not at all likely you're going to discover the physiological cause of every single psychological disorder a person could ever have, and even if you did, that wouldn't do a damned thing for the large percentage of criminals with absolutely nothing wrong with them. SHould we devote more resources to medical research? Yes. Is that going to prevent all crimes to a point that it is an effective system of defense? Not even close.

We used to think the same thing about most medical procedures, it's impossible, too futuristic, yadda yadda yadda. Instead of giving up and just saying "noep, too hard" we should actually TRY. No it wont be 100% successful, but that's hardly a reason not to do it. 90% is better than 0%. As for the criminals that AREN'T mentally ill, there's really no way to stop them. Which is why we safety up our schools \o/. As far as out of schools are concerned, I don't care if people carry guns or not, it only affects them, so let them protect themselves how every they see fit (legally of course).

[quote]As Rush so brilliantly put it, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Once again, this is reality, not Sun-Shiney Happy Land. Not all situations can be resolved peacefully, not every problem has an ideal solution. There is a such thing as a no win situation, not liking them does not cause them to cease to exist. As for people being more important than others, that's another debate entirely, but I gladly submit that there are many people who are objectively more fit to exist than others. In the case of a criminal, likely worthless to society, a danger to himself and others, I should think it's rather easy to decide whether or not his existence has greater merit than that of a law abiding citizen.[.quote]

All situations can't be non-violent, but all situations don't merit violence either. It's just as possible to end something without violence as it is to end it WITH violence. No one, and I mean NO ONE is EVER OBJECTIVELY more fit to exist than any one else.

As close to it as owning a piece of equipment you may never have to use. You know, I have a chainsaw in my garage, it was my grandfather's, not sure why he bought it, I don't think it's ever been used, but I have it, and if the need arose, I would be capable of using it, so I'm clearly a lumberjack (and I'm Okay, I sleep all night, I work all day!). Sound logic there.

You're also not obligated to use it in certain situations. A more accurate comparison would be owning a chainsaw but being forced to take care of any tree that needed removal in your neighborhood.

An army private is a soldier because he is a member of the army, not because he has been issued military equipment. Again, I own a chainsaw, am I lumberjack? Of course not.

And a teacher would be a soldier because they are a member of the defense force of the school.

You are using a rhetorical device to support an unfair, illogical, and intentionally ridiculous comparison. If your entire argument is to be based on such nonsensical points, I have no desire to continue this debate and will happily agree to disagree, because it's clear rational discourse will not work here.

See, I was making fun of YOUR illogical comparisons. Sarcasm~

You might, I wouldn't. A well thought out hostage taking terrorist doesn't show up to a school and pick somebody up, they have them in a secure room where they can't be reached without being alerted in such a way that they're capable of carrying out their threats before being stopped, they have clear demands and get in touch with a negotiate as quickly as possible.

Apparently you've never seen a hostage situation o.O it's quite common that it's a last resort type thing. Hell, a school would be the perfect example of what you're claiming anyway. You can't really see anything, the criminal just has to hop on the phone, make his demands and threats and a stand off is underway.

Somebody showing up and grabbing a random person as a shield with a gun, is a desperate, frightened animal. Now, let's look at the simple mathematics aspect of this. Say for sake of argument, every time you get a criminal who IS just playing dirty and kills the kid after you drop your weapon and then proceeds to commit a massacre, you end up with 20 theoretically dead people. What this means, is that if more than 1 in 21 hostage takers are actually there to commit a massacre, by giving in to the criminal's demands and hoping for the best, you are increasing the overall casualty rate.

See? That's the beauty of it. It does happen VERY rarely. Usually a hostage taker has motives other than blind massacres, so people don't expect it. They try to appease the hostage taker to prevent any harm done to the hostage. Whether you believe they will or not, you'd be taking a child's life into your own hands, possibly missing and shooting them yourself. Even the police are usually hesitant to use snipers and shit.

I know you (and many others) have issues with comparing something simple like numbers when something not so simple like life is what's being represented by said numbers, but truthfully, it's a very simple comparison to make. 100 deaths is worse than 1 death, if you must choose between one certain death and 100 certain deaths, the choice is clear. It's not always a matter of certainty I understand, but 1 certain death is also better than 1000 deaths with a 90% probability of occurring. Life itself can be reduced to a mathematical calculation, regardless of how much that bothers people. In certain situations, it is statistically in one's best interest to cut your losses and confront the attacker. In many cases, accepting that a person is beyond saving is simply the logical thing to do, and being too weak to accept that loss dooms even more innocents.

I sure am glad you're not a hostage negotiator. You may view it as logical, but I do not. There are always possibilities to prevent any deaths. There are NEVER only two options. It's never that black and white. Never accept the possibilities you are TOLD are fact, always always always think of better options.

Death is the inevitable conclusion of all life. It is irrefutable truth, all men must die. It can not be prevented, it can only be delayed. To deny this truth is foolish, and futile. Life is not some some wonderful divinely significant gift to be revered and respected. Life is a series of bio-mechanical processes that will inevitably come to an end. Approximately 150 thousand lives end each day, approximate 350 thousand begin. Changing the conclusion of a handful of them every so often is not significant in the grand scheme of things. Neither outcome is significant in the grand scheme of things, comparatively, one is better than the other, the choice comes down to simple logic.

By this logic, you could just let the small amount of worthless lives be lost and continue on and count your losses. This is still just opinion though. You say life is irrelevant in the end, I do not. Regardless of how insignificant lives are, they're all equal.

If it were cheap or simple, every building ever constructed would have such security measures.

A lot of people build without assuming the worst. Kinda like asbestos, fire hazards, lead paint, etc etc. As we learn better ways to build, we utilize them. You should see some of the techniques builders have to use in Alaska thanks to permafrost, it's astonishing.

It isn't cheap, it isn't easy to set up. It is not plausible to have this kind of thing everywhere.

I never said everywhere, I said at schools. Businesses and shit are the owners responsibility, it's a bit different with schools.

The reason it works at military bases, is because they're full of armed guards, a would be attacker knows even if they did do what was necessary to breach these defenses, they would stand no chance against the resistance within. Without those armed guards, your only opponent is a wall. A wall can be easily defeated.

If an outside force is overwhelming the force inside, they can always hold up and try to out wait them until the cavalry arrives. This strategy has been around for 1,000 years or more. Walls are usually defeated from the inside...or by rockets. I want to make a Troy reference but I'm sure some one will try to create a Trojan Horse >_>

I don't know how many different ways it can be said, there is not a viable magical solution that will stop all crimes. It doesn't exist. Ignoring obvious avenues of advancing towards a world less dominated by crime to pursue a pipe dream of a world free from it is illogical.

I'm sorry if you chose to ignore simple ideas and call them magical.

It's sad when I don't even need to post new material for a rebuttal.

It's kinda sad when you're making the same allegations you're accusing me of making.

Once again you neglect the concept of money. Things require money. Nice things require LOTS of money. Construction is not cheap, security measure are not cheap, constructing things to accommodate security measures and then adding security measures is not cheap. Public schools are not known for being overly well funded.

They DO get funded though. I'm not claiming it can happen instantly, it will take time, but then again, what wouldn't? Most schools I've seen are thick brick buildings. Not much needs rebuild. Focus on windows and doors is all that's needed.

Again you are operating in a hypothetical world in which the school system has unlimited funds and resources, that is not the world we live in. Nobody has denied the existence of high security technology. The logical downside is that we can not afford to equip every building that a criminal could conceivably target and harm innocent people with military base level security systems.

I never claimed we could, I just said schools vOv. That's kinda the whole point of this thread. Businesses are the corporations responsibility and so on.

The reason a place like a bank with such a security system isn't targeted now, is because there are other banks that don't have it, why choose a difficult target when an easy one is equally profitable? For security systems to prevent crimes, every building ever constructed would have to have them, this is not viable.

It's perfectly viable for schools. You admit it's a good deterrence, so why not? We could always start petitions to cut the funding for the war on drugs and other such wasteful devices to fund safe schools. I'm sure the general population would back such a movement. It might not get through congress...but that would be a damn fine example of the way the government feels about the people.

Should have that at the very least; though gun should absolutely be an option, disarming laws and regulations do not help anyone.

Nah, non-lethal deterrence is fine. Why kill some one when you don't have to? I know I wouldn't be able to hold onto a gun if I was getting my asshole turned inside out by 10,000 volts >_>.

[Heartless Angel]

**** you, now I wanna watch that episode .-.

I actually had to go watch it after looking for that clip to reply <.<

We used to think the same thing about most medical procedures, it's impossible, too futuristic, yadda yadda yadda. Instead of giving up and just saying "noep, too hard" we should actually TRY. No it wont be 100% successful, but that's hardly a reason not to do it. 90% is better than 0%. As for the criminals that AREN'T mentally ill, there's really no way to stop them. Which is why we safety up our schools \o/. As far as out of schools are concerned, I don't care if people carry guns or not, it only affects them, so let them protect themselves how every they see fit (legally of course).

I never said we shouldn't try. Medical knowledge is worth obtaining regardless of crimes, I'm just saying that isn't an effective solution for stopping crimes from occurring.

All situations can't be non-violent, but all situations don't merit violence either. It's just as possible to end something without violence as it is to end it WITH violence. No one, and I mean NO ONE is EVER OBJECTIVELY more fit to exist than any one else.

Darwin would disagree with you. As would I, and numerous others. Though I'm sure there as just as many naive bleeding hearts who want to love everybody who can't see a difference in value between the scum of the earth and the people who make it work. I assure you, the difference exists. One is valuable to the world, the other is not. All things have value, even, and sometimes most especially the things that people find difficult to put a price on.

You're also not obligated to use it in certain situations. A more accurate comparison would be owning a chainsaw but being forced to take care of any tree that needed removal in your neighborhood.

You wouldn't be obligated to use your gun either. If you'd rather die and let a madman murder a room full of children, I guess you have that right. I'd consider it an outrageously stupid decision but that's my opinion on a very large number of decisions people make already. So I guess if you feel that the scum of the earth's safety is more important than yours and a room full of innocent children, I suppose it's up to the world to judge you. Personally I don't think many of them would judge that your decision was sound, but again, everybody has the right to be wrong.

And a teacher would be a soldier because they are a member of the defense force of the school.

Again, no. Once again I'll repost quotes of myself since you seemed to ignore the last time I adressed this point.

I'm not saying we need the teachers to work in shifts while we have a few patrolling the perimeter with assault rifles or practicing their aim in the school firing range. It's a simple matter of sticking a handgun that 99.99% of them will never have to fire in their pocket. Again, being armed does not make you a soldier, it does not make you a cop, it does not make you a guard. It makes you a citizen with the ability to stand up to a criminal should the need arise. Until such a situation arises, you live your life as though that gun doesn't even exist.

Straw men and emotional appeals an argument do not make.

See, I was making fun of YOUR illogical comparisons. Sarcasm~

Liiiike... which ones pray tell?

Apparently you've never seen a hostage situation o.O it's quite common that it's a last resort type thing. Hell, a school would be the perfect example of what you're claiming anyway. You can't really see anything, the criminal just has to hop on the phone, make his demands and threats and a stand off is underway.

And he's not in a classroom room with a gun threatening teachers, because the teachers are not capable of giving him what he wants. Running in and grabbing somebody is not an effective means of control, an intelligent terrorist making demands is going to be a lot more organized than that. A terrorist plans for this sort of thing, it isn't a last resort. The people who take them on a whim are criminals who realize they have failed, and are now desperate and frightened animals. Desperate and frightened animals are dangerous, the odds of them harming somebody is very high. If they are truly looking for a peaceful way out, they'll be more than receptive to compromise, not trying to make unreasonable demands.

See? That's the beauty of it. It does happen VERY rarely. Usually a hostage taker has motives other than blind massacres, so people don't expect it. They try to appease the hostage taker to prevent any harm done to the hostage. Whether you believe they will or not, you'd be taking a child's life into your own hands, possibly missing and shooting them yourself. Even the police are usually hesitant to use snipers and shit.

Were we not on this subject only because of your assertion that in a world in which my ideas were implemented hostage taking would become the preferred method of child massacre? It would then cease to be a rarity.

I sure am glad you're not a hostage negotiator. You may view it as logical, but I do not. There are always possibilities to prevent any deaths. There are NEVER only two options. It's never that black and white. Never accept the possibilities you are TOLD are fact, always always always think of better options.

There's always the possibility that the offender will have a heart attack and fall over dead without you having to deal with him at all. Gambling on that possibility is not a logical approach to resolving the situation. Thee are a finite number of logical, reasonable outcomes in any given situation. There isn't always one that's exactly what you want. To believe otherwise is naive.

By this logic, you could just let the small amount of worthless lives be lost and continue on and count your losses. This is still just opinion though. You say life is irrelevant in the end, I do not. Regardless of how insignificant lives are, they're all equal.

You could, it wouldn't bother me, because I do not value life very highly.

Alright, let's assume for the sake of argument that all lives ARE equal (I still do not accept this, and personally find the assertion absurd). Since they are equal, we can go ahead and represent their value with a variable, X let's say.

Given the choice between losing X, or losing 20X, which is worse? 20X. Simple mathematics. In any situation, loss of YX life is preferable to a loss of ZX life if Z > Y. The only time in which YX and ZX are equal if Z and Y are not the same number, if the value of X is 0. So unless you're acknowledging that life is worthless, number of lives lost is a valid objective measure of value. Also consider, that a man who you chose not to kill because he's got as much right to live as the child he's just murdered is a murderer, someone whom by definition kills people. If the probability of him killing again is greater than 0, you have mathematically chosen to allow ZX deaths when YX deaths was an available option, the logical option.

A lot of people build without assuming the worst. Kinda like asbestos, fire hazards, lead paint, etc etc. As we learn better ways to build, we utilize them. You should see some of the techniques builders have to use in Alaska thanks to permafrost, it's astonishing.

Because they feel safe with their naive ideas and "no guns" signs. because they think it is unfair that they should have to live their lives around criminals who ruin it. For their naivety and ignorance, their reward is death when someone comes by seeking to do them harm. People opt not to prepare for the worst, because they feel they shouldn't have to. This is stupid. We've had military base security systems for a while, have you noticed that most buildings built now aren't as secure as military installations built in the 40s? Apparently we're not using all we've got.

I never said everywhere, I said at schools. Businesses and shit are the owners responsibility, it's a bit different with schools.

So you're saying it's more important to protect innocent children than innocent businessman and shop employees? But I thought all lives were equal?

If an outside force is overwhelming the force inside, they can always hold up and try to out wait them until the cavalry arrives. This strategy has been around for 1,000 years or more. Walls are usually defeated from the inside...or by rockets. I want to make a Troy reference but I'm sure some one will try to create a Trojan Horse >_>

That worked out great for our boys at the Alamo. Remember the Alamo? Yeah, that place. It's a better strategy than jumping off a cliff, sure, but it's not perfect.

I'm sorry if you chose to ignore simple ideas and call them magical.

The ideas themselves are not magical, however there's a disconnect between what those ideas' implementation would actually cause and the cessation of all crimes. There's clearly some form of magic filling these gaps.

It's kinda sad when you're making the same allegations you're accusing me of making.

Feel free to cite examples.

They DO get funded though. I'm not claiming it can happen instantly, it will take time, but then again, what wouldn't? Most schools I've seen are thick brick buildings. Not much needs rebuild. Focus on windows and doors is all that's needed.

Those cost an assload. And they're not perfect. You waste a large amount of money, and the problem still exists. There is more that can be done here, you don't want to do it because it's not nice. Where is the logic in that?

I never claimed we could, I just said schools vOv. That's kinda the whole point of this thread. Businesses are the corporations responsibility and so on.

Again, what happened to all lives are equal? Taxpayers should have to pay for some people to be safe, but not everyone else? That would seem to be attaching more value to one person than another.

It's perfectly viable for schools. You admit it's a good deterrence, so why not? We could always start petitions to cut the funding for the war on drugs and other such wasteful devices to fund safe schools. I'm sure the general population would back such a movement. It might not get through congress...but that would be a damn fine example of the way the government feels about the people.

The general population is full of bleeding heart morons with an unfortunate inability to apply the principles of critical thinking when it matters. I wouldn't trust them to run the world. That's why we have governments. Of course a fatal flaw exists in them, that the same stupid people are the ones electing people to run it. The problem is that people are ****ing stupid. Helping school and ignoring everything else does nothing but chan ges the headline from "School Massacre" to "Store Massacre" or "Movie Theatre Massacre". Everyone carrying a gun on the other hand extends the benefits of that solution everywhere. And it costs a ****load less.

Nah, non-lethal deterrence is fine. Why kill some one when you don't have to? I know I wouldn't be able to hold onto a gun if I was getting my asshole turned inside out by 10,000 volts >_>.

Muscles contract in response to electrical currents. You tase a guy with his finger on the triggers, odds are pretty good his weapon is going to discharge. If he happens to be pointing at something... oops. Yeah, a tazer is worlds better than nothing, but a dead criminal is the least dangerous criminal you can get.

[Lacquer Head]

Ok, we're getting out of the realms of "tl;dr" to "shut these ****s up". Kinda a a reason I prefer IM discussions. we have 20 different points we're responding to. TWENTY! That's a whole page of responses from each of us >_>

I never said we shouldn't try. Medical knowledge is worth obtaining regardless of crimes, I'm just saying that isn't an effective solution for stopping crimes from occurring.[/quote]

It's not an end to crimes, but it can help prevent THESE specific types of occurrences. If we can help/house as many dangerous mentally ill as possible, it's a benefit.

Darwin would disagree with you. As would I, and numerous others. Though I'm sure there as just as many naive bleeding hearts who want to love everybody who can't see a difference in value between the scum of the earth and the people who make it work. I assure you, the difference exists. One is valuable to the world, the other is not. All things have value, even, and sometimes most especially the things that people find difficult to put a price on.

I just view value as completely subjective, regardless of how I feel morally, it's still just my opinion really. I'm rather quick to forgive as long as people learn their lessons. I try to look at it as unbiased as possible. I just feel that killing a killer is hypocritical if they're already removed from society. As far as capital punishment goes, I do have some conflicting thoughts, but it is off topic as ****.

You wouldn't be obligated to use your gun either. If you'd rather die and let a madman murder a room full of children, I guess you have that right. I'd consider it an outrageously stupid decision but that's my opinion on a very large number of decisions people make already. So I guess if you feel that the scum of the earth's safety is more important than yours and a room full of innocent children, I suppose it's up to the world to judge you. Personally I don't think many of them would judge that your decision was sound, but again, everybody has the right to be wrong.

No more so than a soldier or a cop, I guess. It's funny, I saw a comparison of school shooting deaths in Isreal and the USA claiming that because only 6 deaths had occurred in like 20 years, it was because the teachers carried guns, yet the ratio was exactly the same as the US.

Again, no. Once again I'll repost quotes of myself since you seemed to ignore the last time I adressed this point.

There have been plenty of cops and soldiers that have never had to fire a shot. Not everyone does a patrol or sits on the front lines.

Straw men and emotional appeals an argument do not make.

Good thing we aren't doing so \o/

Liiiike... which ones pray tell?

>"As close to it as owning a piece of equipment you may never have to use. You know, I have a chainsaw in my garage, it was my grandfather's, not sure why he bought it, I don't think it's ever been used, but I have it, and if the need arose, I would be capable of using it, so I'm clearly a lumberjack (and I'm Okay, I sleep all night, I work all day!). Sound logic there."<

And he's not in a classroom room with a gun threatening teachers, because the teachers are not capable of giving him what he wants. Running in and grabbing somebody is not an effective means of control, an intelligent terrorist making demands is going to be a lot more organized than that. A terrorist plans for this sort of thing, it isn't a last resort. The people who take them on a whim are criminals who realize they have failed, and are now desperate and frightened animals. Desperate and frightened animals are dangerous, the odds of them harming somebody is very high. If they are truly looking for a peaceful way out, they'll be more than receptive to compromise, not trying to make unreasonable demands.

They call up whatever and make their demands threatening to kill all the kids unless said demand is met. It's not going to be "pull out of Afghanistan" but you get the point. It could be a desperate act as well, a friend about to be executed or trying to stop some kind of whatever about to start in a few hours. Not every criminal thinks things through very well anyway.

I'm not exactly sure why we're arguing one out of many examples against a higher point...

Were we not on this subject only because of your assertion that in a world in which my ideas were implemented hostage taking would become the preferred method of child massacre? It would then cease to be a rarity.

See the above statement lol

There's always the possibility that the offender will have a heart attack and fall over dead without you having to deal with him at all. Gambling on that possibility is not a logical approach to resolving the situation. Thee are a finite number of logical, reasonable outcomes in any given situation. There isn't always one that's exactly what you want. To believe otherwise is naive.

If everyone were so willing to give up on possible casualties...we'd be pretty ****ed.

You could, it wouldn't bother me, because I do not value life very highly.

Alright, let's assume for the sake of argument that all lives ARE equal (I still do not accept this, and personally find the assertion absurd). Since they are equal, we can go ahead and represent their value with a variable, X let's say.

Neither of our opinions matter, it's the law vOv unless it's STRICTLY self defense, all lives are equal.

Given the choice between losing X, or losing 20X, which is worse? 20X. Simple mathematics. In any situation, loss of YX life is preferable to a loss of ZX life if Z > Y. The only time in which YX and ZX are equal if Z and Y are not the same number, if the value of X is 0. So unless you're acknowledging that life is worthless, number of lives lost is a valid objective measure of value. Also consider, that a man who you chose not to kill because he's got as much right to live as the child he's just murdered is a murderer, someone whom by definition kills people. If the probability of him killing again is greater than 0, you have mathematically chosen to allow ZX deaths when YX deaths was an available option, the logical option.

See, you're strictly saying that some one HAS to die. I say that no loss of life is better than one. As for killing a murderer, it really depends on the situation. As for killing a murderer, they don't really have as many chances in prison, which...is where they tend to go if they're apprehended. Unless you're referring to them about to kill another person, which goes back to defense.

Because they feel safe with their naive ideas and "no guns" signs. because they think it is unfair that they should have to live their lives around criminals who ruin it. For their naivety and ignorance, their reward is death when someone comes by seeking to do them harm. People opt not to prepare for the worst, because they feel they shouldn't have to. This is stupid. We've had military base security systems for a while, have you noticed that most buildings built now aren't as secure as military installations built in the 40s? Apparently we're not using all we've got.

I agree 100%, though it seems people weren't quite as AWARE of said dangers. Nowadays...there's no excuse, if they're stupid, they're stupid.

So you're saying it's more important to protect innocent children than innocent businessman and shop employees? But I thought all lives were equal?

The people that control said businesses are responsible. The United States Government is responsible in the end for our public schools.

That worked out great for our boys at the Alamo. Remember the Alamo? Yeah, that place. It's a better strategy than jumping off a cliff, sure, but it's not perfect.

The Alamo wasn't all that secure and the Calvary wasn't 5 minutes away >_> you will get out-waited easily over time if no one else can come to save you, but a few hours is vastly different.

The ideas themselves are not magical, however there's a disconnect between what those ideas' implementation would actually cause and the cessation of all crimes. There's clearly some form of magic filling these gaps.

It wouldn't be a perfect end all solution, but it would be a damn good one. There are really some things you cant ever prevent, bombs and whatnot.

Feel free to cite examples.

See said rebuttal. I say that the odds are in the criminals favor, you seem to think otherwise. There's no real test, making our discussion identical, but mirror images :1

Those cost an assload. And they're not perfect. You waste a large amount of money, and the problem still exists. There is more that can be done here, you don't want to do it because it's not nice. Where is the logic in that?

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Again, what happened to all lives are equal? Taxpayers should have to pay for some people to be safe, but not everyone else? That would seem to be attaching more value to one person than another.

The difference is that we're not required by the government to send our kids to less safe buildings

Helping school and ignoring everything else does nothing but chan ges the headline from "School Massacre" to "Store Massacre" or "Movie Theatre Massacre". Everyone carrying a gun on the other hand extends the benefits of that solution everywhere. And it costs a ****load less.

See the thing about schools.

Muscles contract in response to electrical currents. You tase a guy with his finger on the triggers, odds are pretty good his weapon is going to discharge. If he happens to be pointing at something... oops. Yeah, a tazer is worlds better than nothing, but a dead criminal is the least dangerous criminal you can get.

Getting shot can do the same thing lol the affect effects of being shot/tazed are highly theoretical though as I'm sure neither of us have been holding a gun while shot/tazed or saw some one do so.

[the_savior21]

See, you're strictly saying that some one HAS to die. I say that no loss of life is better than one. As for killing a murderer, it really depends on the situation. As for killing a murderer, they don't really have as many chances in prison, which...is where they tend to go if they're apprehended. Unless you're referring to them about to kill another person, which goes back to defense.

YOU are missing the point that there is not always going to be a situation where nobody is going to die. If somebody walks into a school, idk maybe like the psychopath that just shot up the school in CT, he is gonna run in there shooting who he sees. If any one of the teachers that heard the shots would have been trained even a little bit and armed they could have easily minimized the casualties from 26 to maybe 2 or 3 plus the killer.

If this guy walks in to a school and sees three kids right off the bat, shoots them all 2 die one is severly injured. The teacher in the first room hears the gunshots runs out side to see whats going on, BAM dead along with all the students in his classroom

On the other hand if he is armed when he goes to see whats going on, looks out the window sees 3 downed children and a man with a gun. He walks out and takes down the perpetrator. He just saved the lives of potentially everyone in that school up to how many rounds the killer had on his person minus the one he saved for himself. In cases like these you have to accept that deaths are unavoidable because of the fact that there are already children dead in the hallways. In this instance there is no preventing all death, there is only preventing as much as possible So tell me whats better 2 dead kids and a dead psychopath or 20 dead kids 6 other dead and a dead psychopath. By your own logic the latter is better. if all lives are viewed as equal 3<27

In other general hostage situations where the hostile force has demands that need to be met yes i would agree with you that all deaths are quite preventable. Through various types of negotiation, stalling and eventually presenting the criminals with an ultimatum it is in fact possible to avoid any death. Not always is it going to happen that way but in that instance it is possible.

With the shooting in CT thats not the case there is no saving everybody, granted if the schools security would have been really good all of this would have been avoided but whos to say that he wouldnt have just went to a different school especially if he had no motive. My point is in situations like that preventing death completely is impossible most of the time because it comes early before anybody even realized it all you can do is hope to minimize casualties and with teachers being aloud to have a concealed weapon would have been an effective way to deprecate this tragedy

[Lacquer Head]

YOU are missing the point that there is not always going to be a situation where nobody is going to die. If somebody walks into a school, idk maybe like the psychopath that just shot up the school in CT, he is gonna run in there shooting who he sees. If any one of the teachers that heard the shots would have been trained even a little bit and armed they could have easily minimized the casualties from 26 to maybe 2 or 3 plus the killer.

or maybe the teacher could get shot first, then what? Are they supposed to wear body armor as well? There are (unconfirmed) reports that the shooter was wearing armor himself. There's not much some teachers with pistols could do here. There's not some solution to end EVERY CRIME EVER, but my method seems to be a lot less deadly than some teachers with guns. I'm saying that we should TRY to prevent all deaths, not just blindy accept them.

If this guy walks in to a school and sees three kids right off the bat, shoots them all 2 die one is severly injured. The teacher in the first room hears the gunshots runs out side to see whats going on, BAM dead along with all the students in his classroom


On the other hand if he is armed when he goes to see whats going on, looks out the window sees 3 downed children and a man with a gun. He walks out and takes down the perpetrator. He just saved the lives of potentially everyone in that school up to how many rounds the killer had on his person minus the one he saved for himself.

But with a gun, he'd be immune to bullets and get to shoot first. Without a gun, he can't look out windows and just runs straight into the gun. K.

In cases like these you have to accept that deaths are unavoidable because of the fact that there are already children dead in the hallways. In this instance there is no preventing all death, there is only preventing as much as possible

Yes, in THAT situation. If a guy somehow makes it through the security, a lock down alert can warn them to all get to cover. There are the few times between classes that leaves them all out in the halls, this is when security would have to be on alert. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

So tell me whats better 2 dead kids and a dead psychopath or 20 dead kids 6 other dead and a dead psychopath. By your own logic the latter is better. if all lives are viewed as equal 3<27

I'm just going to ignore these questions from now on, read what I've posted, kthnxbai

With the shooting in CT thats not the case there is no saving everybody, granted if the schools security would have been really good all of this would have been avoided but whos to say that he wouldnt have just went to a different school especially if he had no motive. My point is in situations like that preventing death completely is impossible most of the time because it comes early before anybody even realized it all you can do is hope to minimize casualties and with teachers being aloud to have a concealed weapon would have been an effective way to deprecate this tragedy

As I said, it's a long term solution, not at all short term. Giving some teachers guns wouldn't have made much of a difference. Perhaps if a teacher got the jump on the guy, but that's just a chance.

[the_savior21]

or maybe the teacher could get shot first, then what? Are they supposed to wear body armor as well? There are (unconfirmed) reports that the shooter was wearing armor himself. There's not much some teachers with pistols could do here. There's not some solution to end EVERY CRIME EVER, but my method seems to be a lot less deadly than some teachers with guns. I'm saying that we should TRY to prevent all deaths, not just blindy accept them.

My point is not that the teacher is automatically going to prevent all these deaths. There are a lot of paramaters that go in to these type of situations. All im saying with this is there is not black and white so to speak when it comes to the deaths of others. What i mean by that is that not all deaths can be prevented but there should be a possibility of preventing more.

Eventually given enough time and funding giving all schools security systems that you think they should have yes that would be the most feasible plan buut thats not going to happen for quite some time. It would take much less time to implement gun rights to teachers as a temporary fix to things like this.

But with a gun, he'd be immune to bullets and get to shoot first. Without a gun, he can't look out windows and just runs straight into the gun. K.

The fact is its not that he will be "immune to bullets" and be guaranteed the first shot but the point is he would have a chance.

Yes, in THAT situation. If a guy somehow makes it through the security, a lock down alert can warn them to all get to cover. There are the few times between classes that leaves them all out in the halls, this is when security would have to be on alert. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

You are right in some cases that would work but when someone makes it through security and gunshots are fired its going to likely be mass chaos. The first thing that goes to these children's minds is not gonna be duck to cover its going to be run

As I said, it's a long term solution, not at all short term. Giving some teachers guns wouldn't have made much of a difference. Perhaps if a teacher got the jump on the guy, but that's just a chance.

A lot of times a chance is all they need. A chance is better then being a sitting duck. The more teachers that are armed, the more chances they have. Every solution is going to have a flaw in it. The fact of the matter is the solution that can be implemented the quickest and be the most effective RIGHT AWAY is the one that needs to be implemented first. Id be all for your security systems if it was quicker and universal through all schools because like is said if this guy has no motive nothing is going to stop him if he cant get into one school from just going to the next one that doesn't have a security system and doing exactly what we were trying to prevent with the first one.

[Lacquer Head]

My point is not that the teacher is automatically going to prevent all these deaths. There are a lot of paramaters that go in to these type of situations. All im saying with this is there is not black and white so to speak when it comes to the deaths of others. What i mean by that is that not all deaths can be prevented but there should be a possibility of preventing more.

Eventually given enough time and funding giving all schools security systems that you think they should have yes that would be the most feasible plan buut thats not going to happen for quite some time. It would take much less time to implement gun rights to teachers as a temporary fix to things like this.

How do you expect this to be a quick fix? Do you realize how long it would take just to PASS this initiative? It would be impossible to EVER get enough support for this. Then there's the time it takes to replace teachers that refuse to/can't train (there are plenty of elderly teachers that couldn't handle the training) and bring in teachers that are willing and able. There are just so very many unfeasible aspects to this plan.

The fact is its not that he will be "immune to bullets" and be guaranteed the first shot but the point is he would have a chance.

What chance would it be? Is it really enough to negate the consequences?

You are right in some cases that would work but when someone makes it through security and gunshots are fired its going to likely be mass chaos. The first thing that goes to these children's minds is not gonna be duck to cover its going to be run

It's possible, but it's a very slight opportunity to have this chance. But even on the off chance that it did happen, schools have practice drills multiple times a year for lock downs, fires and tornadoes, so it would stand to reason they run through the drills for this situation.

[quote]A lot of times a chance is all they need. A chance is better then being a sitting duck. The more teachers that are armed, the more chances they have. Every solution is going to have a flaw in it. The fact of the matter is the solution that can be implemented the quickest and be the most effective RIGHT AWAY is the one that needs to be implemented first.

There are plenty of CHANCES for negative results as well. As we already discussed, children in the crossfire and so on. If you can find a quick and effective solution, I'm sure we'd like to hear it.

Id be all for your security systems if it was quicker and universal through all schools because like is said if this guy has no motive nothing is going to stop him if he cant get into one school from just going to the next one that doesn't have a security system and doing exactly what we were trying to prevent with the first one.

So, since it can't be done instantly, it shouldn't be done at all? If the guy actually makes the attempt to get in and fails, he's not exactly going to have much of a chance to get to another school.

[the_savior21]

[QUOTE=Lacquer Head;1342128]How do you expect this to be a quick fix? Do you realize how long it would take just to PASS this initiative? It would be impossible to EVER get enough support for this. Then there's the time it takes to replace teachers that refuse to/can't train (there are plenty of elderly teachers that couldn't handle the training) and bring in teachers that are willing and able. There are just so very many unfeasible aspects to this plan.



What chance would it be? Is it really enough to negate the consequences?



It's possible, but it's a very slight opportunity to have this chance. But even on the off chance that it did happen, schools have practice drills multiple times a year for lock downs, fires and tornadoes, so it would stand to reason they run through the drills for this situation.

A lot of times a chance is all they need. A chance is better then being a sitting duck. The more teachers that are armed, the more chances they have. Every solution is going to have a flaw in it. The fact of the matter is the solution that can be implemented the quickest and be the most effective RIGHT AWAY is the one that needs to be implemented first.

There are plenty of CHANCES for negative results as well. As we already discussed, children in the crossfire and so on. If you can find a quick and effective solution, I'm sure we'd like to hear it.



So, since it can't be done instantly, it shouldn't be done at all? If the guy actually makes the attempt to get in and fails, he's not exactly going to have much of a chance to get to another school.

The fact is that everything that anybody says in this argument is always going to have a whole. No it wouldn't be a quick fix and it wold take a long time to get enough support to do such things but it would possibly be quicker then the security system that would take decades to build enough capitol for.

Any chance is better then no chance. To think otherwise is ridiculous would rather have a chance slim to none of survival with that chance laying partially in your hands? or having a lesser chance of survival left in the hands of a psychopath?

[Alpha]

How do we stop an incident like that from being probable? Here's a thought: laws need to be put in place that set standards for proper storage of all firearms in a household/car/etc. A license should be required for every type of gun that is purchased, as well as a registration ID that is issued specifically for that make and model. I also don't see why gun owners shouldn't be required to purchase some kind of insurance that would ensure the safety of the gun owner as well as others, etc. Why the hell is it easier to buy a gun in the United States than it is to own a car? I call complete bullshit on that.

This gave me an idea. How do you get people to ensure that their guns are stored securely? There are good arguments that suggest that we don't want to prevent 'good' gun owners from owning guns for their protection... but as long as guns exist, 'bad' people will get them. Even if we manage to prevent 'bad' people from buying them, we can still expect 'bad' people to get their hands on 'good' peoples' guns. Just as in this case. So why isn't there some kind of federal or state law that stipulates that (in addition to the gun-toting murderer being prosecuted) the owner of a gun is responsible for any crimes committed with it. Obviously this should exclude theft -- but only in cases where the theft is despite the best efforts of the gun owner to prevent it being used by anyone who isn't the licensed owner. This should provide additional incentive for the secure protection of firearms and seems like a fair compromise between continued gun ownership and stricter gun control.

If this already happens, let me know. I wasn't born in the world's biggest gun store.

gun-control7.jpg

[Heartless Angel]

To an extent that isn't a bad idea. I wouldn't go so far as to say a man should be held responsible if his home was broken into and his gun was stolen by somebody, like in this case, the kid knew where it was, she shouldn't have to keep it in a safe to make sure this guy doesn't take it and massacre a classroom. The constitution gives us the right to keep AND bear arms. Kinda hard to bear your arms if they all have to be in a safe with the ammunition in a separate locked container. Kinda defeats the purpose of owning a firearm for self defense if you're required to make it inaccessible. Wasn't her intention to let it get into this guy's hands, so I certainly wouldn't say she should be held responsible. If hypothetically somebody loaned his gun to somebody knowingly and willingly whether he knew what they planned to do with it or not, absolutely you should be held responsible for anything the guy does with it, and I believe that is illegal now if you're giving it to somebody who is not already legally capable of owning a firearm, but I'm not certain. If it is, I've never really heard of any cases in which the gun owner was penalized, but then I've also never heard of anybody committing a crime with a borrowed firearm. Not to say it never happens, I'm sure it does, but I've never heard any big case that gets any real coverage in which it did.

[Alpha]

The constitution gives us the right to keep AND bear arms. Kinda hard to bear your arms if they all have to be in a safe with the ammunition in a separate locked container. Kinda defeats the purpose of owning a firearm for self defense if you're required to make it inaccessible.

A requirement to keep the components of your guns in two rooms (or similar) does not prevent you from assembling and using your gun. Would you suggest that the requirement to be licensed 'defeats the purpose' of having a right to keep arms? It is a hurdle with a purpose, not an infringement of your right.

Wasn't her intention to let it get into this guy's hands, so I certainly wouldn't say she should be held responsible.

But see there's the beef. No 'good' citizen would ever intend for their weapon to be used for such a tragedy. But their weapons often are, including in this instance. If you 'keep' your gun in such a manner that anyone but the licensed owner is able to use it without the express, physical permission of the licensed gun owner (by way of, say, a key), then the gun owner should be held responsible for any crimes that are committed with it. The owner is responsible for the safe keeping of their weapon.

If hypothetically somebody loaned his gun to somebody knowingly and willingly whether he knew what they planned to do with it or not, absolutely you should be held responsible for anything the guy does with it, and I believe that is illegal now if you're giving it to somebody who is not already legally capable of owning a firearm, but I'm not certain.

If it takes less than the owner of the gun actually handing the weapon to another person*, then the gun was not kept in an appropriate manner, in my opinion, and the gun owner should be responsible for anything done in its name.

*Of course, I'd exclude reasonable exceptions, such as forcible theft. I'd suggest that the word 'forcible' be emphasised.

If you think that my idea presents too much of a barrier to the exercising of the right to bear arms, I ask you: why do you think of guns like a loaf of bread? I could grab bread from my fridge in less than 10 seconds. A gun is not a loaf of bread. It is not a trivial thing to be able to easily and readily pick up an object whose primary purpose is to cause death. It must be made difficult to do so -- and I'd say an important avenue of compromise in this debate.

[Sasquatch]

A requirement to keep the components of your guns in two rooms (or similar) does not prevent you from assembling and using your gun.

No, it only increases, exponentially, the time it takes to do so. If a firearm is owned for defense, how does keeping it disassembled and locked let it be used for its intended purpose?

Would you suggest that the requirement to be licensed 'defeats the purpose' of having a right to keep arms?

Yes. Since its inception, the Second Amendment was not designed to protect hunting rifles, nor target guns, nor recreational firearms. Its entire purpose is to ensure that the civilian, non-military populace is protected in their ability to rise against the federal government. Requiring gun owners to be registered completely defeats the purpose of ensuring their rights to defense. It would be like telling you that you don't have to pay 100% of your income in taxes, you can keep some of it ... as long as the government knows where every cent is, and how to get to it.

It is a hurdle with a purpose, not an infringement of your right.

... Actually, I recommend you look up the word, "infringement". A hurdle -- something extra you have to do to be allowed your right -- is exactly an infringement. On the same note, a poll tax or test is not an infringement upon the right to vote.

If you 'keep' your gun in such a manner that anyone but the licensed owner is able to use it without the express, physical permission of the licensed gun owner (by way of, say, a key), then the gun owner should be held responsible for any crimes that are committed with it. The owner is responsible for the safe keeping of their weapon.

So ... If I break into your house, drink everything in your liquor cabinet, steal your car and a lighter, crash into a school, and set it on fire ... you're responsible for all of that? The drunk driving, the crashing, the arson ... all of it, I would do with your property, that I did not acquire legally.

If it takes less than the owner of the gun actually handing the weapon to another person*, then the gun was not kept in an appropriate manner, in my opinion, and the gun owner should be responsible for anything done in its name.

So the owners of stolen property are responsible for anything done with said property. As long as it's not taken forcibly. Got it.

If you think that my idea presents too much of a barrier to the exercising of the right to bear arms, I ask you: why do you think of guns like a loaf of bread? I could grab bread from my fridge in less than 10 seconds. A gun is not a loaf of bread. It is not a trivial thing to be able to easily and readily pick up an object whose primary purpose is to cause death. It must be made difficult to do so -- and I'd say an important avenue of compromise in this debate.

I would ask you: Why would you keep people -- females, elderly, even older children, without the physical means to defend themselves against armed intruders -- delayed from acquiring their only means of defense against more physically capable criminals?

The Supreme Court sees it the same way ... actually, very recently. I believe it was McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 that said, basically, the same thing. Laws requiring dis-assembly of firearms impede proper use of firearms for defense, and are thus unConstitutional.

The purpose of owning an automobile is to drive yourself from "Point A" to "Point B". You generally need one to go to work, etc. The purpose of using a gun is to shoot a bullet from "Point A" to hit "Point B".

That brings something to mind ... If cars are a necessity, why aren't there limits on how fast they can go?

In all instances where a gun is being shot at a target, an injury or death occurs unless the shooter misses, or it's target practice at an inanimate object.

So ... a gun fires a bullet, which makes a hole in something. Your point?

Neither will I. We both know we disagree on this issue. Greed and common sense don't go together, but this isn't the point of this thread and neither is the meaning of life, etc.

Just to touch on this subject (socialized medicine) ... The NHS kills more than five times as many Brits as firearms kill Americans.

Unless you're in the military, why the hell do you need an assault rifle/machine gun?

First off, do you even know what an assault rifle is? I'm honestly not trying to be condescending or anything here, I'm actually asking. Most people don't know.

Second of all, assault rifles, machine guns, and sub-machine guns have all been illegal in the United States since 1934. Anybody that owns one must go through a rigorous background check, fingerprinting, licensing, registering ... not to mention the fact that fully-automatic firearms are expensive as hell. Like, ten or twenty grand, expensive.

TWO murders in the United States have been committed with legally-owned fully-automatic firearms since 1934. One was by a Law Enforcement Officer. Both were after the 1986 law that put even more restrictions on them.

And last ... The Second Amendment protects the rights of civilians to own the same type of arms the federal government owns. (Most supporters of firearm rights wouldn't argue for rights to this extent, but I will display an accurate understanding of the Constitution.) When it was passed, it protected the same types of firearms. The argument that the Founding Fathers could never imagine the types of firearms we have today is not only irrelevant (because, as pointed out, they protected the same types of firearms for everybody), but also ignorant (unless we think that nobody ever expected technology to advance).

I personally think those should be banned unless you want to keep it in a collection as a hobby. Therefore, the sale of ammunition for such weapons should be illegal, etc.

The sale of ammunition for ... machine guns? Do you have any idea how many different types of fully-automatic firearms there are, and how many different types of ammunition are used in fully-automatic firearms? To ban any ammunition used in a fully-automatic firearm, you would prettymuch have to ban half of everything designed in the last eighty years.

[Alpha]

No, it only increases, exponentially, the time it takes to do so. If a firearm is owned for defense, how does keeping it disassembled and locked let it be used for its intended purpose?

The question is whether it CAN BE used for its intended purpose. I don't care if it makes it more difficult---I think guns are far too prevalent in America, but because you have a Constitutional right to bear and keep them, and unconstitional laws are by definition impermissible, my job is to suggest ways to get closer to my idea of an ideal America within the constraints of that particular document (that frankly needs to be re-written). If licensing is constitutional, a requirement to keep them in two rooms and in locked containers (which is my understanding of the law in New Zealand) probably is too. So I think it's a reasonable thing to suggest.

If a gun is to kept so that fit and able people are able to form a militia to fight a hypothetical, tyrannical government, then my suggestion is not unreasonable at all. Unless the government employs ninjas whom one cannot hear coming.

Yes. Since its inception, the Second Amendment was not designed to protect hunting rifles, nor target guns, nor recreational firearms. Its entire purpose is to ensure that the civilian, non-military populace is protected in their ability to rise against the federal government. Requiring gun owners to be registered completely defeats the purpose of ensuring their rights to defense. It would be like telling you that you don't have to pay 100% of your income in taxes, you can keep some of it ... as long as the government knows where every cent is, and how to get to it.

Funny then that licensing is not unconstitutional. Can you tell me anything about court cases that have challenged the legality of licencing (or dis-assembly requirements)? (Serious question.)

McDonald v. Chicago 2010 does not really deal with this issue as you state. According to Wikipedia:

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

McDonald challenged four broad aspects of Chicago's gun registration law, which, according to the plaintiffs:

• Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
• Require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents
• Mandate that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee
• Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses

The Heller decision (D.C. v. Heller 2009) sounds like what you're after... here we are:

The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4211588.shtml) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_1...57-504383.html) (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_1...92-504383.html)

So you are right: dis-assembly is unconstitutional, but it was the wrong case. However licensing is not. I still think that's stupid and don't understand the justification.

Also, "completely defeats"? Really? A ban on all types of ammunition would "completely defeat" the purpose of ensuring the right to self-defense, but a licensing system does not. I agree, the idea of the government knowing who owns guns when the reason guns are allowed is for them to be able to be used against the government is counter-intuitive, but it still allows them to be used, so it cannot "completely defeat" the purpose.

... Actually, I recommend you look up the word, "infringement". A hurdle -- something extra you have to do to be allowed your right -- is exactly an infringement. On the same note, a poll tax or test is not an infringement upon the right to vote.

I disagree. An infringement can be either a transgression (in the sense of crossing a line in an absolute sense), or an encroachment (in the sense of partially crossing a line, or violating the 'spirit' of something). In fact, the Google "define: infringement" results present both of these definitions, in the same order. I was using the first definition, you are using the second.

1. The action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation
2. The action of limiting or undermining something

So I'd say my point stands: a requirement to keep your guns in two rooms is not a violation (infringement, definition 1.) of an American's right to bear and keep arms, it is only an additional barrier, but not a substantive one (infringement, definition 2.).

So ... If I break into your house, drink everything in your liquor cabinet, steal your car and a lighter, crash into a school, and set it on fire ... you're responsible for all of that? The drunk driving, the crashing, the arson ... all of it, I would do with your property, that I did not acquire legally.

No, don't be silly, and stick to the subject at hand rather than resorting to logical absurdities. This debate is about gun rights and gun responsibilities. I am suggesting that for guns, and for guns only, that there be introduced a particular responsibility for safe keeping. I suggest this with tragedies like Sandy Hook in mind, where the gun used was not owned by the criminal. I am suggesting that perhaps if the mother of the murderer had had additional incentive to securely store her weapon, he would not have been able to use it in the tragedy. This additional incentive would have been the knowledge that if the gun could be accessed and used by anybody who is not the licensed owner, any crimes committed with it would also be the responsibility of the owner, for they enabled its use through improper keeping.

Here's an additional way to enact my suggestion, that sounds more effective (esp. as it does not require apparently-unconstitutional dis-assembly), but is currently a little way off from realisation: Smart Gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now where's your suggestion for how to prevent a similar tragedy from happening (short of turning schools into military bases)?

So the owners of stolen property are responsible for anything done with said property. As long as it's not taken forcibly. Got it.

The owners of guns that are stolen because they can be shown to have been improperly/insecurely kept are responsible for any crimes committed with them. Is my suggestion, yes.

I would ask you: Why would you keep people -- females, elderly, even older children, without the physical means to defend themselves against armed intruders -- delayed from acquiring their only means of defense against more physically capable criminals?

But they're not. They can still have burglar alarms, tazers, bats, knives, dogs, locks, safe rooms... guns (dis-assembled, registered). What I don't accept is their need to live in fear of people that necessitates their ownership of a gun. I don't own a gun; the only people I know who do, are farmers, who only own pretty shit rifles; I feel very, very safe. If my neighbour had a gun, I would become very afraid of ever pissing him off, and would feel decidedly less safe.

I would ask you: why do you accept a Hobbesian society where we expect and tolerate everyone to be armed? We are not at war. You should be angry that 'bad' people have guns in the first instance, and not advocate that we just ignore it and engage in an arms race.

[Heartless Angel]

The question is whether it CAN BE used for its intended purpose. I don't care if it makes it more difficult---I think guns are far too prevalent in America, but because you have a Constitutional right to bear and keep them, and unconstitional laws are by definition impermissible, my job is to suggest ways to get closer to my idea of an ideal America within the constraints of that particular document (that frankly needs to be re-written). If licensing is constitutional, a requirement to keep them in two rooms and in locked containers (which is my understanding of the law in New Zealand) probably is too. So I think it's a reasonable thing to suggest.

If its intended purpose is to protect one from intruders seeking to do one harm, having to find two keys, assemble the firearm, find the ammo in another locked container in a different room then load the gun, then no, it can not serve its intended purpose, unless your intruder was nice enough to call you 5 minutes in advance to let you get ready. Your idea of an ideal America seems to be one in which people are ignorant of the ugliness of the world and feel safe without taking adequate precautions to ensure that they actually are. Ignorant bliss is not my idea of an ideal America. If your ideal is in fact an America is one in which everybody loves each other, never does anything bad, and never actually IS in any danger because nobody ever thinks to commit a crime, your 'solution' is barely a drop in the bucket. And more so, the wrong drop to add first. You don't put down your shield until AFTER the enemy swords are gone.

If a gun is to kept so that fit and able people are able to form a militia to fight a hypothetical, tyrannical government, then my suggestion is not unreasonable at all. Unless the government employs ninjas whom one cannot hear coming.

The second amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", it does not specifically state that the only reason we're letting you have guns is so you can fight us if we become corrupt, it says security, security can mean many things. Being at the mercy of criminals because your weapon is inaccesible in times of crisis does not constitute security.

I disagree. An infringement can be either a transgression (in the sense of crossing a line in an absolute sense), or an encroachment (in the sense of partially crossing a line, or violating the 'spirit' of something). In fact, the Google "define: infringement" results present both of these definitions, in the same order. I was using the first definition, you are using the second.

1. The action of breaking the terms of a law, agreement, etc.; violation
2. The action of limiting or undermining something

So I'd say my point stands: a requirement to keep your guns in two rooms is not a violation (infringement, definition 1.) of an American's right to bear and keep arms, it is only an additional barrier, but not a substantive one (infringement, definition 2.).

I would submit that it is a massive infringement, by either definition. While we're defining terms, let us define another key term in the second amendment, arm.

Arm simply means, a weapon, most frequently used to describe a firearm. Let's define those.

Weapon

1: Any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war.

Disassembled firearms can not be used for offensive or defensive purposes, they must be assembled and loaded before they meet the qualifications to be a weapon.

Firearm

1: A weapon, esp a portable gun or pistol, from which a projectile can be discharged by an explosion caused by lightning gunpowder

Well first of all it specifies that it must be a weapon, so it already fails the test, but furthermore, if the firearm is not assembled, it is incapable of discharging a projectile. Most can't even ignite powder if not assembled and loaded. So, the components necessary to assemble a gun are by definition, not a firearm.

So, what you are suggesting is that we be allowed to keep the components necessary to assemble arms given 5 minutes to do so, but not arms. That is exactly an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms, something a gun is not unless it is assembled and operational. Not only is your suggestion against the 'spirit of the law', but if we want to get technical, it's against the letter of the law as well.

Now where's your suggestion for how to prevent a similar tragedy from happening (short of turning schools into military bases)?

Not all tragedies CAN be averted without making unreasonable sacrifices. That doesn't make unreasonable sacrifices any more reasonable. I should also ask, why are you demanding a solution that does not involve a sacrifice you deem unreasonable, but not place the same restriction upon your own ideas?

The owners of guns that are stolen because they can be shown to have been improperly/insecurely kept are responsible for any crimes committed with them. Is my suggestion, yes.

Again, I'm personally fine with something like this, insofar as being 'properly kept' does not mean making the gun less accessible to a law abiding citizen who DOES have the right to keep and bear that arm. Unfortunately that limits what your idea is going to accomplish by quite a bit, but I'll absolutely agree that if somebody is stupid enough to hand their gun to a maniac, they are at fault, if somebody leaves their gun sitting on the kitchen table, they're responsible for what their children do if they grab it. For the most part I'd agree that any case of criminal stupidity should be treated as a crime.

But they're not. They can still have burglar alarms, tazers, bats, knives, dogs, locks, safe rooms... guns (dis-assembled, registered). What I don't accept is their need to live in fear of people that necessitates their ownership of a gun. I don't own a gun; the only people I know who do, are farmers, who only own pretty shit rifles; I feel very, very safe. If my neighbour had a gun, I would become very afraid of ever pissing him off, and would feel decidedly less safe.

No offense, but all this tells me is that you are paranoid, and falling victim to the same beliefs that a majority of gun owners are irresponsible and dangerous, when the statistics quite clearly show, that this is simply not the case. I own seven firearms at the moment. You could not piss me off enough to make me commit criminal homicide, because that is not a rational solution to anything you may have done to upset me. I am not a unique individual, I am not a paragon of virtue, I am not in possession of superhuman restraint. In fact, I am a moral nihilist, I reject the idea of morallity entirely, I possess very little restraint. The closest thing I have to a moral code restraining my actions is my logic. I am still, all in all, a normal, rational human being, the same type as the overwhelming majority of legal gun owners. The average hunter, sporting clay shooter, or just about any second amendment right advocate is in fact appalled by the thought of using a firearm to inflict harm upon another human being and would only consider doing so if they felt their lives or those of their loved ones were threatened. Many of them would probably puss out even if that were the case. Basic human psychology makes a normal sane human being naturally abhor the thought of killing another person unless it is a necessity to securing lower tier psychological needs. Owning a firearm does not rewrite that aspect of the human psyche.

I would ask you: why do you accept a Hobbesian society where we expect and tolerate everyone to be armed? We are not at war. You should be angry that 'bad' people have guns in the first instance, and not advocate that we just ignore it and engage in an arms race.

Ignore it

and engage in an arms race.

These two elements are necessarily contradictory. To answer the question of why we accept everyone being armed, because expecting nobody to be armed is quite frankly, ridiculous. It's never going to happen. What YOU are suggesting is that we ignore it, pretend we're safe hiding behind our laws, and not actually do anything to ensure that we are. War is far too organized a term to applied here. We are however, as any animal is, in a constant struggle for survival. Those who forget that simple truth are the ones most likely to fail in that struggle. You and I both live in a world that has managed to put quite a large distance between itself and the threats that make survival a real constant struggle. Because of this, many have forgotten that there still is a struggle. There are still predators out there, forgetting about them just gives them an even greater ability to do you harm. The predators are never going to disappear, the only thing you can do, is take steps to ensure that you do not become the prey.

[Sasquatch]

The question is whether it CAN BE used for its intended purpose.

Sure, it COULD be used for its intended purpose ... well after its use is necessary. It would be like saying that you are allowed to own a car, but you must keep the car in the garage and the wheels in the basement, and every time you wish or need to use it, you must assemble it first ... sure, it CAN be used, so it's no problem, right?

I don't care if it makes it more difficult---I think guns are far too prevalent in America, but because you have a Constitutional right to bear and keep them, and unconstitional laws are by definition impermissible, my job is to suggest ways to get closer to my idea of an ideal America within the constraints of that particular document (that frankly needs to be re-written). If licensing is constitutional, a requirement to keep them in two rooms and in locked containers (which is my understanding of the law in New Zealand) probably is too. So I think it's a reasonable thing to suggest.

You may not care if it makes it more difficult, but the United States Supreme Court, ninety million American firearm owners, the majority of Americans, and the thousands upon thousands of people per year who defend themselves with a firearm care quite a bit. And they're more important.

Besides, your "ideal America" and an American's "ideal America" are, quite obviously, two vastly different subjects.

If a gun is to kept so that fit and able people are able to form a militia to fight a hypothetical, tyrannical government, then my suggestion is not unreasonable at all. Unless the government employs ninjas whom one cannot hear coming.

Nah, because it's not like registration has always been the first step towards confiscation, or that every tyrannical government in history has used firearm registration to disarm its citizens, or anything like that ...

Funny then that licensing is not unconstitutional. Can you tell me anything about court cases that have challenged the legality of licencing (or dis-assembly requirements)? (Serious question.)

Here's a decision from Maryland -- a very liberal state -- that states that requiring a license to own a handgun, or to carry a firearm outside of the home, is unConstitutional. Also, the McDonald v. Chicago case.

And as for laws requiring dis-assembly being unConstitutional, that was Heller v. Columbia (which you already knew, because you corrected me in this same post).

So you are right: dis-assembly is unconstitutional, but it was the wrong case. However licensing is not.

Licensing is unConstitutional, it just wasn't addressed in Heller v. Columbia. It was addressed in other cases (such as McDonald v. Chicago), and found unConstitutional.

Also, "completely defeats"? Really? A ban on all types of ammunition would "completely defeat" the purpose of ensuring the right to self-defense, but a licensing system does not. I agree, the idea of the government knowing who owns guns when the reason guns are allowed is for them to be able to be used against the government is counter-intuitive, but it still allows them to be used, so it cannot "completely defeat" the purpose.

Allowing somebody to have a means of self-defense, but placing strict and unrealistic requirements on how, when, where, and by whom this right can be exercised, is as good or bad as not recognizing the right at all. The Constitution doesn't state that the right to keep and bear arms should be partially respected, it demands that it must not be infringed.

So I'd say my point stands: a requirement to keep your guns in two rooms is not a violation (infringement, definition 1.) of an American's right to bear and keep arms, it is only an additional barrier, but not a substantive one (infringement, definition 2.).

Again, just because it's not a complete dissolution of the right does not at all mean that it is not an infringement upon that right. Putting barriers and restrictions on a right is exactly infringing upon it.

No, don't be silly, and stick to the subject at hand rather than resorting to logical absurdities.

Sorry, I didn't realize how absurd it was. I mean, expecting a property owner to be held liable for damage caused by the illegal use of his property after its theft? That's absurdly stupid.

This debate is about gun rights and gun responsibilities. I am suggesting that for guns, and for guns only, that there be introduced a particular responsibility for safe keeping.

... even if it's only for guns. Especially if it's only for guns.

What if a kid breaks into his dad's liquor cabinet, drinks, and does something stupid? Or takes a pack of cigarettes out of his mom's purse? Or steals a car? More people are killed by cars, tobacco use, and alcohol consumption every year than by firearms. By a very large amount. Why wouldn't the owner be liable for damage to health or property in those cases?

Oh -- it's because guns are scary.

I suggest this with tragedies like Sandy Hook in mind, where the gun used was not owned by the criminal. I am suggesting that perhaps if the mother of the murderer had had additional incentive to securely store her weapon, he would not have been able to use it in the tragedy.

Do you honestly think that somebody messed up enough to slaughter more than two dozen people, including his own mother, would have a moral problem getting a firearm from somewhere else? Like nothing bad would have happened if he could get ahold of one specific firearm?

By the way, I have to ask ... how exactly were his mother's firearms stored? And to what extent do you suggest they be secured?

This additional incentive would have been the knowledge that if the gun could be accessed and used by anybody who is not the licensed owner, any crimes committed with it would also be the responsibility of the owner, for they enabled its use through improper keeping.

Since firearms are used in defense exponentially more often than they are used in murders, given the choice between making a firearm more accessible for defense and making it more secure because you would want to make me liable for crimes committed with my firearm after it would be stolen, I would take the gamble and keep firearms readily available.

Here's an additional way to enact my suggestion, that sounds more effective (esp. as it does not require apparently-unconstitutional dis-assembly), but is currently a little way off from realisation: Smart Gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't want my life in the hands of a battery-operated electronic device, thank you very much.

Now where's your suggestion for how to prevent a similar tragedy from happening (short of turning schools into military bases)?

Does posting a handful of guards turn something into a military base? Some public schools in America already have guards posted in them (including all schools attended by children of United States federal office holders). None of those schools have had mass shootings.

The owners of guns that are stolen because they can be shown to have been improperly/insecurely kept are responsible for any crimes committed with them. Is my suggestion, yes.

So you would make the owners less safe, because their firearm might be stolen by a criminal who would be breaking a law just to get access to it in the first place.

But they're not. They can still have burglar alarms, tazers, bats, knives, dogs, locks, safe rooms... guns (dis-assembled, registered).

Or, they can have the most cost-effective, easiest, most efficient form of defense ever invented, ready and available for their use against intruders. If you weren't too scared of it, at least.

Besides, you didn't answer the question. A taser is a one-shot deal; dogs and locks aren't reliable; safe rooms are extremely expensive and sometimes inaccessible; and melee weapons are only as good as the wielder. If the home of an elderly person, a small woman, or teenage child is broken into by bad people, what would be their best means of defense against the threat of rape or death?

What I don't accept is their need to live in fear of people that necessitates their ownership of a gun.

But you'd be fine with somebody living in enough fear to necessitate building of a safe room, installation of a burglar alarm, or training and care of a guard dog, apparently ...

I don't own a gun; the only people I know who do, are farmers, who only own pretty shit rifles; I feel very, very safe. If my neighbour had a gun, I would become very afraid of ever pissing him off, and would feel decidedly less safe.

Do you honestly -- I'm asking, honestly -- believe that (legal) firearm owners are inherently more violent?

I would ask you: why do you accept a Hobbesian society where we expect and tolerate everyone to be armed?

Because people are shit, that's why. We will never get rid of all crime, and we will never get rid of all those willing to become criminals -- all that's left is to deter it, and to allow the populace to defend against it if and when it happens to them. Securing the right of the people to keep and bear arms does both.

We are not at war. You should be angry that 'bad' people have guns in the first instance, and not advocate that we just ignore it and engage in an arms race.

Bad people have guns. I don't like it, but that won't change it. And neither will taking guns away from good people.

[Heartless Angel]

When an armed attacker breaks into your home, they're not going to call ahead of time and schedule an appointment so you can get your gun ready, once they're inside they're not politely going to wait for you to go find your two separate keys, open two separate containers, assemble and load your firearm before proceeding to engage you in an honorable duel. That's fine for like hunting guns and such that you wouldn't use for defensive purposes unless it was the only thing you had, but not for a weapon whose purpose is defense. If it is inaccessible in a pinch, it won't help in a pinch. You should only be using a defensive weapon in a pinch. Seeing the problem here? Making it mildly inconvenient to access for a criminal, who has all the time in the world to plan his actions before executing them makes it nigh impossible to access for defense, something which a law abiding citizen has no time to prepare for, it's a split second decision, if you can't make and execute it in that unfortunately limited time, it isn't going to help you. Locks are easy to break, if I plan on stealing a gun and killing everyone inside of an elementary school today, it will take me about 5 additional seconds to break a lock before acquiring my gun. Since nobody knows what I'm doing until I'm there with gun in hand, this 5 second delay does not grant any real advantage to my victims. It wouldn't matter if it'd take me an hour to break the lock, it isn't going to help the victims. On the other hand, when I am inside of somebody's home with a firearm, the 5 seconds it will take them to get their key, open a lock, and ready he firearm for use, could well mean the difference between life and death. Every second you delay a law abiding citizen's defense could make the difference between lie and death. As with every other gun control 'solution' you're limiting law abiding citizens more than you are criminals, these kinds of laws do not help law abiding citizens.

There are certainly situations in which the owner could be held responsible for being negligent, but not going out of their way to make their defensive weapon inaccessible is not one of them.

It's not a matter of being able to go casually grab my handgun out of the breadbox so I can wave it around and pretend I'm a secret agent in the kitchen, I won't have a use for my defensive firearm until I am threatened by an attacker. When i am threatened by an attacker, I do not have the luxury of being able to sit down and consider the ethical implications of removing the firearm from the case as I find the right key on my ring, or consider the family of my target as I walk over to my ammo storage, find another key and open it. I don't have the luxury of stopping to consider another possible albeit unlikely option while I load each shot. While I stop to think about these things, my attacker with clarity of purpose is turning me into swiss cheese.

[Dranzer]

Is it not equally disrespectful that people on the other side of that argument use a tragedy like this to fuel their political agendas?

Of course it is, if not more so. Thank you for bringing that up, I should have mentioned that in my previous post as well.

The gun was stolen from his mother, a legal owner. Making a legal owner jump through 10,000 flaming hoops to get a gun doesn't stop criminals from grabbing one and firing it.

SOME STATISTICS ABOUT AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS VS GUN VIOLENCE, ETC WAS HERE.

That's why it's more difficult to obtain a car than a gun.

Thanks for clarifying, and thank you again for bringing up the prevalence of deaths involving car accidents. I was hoping someone would. While the numbers you provided are definitely sobering, I think the argument is pointless. I understand where you're coming from, but when I made the comparison to owning a gun versus owning a car, I wasn't talking statistics. The purpose of owning an automobile is to drive yourself from "Point A" to "Point B". You generally need one to go to work, etc. The purpose of using a gun is to shoot a bullet from "Point A" to hit "Point B". In all instances where a gun is being shot at a target, an injury or death occurs unless the shooter misses, or it's target practice at an inanimate object. Therefore, all of what you just said means nothing. I'm talking about the intent here, not numbers. If you want to discuss car ACCIDENTS then by all means make another thread and I'll do my best to participate without making semi-racist comments regarding the stupidity of some drivers and why they shouldn't be allowed to own a license.

Lower pay, fewer people become doctors, lower charge, more people coming in because they have a runny nose and need a professional opinion, more costly life saving procedures not ever being payed for. So, fewer doctors, more overall unimportant work, more wasted money time and resources, therefore less time money and resources to invest in researching new things. That's common sense. But universal healthcare isn't the topic at hand, so I won't go any further into that.

Neither will I. We both know we disagree on this issue. Greed and common sense don't go together, but this isn't the point of this thread and neither is the meaning of life, etc.

Found your problem, "we're all members of the same human race". People are ****ing stupid, you can't reasonably expect them all to do something that makes sense.

If I could shake your hand right now, I would. We see eye to eye on something. That is exactly why I called the end statement "philosophical" and "impossibly simple".

This gave me an idea. How do you get people to ensure that their guns are stored securely? There are good arguments that suggest that we don't want to prevent 'good' gun owners from owning guns for their protection... but as long as guns exist, 'bad' people will get them. Even if we manage to prevent 'bad' people from buying them, we can still expect 'bad' people to get their hands on 'good' peoples' guns. Just as in this case. So why isn't there some kind of federal or state law that stipulates that (in addition to the gun-toting murderer being prosecuted) the owner of a gun is responsible for any crimes committed with it. Obviously this should exclude theft -- but only in cases where the theft is despite the best efforts of the gun owner to prevent it being used by anyone who isn't the licensed owner. This should provide additional incentive for the secure protection of firearms and seems like a fair compromise between continued gun ownership and stricter gun control.

If this already happens, let me know. I wasn't born in the world's biggest gun store.

<3

To the best of my knowledge there aren't any laws/regulations in place regarding what I suggested (which, by the way, you caught on to my train of thought exactly). I had to look up gun laws in my state for personal reasons and found on the NRA website that there are little requirements to own a rifle. There are only regulations when it comes to owning a handgun/assault weapon. This leads me to another opinion of mine. Unless you're in the military, why the hell do you need an assault rifle/machine gun? I personally think those should be banned unless you want to keep it in a collection as a hobby. Therefore, the sale of ammunition for such weapons should be illegal, etc.

[Heartless Angel]

Of course it is, if not more so. Thank you for bringing that up, I should have mentioned that in my previous post as well.

Okay good, for a second I thought you were only addressing one side of the issue because of which side of it you were on. Thank you for proving me wrong. (This isn't sarcasm, sometimes it's had to tell with me, since I'm almost always being sarcastic. Maybe it didn't come off this way to anyone reading, but when reading this myself, for whatever reason I kept reading it in my sarcastic voice, so I thought I'd clarify.)

Thanks for clarifying, and thank you again for bringing up the prevalence of deaths involving car accidents. I was hoping someone would. While the numbers you provided are definitely sobering, I think the argument is pointless. I understand where you're coming from, but when I made the comparison to owning a gun versus owning a car, I wasn't talking statistics. The purpose of owning an automobile is to drive yourself from "Point A" to "Point B". You generally need one to go to work, etc. The purpose of using a gun is to shoot a bullet from "Point A" to hit "Point B". In all instances where a gun is being shot at a target, an injury or death occurs unless the shooter misses, or it's target practice at an inanimate object. Therefore, all of what you just said means nothing. I'm talking about the intent here, not numbers. If you want to discuss car ACCIDENTS then by all means make another thread and I'll do my best to participate without making semi-racist comments regarding the stupidity of some drivers and why they shouldn't be allowed to own a license.

That makes it worse. Automobiles are a necessity for day to day living, generally designed to minimize their ability to cause harm, and yet they still cause more damage, death, and injury than something designed to terminate other living beings. Interestingly, the overwhelming majority of gunshots fired are not at human beings (unless you're including war, but in war that's kind of the point). Hunters and sporting clay shooters use the overwhelming majority of ammunition made. Another fun fact, enough bullets are made in the US each year to shoot every person on the planet. Twice. And they still keep making them, so that alone should pretty well tell you that most of those are NOT going towards killing people. But just for fun, some actual stats again.

Anywhere between 7 and 10 billion bullets are sold each year in America. If ten percent of them were being used on people, you would have 700 million+ gun related injuries and deaths annually You don't, again, it's about 32,000 including the suicides that account for 2/3 of them.

If only one percent were used to kill people, that's still 70 million per year, way too much.

.1 percent, 7 million, still way too much.

.01, 700k, getting warmer.

.001, 70k, well, now we're sitting close to twice the actual amount. So, for easy figuring, let's say .0005% of bullets purchased in the US are used to take human lives. That leaves 99.9995% of them going towards those missed shots, target practice, hunting, sporting clays, and all those other non criminal activities involving firearms. And that's assuming the low end of ammunition sales, in years approaching the 10 billion range, it's an even smaller percentage. So when I say an overwhelming majority of gunshots are not fired by someone intending to unlawfully do another person harm, I mean an OVERWHELMING majority. So you shouldn't say that like it's only a few of those gun shots fired that fall into the category of those not aimed to kill people.

The numbers would seem to say something about the intent in this particular case. And I'd be willing to assume that even fewer people buy a car with the intent to kill people with it, yet cars still do substantially more damage to people and property than guns do. I guess the conclusion to this segment of my argument would be that, as big a deal as the media makes about every crime that happens; we're really not doing too badly as it is. Could improvements be made? Sure, any system can be improved, but it's not like we're teetering on the brink of world annihilation here.

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

Fun little website, posts about incidents in which law abiding citizens successfully defend themselves from attackers. Statistics strongly support that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens leads to fewer crimes successfully committed against them. Also, these incidents are counted among the "homicide" portion of those 32,000 deaths. So even LESS than 1/3 of those deaths are criminal homicides.

Neither will I. We both know we disagree on this issue. Greed and common sense don't go together, but this isn't the point of this thread and neither is the meaning of life, etc.

Greed is a fact of life, it's the nature of the breed, one can't ignore it when drawing conclusions about things which it can influence. But I agree, this is not the place for that argument. Also I'm pretty sure you and I have already had it somewhere, so there's even LESS need for it here. I actually don't recall if we ever finished that argument... but I digress...

If I could shake your hand right now, I would. We see eye to eye on something. That is exactly why I called the end statement "philosophical" and "impossibly simple".

I think just about everybody would agree that the overwhelming majority of people are stupid. The problem is, the overwhelming majority of them are also convinced that they are a part of the tiny fraction that isn't. Unfortunately, human stupidity will always be a part of the equation. An animal is an animal, no matter how advanced its tools may be. An animal is self serving, and egoistic, not naturally suited to maintaining an ordered society which promotes the well being of the whole before the individual.

To the best of my knowledge there aren't any laws/regulations in place regarding what I suggested (which, by the way, you caught on to my train of thought exactly). I had to look up gun laws in my state for personal reasons and found on the NRA website that there are little requirements to own a rifle. There are only regulations when it comes to owning a handgun/assault weapon. This leads me to another opinion of mine. Unless you're in the military, why the hell do you need an assault rifle/machine gun? I personally think those should be banned unless you want to keep it in a collection as a hobby. Therefore, the sale of ammunition for such weapons should be illegal, etc.

First thing that needs to be clarified that is consistently overlooked in this debate, is what he definition of 'assault weapon' in that law is. "The term, assault weapon, when used in the context of assault weapon laws refers primarily to semi-automatic firearms that possess the cosmetic features of an assault rifle (which are actually fully-automatic). Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', changes the classification from assault weapons to Title II weapons. Merely the possession of cosmetic features is enough to warrant classification as an assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent cartridge casing and load the next cartridge into the chamber, ready to fire again. They do not fire automatically like a machine gun. Rather, only one round is fired with each trigger pull."

The complaints against that law aren't that I can't get a gun that spews ammo everywhere and kills everything in a 75 degree cone in front of me, but that several guns are banned because they 'look dangerous', which is stupid. It doesn't really matter that my gun LOOKS like a military firearm. that doesn't make it more deadly. These particular weapons were banned by people with rationale equivalent to that of children who think cars with race-car flames on them are inherently faster and otherwise superior to other cars. Law makers are human beings, as we have already agreed to, this means that the odds are greatly in favor of them being stupid. I'd submit in this particular case that they are, in fact, stupid. The difference is purely cosmetic, each is equally capable of killing somebody; neither does the job better. Fully automatic weapons like machine guns are banned, and should be banned for normal civillian use, that isn't the kind of thing a person SHOULD be able to buy in a gun store, because the purpose of a fully automatic weapon IS to be capable of killing a large number of people in one go, something not necessary for defense. See? I'm not a totally uncompromising 'stick to my guns' hardass, I agree that there are reasonable restrictions which are not in any way a violation of my rights.

[Dranzer]

@Heartless: Okay, perhaps I was too general (I really was trying NOT to go deeper into this bit because it's not a part of the topic of this thread, but whatever), but all your argument has done has made it even clearer that automobiles aren't regulated well enough. Something I probably should have added in, but I'm saying it now. It's a separate issue, however. You shouldn't be able to take a driver's test as many times as you can until you pass (with or without more driver's education), there should be a limit. If you're convicted of one DUI your license should be shredded and you should be given a state issued ID that has some code on it that tells anyone who sees it how bad of a driver you are and if you're behind a wheel of a car that is on it's grounds for immediate incarceration. Of course, accidents still do happen, that's why they're called accidents, but obviously one too many are happening because like we have all agreed upon: people are stupid. Therefore, it only makes logical sense to keep as many stupid people off the roads as possible and provide public transportation. OR they can walk to wherever it is they need to go, that may help with the obesity epidemic as well, which also might help cut some healthcare premiums. Awesome.

Also, thanks for clarifying about the assault rifles, I'll go into that more in a minute. I do have a question, however, did I give you the impression that I think law abiding citizens shouldn't own a gun? You seem to be trying to convince me of that, when I haven't stated anything about being against it. If anything more law abiding, responsible citizens should own them, but that doesn't mean that owning a firearm should be easier than owning a car, which has been proven is already too easy (I might add).

@Sassy: That's a good question, why isn't there a limit to how fast cars can go? Again, since I guess I might have misstated something in my previous posts: I'm not for the banning of all guns.

So ... a gun fires a bullet, which makes a hole in something. Your point?

The point is a gun is designed to injure and/or kill something. I used the comparison to a car because the PURPOSE of a car is not to injure/kill something even though it is CAPABLE of doing so. However, all that example led to was the conclusion that even cars aren't regulated well enough. I really would like to add a line from a comedian about this issue but Alpha will probably warn me so I'll refrain (even though it's a real zinger).

Just to touch on this subject (socialized medicine) ... The NHS kills more than five times as many Brits as firearms kill Americans.

So you blame the laziness and carelessness of those doctors on socialized medicine? I'm not familiar with their laws, or the rules in which they operate when it comes to dosage calculations, side-effect monitoring, frequent blood work, etc. So I can neither agree or disagree with that train of thought. That really sounds like laziness to me (I've seen shit like that happen in our country), but that's a separate issue entirely.

So ... If I break into your house, drink everything in your liquor cabinet, steal your car and a lighter, crash into a school, and set it on fire ... you're responsible for all of that? The drunk driving, the crashing, the arson ... all of it, I would do with your property, that I did not acquire legally.

That scenario is ridiculous, but I will say this: if you didn't have property insurance, or car insurance how would you be able to afford a new vehicle and pay for the damages done to it or your property? The same goes with a gun. My point in throwing out the idea for gun insurance wasn't to make it a penalty to a gun owner, but more to protect them from a situation like that. We live in a sue-happy world - if someone comes in and steals your firearm and commits a crime with it, insurance would be nice to cover your ass. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I completely familiar with how the legal system would deal with a hypothetical scenario like that. Just remember, we live in a society whose judicial system let a **** like Casey Anthony get off scott-free, preparing for the absurd might not be the worst idea ever.

First off, do you even know what an assault rifle is? I'm honestly not trying to be condescending or anything here, I'm actually asking. Most people don't know.

No, I don't. I've only gone to a shooting range once with my Pappy and I shot one of his hunting rifles. I have no idea what model it was, that was about 4 or 5 years ago. Also, it's quite all right, I didn't take your question as condescending. I've read enough of your posts to tell when you're probably trying to come off that way.

Second of all, assault rifles, machine guns, and sub-machine guns have all been illegal in the United States since 1934. Anybody that owns one must go through a rigorous background check, fingerprinting, licensing, registering ... not to mention the fact that fully-automatic firearms are expensive as hell. Like, ten or twenty grand, expensive.

TWO murders in the United States have been committed with legally-owned fully-automatic firearms since 1934. One was by a Law Enforcement Officer. Both were after the 1986 law that put even more restrictions on them.

And last ... The Second Amendment protects the rights of civilians to own the same type of arms the federal government owns. (Most supporters of firearm rights wouldn't argue for rights to this extent, but I will display an accurate understanding of the Constitution.) When it was passed, it protected the same types of firearms. The argument that the Founding Fathers could never imagine the types of firearms we have today is not only irrelevant (because, as pointed out, they protected the same types of firearms for everybody), but also ignorant (unless we think that nobody ever expected technology to advance).

Thank you for this, I actually didn't know that. I have a few questions now. First, can you point me in the direction of where I can find more information on the different types of firearms and ammunition, etc. Second, what exactly do you think should be done? Nothing? Mental health research? Possible gun education like sex education? (That's not actually a joke, I think if more people were informed somehow there might be less issues. However, you'd have to take into consideration how many citizens would put such information to good use. Regardless, intentional ignorance never solves anything.)

Bottom-line, it should be made as difficult as possible for a loaded firearm to end up in the hands of someone it shouldn't.

[Heartless Angel]

@Heartless: Okay, perhaps I was too general (I really was trying NOT to go deeper into this bit because it's not a part of the topic of this thread, but whatever), but all your argument has done has made it even clearer that automobiles aren't regulated well enough. Something I probably should have added in, but I'm saying it now. It's a separate issue, however. You shouldn't be able to take a driver's test as many times as you can until you pass (with or without more driver's education), there should be a limit. If you're convicted of one DUI your license should be shredded and you should be given a state issued ID that has some code on it that tells anyone who sees it how bad of a driver you are and if you're behind a wheel of a car that is on it's grounds for immediate incarceration. Of course, accidents still do happen, that's why they're called accidents, but obviously one too many are happening because like we have all agreed upon: people are stupid. Therefore, it only makes logical sense to keep as many stupid people off the roads as possible and provide public transportation. OR they can walk to wherever it is they need to go, that may help with the obesity epidemic as well, which also might help cut some healthcare premiums. Awesome.

Well, that's actually not what I was getting at. Though I will agree, there could definitely be some added restrictions on vehicle ownership. I wouldn't say it needs to be quite as extreme as that, because people kinda need cars to get places, keeping people stuck in their homes certainly doesn't do an economy any favors, makes it harder to get and keep a job, et cetera. And public transportation on that large a scale would be costly and inefficient. What I was getting at, is that we're generally as a country satisfied with the current level of restriction and regulations on automobiles, as much damage injury damage and death as they are still capable of causing. And that since guns are certainly no worse and in most cases substantially better, we don't really need to be so worked up about them either. In fact based on the numbers, again that's less than .0005% of bullets being used by a criminal on another human being, it's safe to say that gun owners are, statistically speaking, significantly more responsible with their guns, a device designed to kill, than car owners are with their cars, a device designed for safety. And that is why guns are easier to get than cars. If people weren't so irresponsible and stupid with cars, cars would probably be easier to get than guns. Lots of people are stupid with cars, so cars are going to be difficult to get, the overwhelming majority of people are not stupid with guns, therefore they are not in need of the same level of regulation. The guns which there IS a serious threat of people being stupid with, the Title II weapons which actually ARE full auto, actually DO have that level of regulation, see Sassy's explanation of the requirements to get a machine gun.

Also, thanks for clarifying about the assault rifles, I'll go into that more in a minute. I do have a question, however, did I give you the impression that I think law abiding citizens shouldn't own a gun? You seem to be trying to convince me of that, when I haven't stated anything about being against it. If anything more law abiding, responsible citizens should own them, but that doesn't mean that owning a firearm should be easier than owning a car, which has been proven is already too easy (I might add).

No, I don't get the impression that you're against gun ownership in general, just that you think they're more dangerous than they actually are, and are therefore in need of regulations, which based upon the numbers, just aren't necessary. Proponents of gun control generally give the impression that they think a significant majority of gun owners are crazy irresponsible lunatics, when in fact, almost none of them (again, .0005% or less bullets are ever fired by a citizen at a human being, and 2/3 of those are fired by the shooter at the shooter, not endangering anyone else) are. 32,000 (again, 2/3 are suicides, legal self defensive killings are also included in this number, less than 1/3 of these are actually homicides) deaths is NOT a significant number for a country with a population of 315 million. Gun control laws put unnecessary burden on the 99.9995%, to mildly inconvenience the .0005%. They are not a logical, reasonable way to go about solving the problem, if it can even be considered a serious problem to begin with.

The point is a gun is designed to injure and/or kill something. I used the comparison to a car because the PURPOSE of a car is not to injure/kill something even though it is CAPABLE of doing so. However, all that example led to was the conclusion that even cars aren't regulated well enough. I really would like to add a line from a comedian about this issue but Alpha will probably warn me so I'll refrain (even though it's a real zinger).

The point I was making is that the level of regulation on guns, and the overall responsibility of gun owners is overwhelmingly superior to that of cars, in spite of the fact that guns are designed to be weapons. People are safer and more responsible with lethal weapons than they are with transport devices designed for safety. If 32,000 annual deaths from cars that aren't supposed to kill anybody is acceptable, 32,000 deaths from a lethal weapon designed to efficiently end a life is nothing short of immaculate.

So you blame the laziness and carelessness of those doctors on socialized medicine? I'm not familiar with their laws, or the rules in which they operate when it comes to dosage calculations, side-effect monitoring, frequent blood work, etc. So I can neither agree or disagree with that train of thought. That really sounds like laziness to me (I've seen shit like that happen in our country), but that's a separate issue entirely.

A wise man once said, you get what you pay for. Socialized medicine opens the doors for lazy doctors and less intelligent practitioners, because people with the brains and abilities go do something that pays more. Socialized medicine, invariably means less money to be made by doctors, that reduces the appeal of that career path for the kinds of people you want to be on it. When you pay doctors a good amount, you have more people trying to get into medical school and get into the medical field than you need, not only do you have enough doctors, you have your choice of the best applicants for the job. When fewer talented individuals are trying to become doctors, you kinda have to settle for the ones that do, whether they're the best and brightest or not.

That scenario is ridiculous, but I will say this: if you didn't have property insurance, or car insurance how would you be able to afford a new vehicle and pay for the damages done to it or your property? The same goes with a gun. My point in throwing out the idea for gun insurance wasn't to make it a penalty to a gun owner, but more to protect them from a situation like that. We live in a sue-happy world - if someone comes in and steals your firearm and commits a crime with it, insurance would be nice to cover your ass. I could be wrong, I'm not a lawyer, nor am I completely familiar with how the legal system would deal with a hypothetical scenario like that. Just remember, we live in a society whose judicial system let a **** like Casey Anthony get off scott-free, preparing for the absurd might not be the worst idea ever.

I don't believe laws currently hold the owner responsible for crimes committed with your property by a thief, so that really isn't necessary.

No, I don't. I've only gone to a shooting range once with my Pappy and I shot one of his hunting rifles. I have no idea what model it was, that was about 4 or 5 years ago. Also, it's quite all right, I didn't take your question as condescending. I've read enough of your posts to tell when you're probably trying to come off that way.

Between the two of us, I think me and Sassy have pretty well covered it. An actual assault rifle is fully automatic, an assault weapon as defined by assault weapon laws more accurately translates to 'guns that look scary'.

A ban on actual Title II fully automatic weapons is logical, and is in place, and nobody really complains about it. There are people who legally own them, and as Sassy stated, only two crimes have been committed with them since they were banned. Nobody complains about the restrictions on Title II weapons, they complain about bans on scary looking guns. Nobody DOES need a real Title II full auto assault rifle for home defense, people just don't like the unreasonable restriction of otherwise normal firearms because they look mean.

Bottom-line, it should be made as difficult as possible for a loaded firearm to end up in the hands of someone it shouldn't.

I agree insofar as it does NOT place additional difficulty on those who SHOULD be able to get their hands on them, that's where the flaw in suggested gun control laws lies, they hurt law abiding citizens far more than they hurt the people they're intended to hurt.

[Sasquatch]

@Sassy: That's a good question, why isn't there a limit to how fast cars can go? Again, since I guess I might have misstated something in my previous posts: I'm not for the banning of all guns.

I didn't suspect that you supported a complete gun ban, but it seems that you support restrictions to gun rights. And as for limiting speed of vehicles ... I think that's a bit much. The more we restrict ourselves because the population is too stupid and irresponsible to take care of itself, the sooner we find ourselves in bondage. We're not children living under mommy and daddy's roof, that might not know that the stove is hot, or that falling down the stairs might hurt. If somebody wants to put their hand on a burner or hurl themselves down a flight of stairs, let them, and if they take somebody else with them, THEN hold them responsible. We can't prevent stupidity, it's not possible.

The point is a gun is designed to injure and/or kill something.

No, the point is that a gun is designed to fire a bullet that puts a hole in something. Not always an animal, not always a person -- in fact, a very small minority of rounds are used in assaults or hunting, and an extremely vast majority are used to put holes in paper, shatter clay discs, or explode coke cans. Just like how cars aren't designed to kill things, they're designed to either be a necessary tool with a function, or for recreation, and sometimes both.

I used the comparison to a car because the PURPOSE of a car is not to injure/kill something even though it is CAPABLE of doing so. However, all that example led to was the conclusion that even cars aren't regulated well enough.

Is it the car, or the licensing and training that you have a problem with?

So you blame the laziness and carelessness of those doctors on socialized medicine?

Seeing as doctors do better jobs when they have more incentive, yes, the fact that socializing an industry breeds mediocrity definitely plays a large role in the deaths of those twelve thousand people a year.

That scenario is ridiculous, but I will say this: if you didn't have property insurance, or car insurance how would you be able to afford a new vehicle and pay for the damages done to it or your property?

You wouldn't be responsible for the damages, so you wouldn't need insurance. Responsibility would fall on the criminal -- and if the criminal didn't have insurance to pay for it, it would go to a civil suit.

The same goes with a gun. My point in throwing out the idea for gun insurance wasn't to make it a penalty to a gun owner, but more to protect them from a situation like that.

To process insurance, a national registration would be required, and that ain't gonna fly. Besides, as I pointed out, the responsibility for any damages done with stolen property would fall on the user of the property, not the owner.

We live in a sue-happy world - if someone comes in and steals your firearm and commits a crime with it, insurance would be nice to cover your ass.

Why not just support tort reform? Suing the owners of stolen firearms is as stupid as suing the firearm manufacturers themselves.

No, I don't. I've only gone to a shooting range once with my Pappy and I shot one of his hunting rifles. I have no idea what model it was, that was about 4 or 5 years ago. Also, it's quite all right, I didn't take your question as condescending. I've read enough of your posts to tell when you're probably trying to come off that way.

Good -- I know I can be patronizing and condescending sometimes, even unintentionally, and I didn't mean to come off that way. However, I also know that there is an extreme amount of ignorance -- let's call it naivety -- concerning firearms, especially those incorrectly referred to as "assault"-anything.

Assault rifles have been severely restricted in the United States since 1934. Nobody can walk into a gun store with a driver's license and walk out with an assault rifle, it just won't happen. Not only are they extremely expensive, they also require much more licensing and registering than other firearms. This includes annual renewals, tax stamps, re-registering and notification of residence change, and even registration of where, when, and how the firearm is stored. But we need to get into some definitions, first.

From Wiki: "An assault rifle is a selective fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." So, a rifle with a selectable rate of fire -- something that can go from one "bang" per squeeze of the trigger to a burst of two or three, or fully-automatic. Militaries carry assault rifles. The United States uses M16s and M4s, which are assault rifles.

Also Wiki: "Assault weapon is a term that has differing meanings and usages referring to types of firearms. ... Actually possessing the operational features, such as 'full-auto', is not required for classification as an assault weapon; merely the possession of cosmetic features is now enough to warrant such classification as an assault weapon. [emphasis mine]" So, to translate ... "assault weapons" are just regular rifles, but they might look like actual assault rifles, so they're bad.

The same type of ignorance could be used to think that bolting a spoiler (especially a double-wing) or a body kit onto a car will make it faster or less safe.

The most common rifle referred to as an "assault weapon" is the AR15, which is cosmetically similar to the M16/M4. Actual M16s/M4s are illegal as all hell and nearly impossible for civilians to get ahold of, but AR15s look similar, but are semi-automatic. (The shorter AR15 is not an M4, as some refer to it as, but simply an AR15 carbine, just as the M4 is just an M16 carbine. And despite what's widely believed, the "AR" does NOT in any way stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle", and never has. It stands for "ArmaLite Rifle" -- see, Eugene Stoner worked for ArmaLite when he originally designed the AR-10, so they slapped their designation on it.)

Basically, "assault weapon" is a term coined by anti-gun nuts in the 80's that wanted to ban anything that might look like it would be used by a military. It refers only to cosmetics and how a rifle looks, having absolutely nothing to do with the inner workings. Prettymuch ... it just translates into "scary-looking gun".

First, can you point me in the direction of where I can find more information on the different types of firearms and ammunition, etc.

If you send me a message, I'd be happy to answer whatever questions I can, and direct you elsewhere if there's anything I can't answer.

Second, what exactly do you think should be done? Nothing? Mental health research? Possible gun education like sex education?

Mental health research is part of it, but a bigger issue would be mental health responsibility. Right now, we have people that should be locked in treatment facilities, and aren't. We have people that should be taking medications on a daily basis, and aren't. And there are no ways to force these things upon them. In America, it takes a miracle to get a court mandate for psychiatric evaluation or treatment -- if it's not mandated, the patient can leave or refuse at any opportunity, and if it is mandated, there is no way to enforce it. Hell, Andrea Yates even told people that she was thinking about killing her kids for two years before it happened.

As far as firearm education goes, I would be all for it. It wouldn't even need real firearms, but a program in schools -- maybe a section of health class -- dealing with firearm safety and function, or at least the four basic rules, would definitely help. There are plenty of schools that used to have shooting programs, whether target or trap or just an education. Hell, there are schools with (now unused) .22 ranges in basements. We have Drivers' Education and sex education, why not also teach kids how to be safe around firearms? It would definitely quell quite a bit of the "I don't understand it, so I fear it" aspect of firearms.

Bottom-line, it should be made as difficult as possible for a loaded firearm to end up in the hands of someone it shouldn't.

I agree, but that should not at all infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens to acquire and use firearms to their liking.