If that passes, that will go over well... considering they just shot down a bill to ban assault weapons...

And that was after a few anti-gun groups bused a group of teens from Stoneman Douglas High School up there. I guess they were figuring the pressure from having those teens in the chamber would convince Florida lawmakers to ban AR-style rifles (they're not "assault rifles," which is a term of art created in the mid-1990s).

I feel for those teens, I really do. Their world received a cruel shock last week and some may never recover emotionally. But you also can't legislate based on teenage emotionalism, especially when we know there were multiple steps along the path to their tragedy where the shooter probably could have been stopped well before he decided to pick up a rifle and do his evil deed.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Gun manufacturers used that term before the 1990s. Guns & Ammo published a book called "Assault Rifles" in 1982. But that doesn't fit with your narrative, does it?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Mrs. McK414 is a teacher, and I'm pretty sure she would never pack heat in school. And she has some experience shooting. Armed resource officers or school security personnel, sounds like a decent idea up front, but arming teachers?

---

--------------------------
The secret of a long life is you try not to shorten it.
-Nobody

Is the public or legislature ready for the unintended consequences that may occur?

I fear that at some point in the future, the term 'Going Postal' will be supplanted with 'Going Teacher'.

I love the US, but this is one of the things that leaves me feeling very blessed to have had the means and opportunity to raise my kids elsewhere.

---

Remember - It's important to be comfortable in your own skin... because it turns out society frowns on wearing other people's

Arming teachers in the schools.

Barely trained people, who have never before had rounds incoming at them (or even heard shots fired in anger), with loaded guns around running/screaming/panicked kids. Absolutely nothing can go wrong here.

---

I talk to myself because mine are the only answers I'll accept - George Carlin

Is this you assuming since kids are concerned for their futures that anti-gun groups bused them in or did you find an article or see someone making this statement? My initial Google search didn't bring up anything.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

It's a made up meme to discredit what the kids are doing. BK knows this, yet propagates it anyway. I am pretty sure he has been turned by the Russians.

All hail Comrade Trump!!!

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Do you really think that a group of teenagers was able to organize something like that and work out all of the logistics? All with no outside help? Really?

Logistics? I guess you've never used Google Maps. It's a car ride to Tallahassee.

In high school we organized an overnight ski trip with about 20 kids, without our parents approval, at lunch time on a Friday and left Friday night and returned Saturday night. I'm not sure what type of organization you think is required for some determined students to try and get their voice heard.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Gun manufacturers used that term before the 1990s. Guns & Ammo published a book called "Assault Rifles" in 1982.

Yeah but anyone who uses the wrong terminology can't engage in any discussions about guns. I read that right here in the LR.

Per http://www.tampabay.com/...legislative-reality/
it was organized by some democratic senators:

"The trip by the first wave of 40 Parkland students was organized by Sen. Gary Farmer, D-Fort Lauderdale. A second wave of 100 students, organized by Sen. Lauren Book, D-Plantation, will arrive in the capital late Tuesday."

Kind of like saying that men can't have an opinion on "women's reproductive rights."

No, I don't think you did. I think what you probably read here in the LR is that, if you don't know the difference between a semi-auto and automatic weapon, or you don't know the difference between an automatic weapon and a bump stock, or if you don't understand the difference between full jacketed and hollow point ammunition, etc, you shouldn't probably be proposing to ban any of those things.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Yesterday, the Florida House voted

1. against even have a discussion about guns

2. voted that porn was a public health hazard and required research to make an informed decision.

Fuck you, Florida.

Hey now. Don't fuck with our porn. That's a 1st Amendment issue. You'll have to pry my porn from my cold, dead hands. Hmmmmm.

Can't wait for the cops to show up, looking for a bad guy with a gun, and a dozen or so teachers are running around the campus with 45's in their waistband, AR-15's in one hand, and extra magazines in the other hand.

---

"Human existence is based upon two pillars: Compassion and knowledge. Compassion without knowledge is ineffective; Knowledge without compassion is inhuman." Victor Weisskopf.

I think it would be a big mistake. States are having a hard time find and keeping teachers now. Requiring them to be armed would thin the ranks even more. The candidate pool would be basically pulled from people who want to be police officers.

So basically what Sanuk wrote.

Well sure, if you aren't smart enough to know the difference between "advocate for banning" and "have a discussion."

But I know you're are smart enough.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

You too! ;)

I spent a lot of years in the military, Ken, handling infantry riflles, which actually fit the parameters of what constitutes an assault rifle. The first time we heard that term applied to these civilian AR-15 type rifles was in 1994. Thus the use of a term of art by civilian anti-gun proponents to give the AR-15 type rifle some sort of scary characteristics which it actually doesn't possess.

Those rifles are in no way, shape, or form a true assault rifle. If someone were to bring an AR-15 to an infantry unit and claim that he had an assault rifle and was good to go when it came to going out on a patrol, he would be laughed off the face of the planet, at minimum. Probably he'd also get a blanket party for his stupidity.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I'm with you on that one, good sir. One of the greatest Innovations enabled by the internet, if you ask me. Much easier to utilize than those silly super 8mm films back in the day, right? ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

You said the term "assault rifles" was created in the mid-1990s, when in fact the gun industry itself used the term a decade earlier.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

but they are marketed as such. which means those who buy those guns are the stupidest, sorriest losers on the planet. i take that to be what you're saying. i agree with you.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Laws require very precise language. The other usages would have been fine with generally understood, if not precisely defined, phrases.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

As someone who survived the Columbine massacre, your comment about "teenage emotionalism" really strikes me the wrong way. What a horrible thing to say. These kids were just shot at, and you are telling us that you can't pass any laws to prevent this from happening in the future because it would just be a response to "teenage emotionalism".

IF this isn't a reason to do something to prevent this from happening in the future, then I don't know what is. Why is it so important for you to make sure AR-15s don't get banned? How does this specific weapon make your life better? Can you weigh that against the many people that have been affected negatively by this weapon (many of which who have had their lives ended by it)?

I haven't read anything that says that they would be required to, only that they would be able to after training.

---

I miss YaHey

We should let school districts experiment. If one school district wants to allow interested teachers to arm themselves, fine. If another wants security guards, fine. If another wants prevention-via-counseling, fine. Over time the success, or lack thereof, of those experiments will start showing what works and what doesn't.

The solution that is dumb is the uniform solution. Shove the same solution down everyone's throat and we learn much less.

Personally, I don't think a heck of a lot of any "security" based solution. Security is terribly difficult. Only on TV is the good guy able to respond to the crisis created by the bad guy. In real life, security guy is asleep, watching TV, the first person shot, off-campus, or something. Altho I see it as less likely to succeed than it's advocates, it's none of my business if some school district wants to give it a try.

The military has an idea called a "paperdrill". It's something that sounds nice on paper, but in practice doesn't work for shit.

Allowing older and mature teachers that have extensive experience with firearms to carry a concealed firearm is interesting, but there'd be concerns too. Lots of ways it could go bad, in both day to day business or in a crisis. Is the risk worth it? I don't know. But we ought to let the individual school district decide.

---

Books @ Amazon
"If only he had used his genius for niceness, instead of Evil." M. Smart

What law could be passed to prevent this from happening in the future?

---

I miss YaHey

I've been wondering about how much the appeal of teaching in the US must be waning with each shooting. Every time a teacher or coach is hailed as a hero for dying for their kids the profession sounds more and more dangerous.

And to BK's point, I think back to some of the subs and student teachers I had as a kid and the thought of them being armed is terrifying. They were inexperience and outmaneuvered by their students, carrying a firearm would not have made things any less stressful.

What law could be passed to prevent this from happening in the future?

You and everyone else in America has no idea so why not try passing something that *might* work?

I mean, wouldn't it be better to try something like banning "guns that can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time" (God forbid that I use the wrong word) even if it's just to appease the people that are getting so angry because of no action. Doesn't anyone want to at least try living in a country where there can be some middle ground on contentious issues?

I think what he's getting at is just being shot at, and having gone through such an ordeal, does not make the survivors/victims experts on the complex issue surrounding the incident. In fact, it would be nearly impossible to remove one's emotional trauma from the topic to deliver an objective and well reasoned argument. As such, we should not make policy based on an (understandably) emotional plea from high school kids.

How are you going to ban guns that can kill a lot of people in a short amount of time?

---

I miss YaHey

Ban AR-15s. There seems to be a fascination over this particular weapon among those responsible for school shootings. Ban it.

This is already happening in Wyoming. Districts are, as we speak, getting a feel for what the parents in their districts think on the topic with questionnaires. There is a surprising level of support for it in this area, which isn't all that shocking really since Wyoming is the most heavily armed state in the nation (per capita).

I don't get this.

Mom died from Opiates? Cant have an opinion on opiate legality.
Sister died from a drunk driver? Can't have an opinion on make it harder to get a license if you had a DUI.
Dad died from motorcycling without a helmet? Can't have an opinion on helmet laws.

Same logic.

What is your mechanism for banning them? Other than "passing a law".

---

I miss YaHey

Of course you can have an opinion, and who wouldn't given the circumstances, but don't expect to be treated as an expert on the topic. IOW, your emotionally charged opinion should not carry more weight than those people who have knowledge, education, training, and experience on the topic at hand.

Parents are dumb. A decade or so ago, my daughter's pre-school had a parent meeting to discuss adding security locks and support equipment to the 2-3 doors to the building, in reaction to some school shooting or other (how sad that I can't even recall which shooting?). All these parents were for it. I pointed out that, like the lottery where someone might win but it won't be you, the odds of someone trying to enter the school to do harm is vanishingly small, and wouldn't they rather the (private) school use those funds to provide more school supplies, or to increase the pay of the really good teachers they had to keep them around? The school opted not to implement this security.

Re Wyoming: were the parent supportive because they felt threatened by all the people with guns in Wyoming, or because carrying guns by everyone is so "normal?"

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

What's wrong with passing a law?

Here are some laws you may be familiar with:
1. speed limits
2. laws against drugs
3. tax laws

There are thousands of others. All of which affect behavior.

Okay, so you pass a law "banning" AR-15s. Then what? How exactly do you ban them?

---

I miss YaHey

could also pass a law regarding the manufacturer of AR-15's Or only manufacture / accept PO's from US military / Police Department, etc.

You have passed a law banning them. They are therefore, by definition, banned.

The ones in circulation gradually get confiscated as they are used in crimes, found during traffic stops, disposed of, turned in to police during estate sales etc. Is it perfect? No. Will it prevent ALL school shootings? No. Will it have a positive affect? Yes. Do the positives of such a policy outweigh the negatives (struggling to come up with any negatives here)? Yes.

What is your mechanism for banning them? Other than "passing a law".

But you ban a lot of things by passing laws. You ban speeding by giving fines and jail time, you ban alcohol in public (some places) by passing laws and enforcing them, you ban someone from flying drones near airports by the same. Some people still do these things of course but the law and strict enforcement certainly reduces the amount of speeding, sex in public and the number of drones flying near airports.

Why would it be so different for guns?

You could also go after the gun manufacturers, offer incentives to turn in guns before imposing penalties etc. You can then go after firing range owners who allow certain guns on their premises.

You just have to want to do it, and the real problem, no one wants to try.

Are you saying that after they are banned anyone who owns one becomes a criminal unless they turn it in?

---

I miss YaHey

Yes. What's the problem?

This happens all the time.

I have many good friends who own AR-15 or similar rifles, and they are anything but what you just called them. I take what you mean to be tongue-in-cheek, at least I hope that's how you meant it.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

You either have to have language in the law grandfathering in existing AR-type "assault rifles" (that's a dumb term for them, because they're NOT) and allowing law-abiding owners to keep them or you have to insert language ordering their confiscation.

The latter will lead to serious issues with gun owners. I wouldn't say a civil war (probably not), but I'd hate to see a lot of well-meaning gun grabbers hurt when they come around to try to take them. Cops have no stomach for that and forget about the military -- not unless you want to see a real full-blown insurrection on your hands.

And simply saying "All right you guys, there's a new law and you have to turn in your "assault rifles" won't work, either. Some folks, who obey the law anyway, would turn them in. But the bad guys? Don't make me laugh. Most likely they'd up-gun even more and even get a bunch more, either through the black market (do gun grabbers know how relatively easy it is to make AR-style rifles and pistols?) or through 3D printing technologies.

So how many sworn LEOs are there in the federal law enforcement community? I bet there'd be a hell of a lot more pissed-off gun owners, many armed to the teeth and itching for a fight.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Does it really? When was the last time we banned something previously legal to own, that made somebody a felon for keeping what they had legally purchased?

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Other countries have done it. Really not rocket science.

---

****************

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

All I know is, even the most bad-a$$ looking AR-15 style scary black CIVILIAN-purposed rifle wouldn't stand a chance in a head-to-head with opponents armed even with the old M16A1. The A2 and above (A3 and A4/M4) are superior in every way and could out-cycle an AR-15 in terms of rate of fire, ammo capacity, range, accuracy and lethality. The round packed by the M16 variants alone would give the shooter a huge edge.

My preferred weapon would be any rifle, including carbine, from the CAR-15 family, especially the CAR-15 Commando. On days when we went on unit runs (boots and camouflage utility pants with t-shirts and body armor over that, which was great on hot days) we had a Jody (a military running cadence) we used to sing that included the CAR-15: "With a CAR-15 and a couple of frags, I ran that country out of body bags." We really meant it, too. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

No, it doesn't.

Constitutional rights are not altered "all the time" to render a tool/item/machine "illegal" or "banned" which was previously legal to own.

Meanwhile, handguns are far more frequently used to commit mass gun crimes. Other than it is current front page appeal, why focus on the AR-15 when it, statistically, is a minor piece of the overall gun homicide pie?

Is the crux of the issue the higher capacity and rapid reload-ability of the AR platform? Doesn't this exist in all semi-automatic guns with detachable magazines?

I have a glock 20 that holds 16 rounds and can be reloaded with another 15 within a second or two. Is this less scary than the AR-15 (which I don't own yet). It is undeniably less accurate than the AR rifle, but can be concealed into just about any location.

So, does anybody really think that banning AR-15 rifles will prevent school shootings or will it just force those who wish to do these things to choose other weapons?

Firecrackers
Kratom (is or will soon be banned by the DEA)
Meth
Certain kinds of Hagas
Shark Fins
Cuban Cigars (for a while)
Dog Fur coats
Certain kinds of hardwoods

There's always a point with gun grabbers where you just have to say "Molon Labe," sir. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

You do realize that Columbine happened during a time when there was an assault weapon ban in place. But that doesn't mean that a ban wouldn't help. Interesting article. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/...ons-b_b_9740352.html

All those items are quite different from a piece of real property like a rifle. Most of them are “consumable” items that don’t last very long. I’d also like to see a reference for some of those, such as the dog fur coat. I’m thinking that much of what you wrote isn’t actually illegal to possess, but the trade of the item is banned.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Other countries didn’t have a constitutional amendment that gave people the right to keep and bear arms, either.

I really love how some of you think that this would be a piece of cake, that we could ban a type of weapon and that it would be a relatively simple matter to collect them all up with nary a whimper.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

You are pretending like making a distinction between these items because one is consumable and one is not makes some kind of difference. It does not.

I also seem to have fallen into a different logical trap as well. We seem to be having this discussion based on a theory that because something hasn't happened (as you have incorrectly supposed) that it can't happen. There really isn't any reason Ar-15s couldn't or shouldn't be banned. It's not like there is some kind of ban on banning things....

You are right, trade of dog fur coats is banned. Not the actual possession as far as I can tell:
Https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1308

If this is such an enormous distinction, how about we just ban the trade of AR-15s? Does that work as a compromise?

Yeah, while I personally don’t have a problem with a ban on certain weapons, I do worry about what may happen when that ban is enforced. And, I would not support any ban that didn’t include compensation for the weapon and any other accessories that were also banned (like high capacity magaizines).

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I really love how you seem to think that because something is difficult it can't be done.

Is it a magic solution that will fix everything? No. I acknowledge that.

my response was a little chippy, yes. if you look at post 159 in the can slowtwitch compromise thread you'll see a distillation of my view, which is that these guns have been advertised, marketed, couched as "tactical" weapons. what is a tactical weapon? in this case it's a weapon that has been promised to be the very weapon you'd need if you were dropped into the zone by a helicopter, and if you think i'm being hyperbolic i'll point you to that gun maker's website. look at the design, the marketing, the imaging in the marketing. these guns are designed to be the street legal versions of sniper rifles.

so, you can't on the one hand stay silent as the nikolas cruzes of the world are marketed and sold a gun for killing people, and then after nikolas cruz buys it and uses it as advertised say no, these aren't actually that sort of gun at all. basically what BK is saying is that they're a very, very faint imitation of a true "tactical" weapon and no one who actually buys one thinks that's what he's buying. i think cruz thought that was what he was buying. he bought this. instead of this.

what do your friends think they are buying? a faint imitation?

you can't have it every which way.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

You may think that there is no distinction between banning possession of firecrackers or drugs or cigars, and banning an assault rifle, but you would be wrong. Seriously....you are comparing banning firecrackers and cigars to a banning a rifle that probably cost the purchaser $1,000, give or take a couple hundred bucks? Do you not see why such a ban would be far more problematic than cigars or firecrackers? Not to mention the fact that there is no constitutional right to any of the times on your list, but there is for firearms. Oh, and it should be pointed out....just how well are the bans on firecrackers or cigars working???

And, to answer your question, I seriously doubt that banning the trade of AR-15s would do any good whatsoever. There are millions of assault rifles in the US; banning the trade of assault rifles wouldn’t put a dent in those numbers at all.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

it may well have created a conundrum for nikolas cruz.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I have no idea what they thought they were buying. All I know is that they are generally guys that really enjoy shooting and have a variety of weapons with which to enjoy that sport. I should note that they are all military vets, and perhaps they just like the feel of a military style weapon. Some of them compete in what are called 3-gun competitions which include a “tactical” rifle part. I think that for the most part, it just boils down to fun for them. Having personally shot many rounds through an M-16, I can vouch for the fact that it is, in fact, fun, if you enjoy shooting.

Note that I am not in any way discussing how these weapons are marketed. While there are people who no doubt buy these things because they are soldier wannabes (like those morons open carrying in Virginia) and think that they are all tacti-cool by having one, there are also plenty of folks who buy them just because they enjoy shooting them.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

So do you really think anybody was going to shoot up a school is going to turn in their guns?

---

I miss YaHey

RIght, I was talking about a ban on just the trade, and not on the ownership of such weapons. If you want to make a dent in the numbers of assault rifles out there, you need to do a number of things, to include compensating owners for turning in their weapons.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Very possibly. My point being, though, that if want to start getting assault rifles out of circulation, then making ownership essentially illegal is about the only step I can think of that would reduce the number out there in the wild.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

you and i aren't going to agree on this. your friends are going to lose out on their ability to buy these guns, and a lot more, because they didn't try to be part of the solution. this is going to go the same way as cigarettes. these kinds of guns are going to be recognized as the hazards they are to society because of the free hand these companies have been given to market weapons of death and mayhem as weapons of death and mayhem. when the pendulum swings the other way, it's going to swing hard.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Great countries do great things. I'll agree that US citizens may not be up to the task. Following laws is hard.

---

****************

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

This thread has thus far been a quite civil discussion with real thought put into things; you, on the other hand, seem to just want to engage in snark. So, please carry on, I won’t be responding to you further.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Cool, I win.

---

****************

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

I’m not sure what we’re not agreeing on. You made a very insulting post about what kind of people buy these kinds of weapons, and I tried to inform you that plenty of folks do so not out of a desire to own a weapon that can kill a bunch of people, but because they are in fact fun to shoot and that plenty of people enjoy shooting them. What “solution” are you talking about, that my friend should have been a part of?

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Can you yell "FIRE" in a movie theatre without consequences? What about 1st Amendment rights? Just because it's a right does mean there's no ability to limit aspects of that right. The 2nd Amendment does not say you can keep and bare any arms you want. So if we want to be a strict contitutionalist, then sure, you can keep and bare any musket you want.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Dude, this is snark........don't expect a response. I am always amazed when people think others won't follow the law if they change. Its like a vigilante society approach.

---

****************

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

Is it possible that we are on the furthest end of the pendulum swing (towards gun restriction in the opinions of the American public) already? School shootings plastered all over the 24 hour newscycle, Sandy Hook, Las Vegas... How much worse can it get? Yet I have not seen a legitimate attempt to make major changes. Politically grandstanding "do something without really doing anything" types of changes, yes, but I haven't seen anybody taking a serious swing at the meat of this issue.

Actually, the 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about muskets, so nice try. And, a lot of you folks are setting up a strawman argument that I’m not making. Why is it so hard to understand that a certain segment of the population that owns assault rifles may not be inclined to give them up without a fight? That is all I’m saying.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

your friend might say, "the marketing of these weapons is sick. it's a sickness. it's a cancer. as an owner of a tactical rifle i'm ashamed that i'm part of this culture; part of this industry. i can no longer stand by without stating publicly my own shame, my own complicity. we can change the gun culture in america while preserving the right of responsible gun ownership. this will be a big ship to turn, but i'm pledging to lend my voice to real, tangible, granular steps to turn this ship."

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Seriously? Anybody who owns a “tactical” rifle bears the shame of mass shootings? That by being part of that “culture” they are somehow complicit?

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

I know that but it was the weapon of the day. Surely you don't believe Founding Fathers knew what an AR-15 was and therefore kept the 2nd vague? What's the strawman, I'm just pointing out that there are limits put on our rights now and additional limits can be made? I don't believe anyone thinks it would be easy for someone to give up their assault rifle. Just because it wouldn't be easy doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

well, you asked.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Answer the question. Own it. Don’t cop out. Just come out and say it. Tell me how guys who served their country honorably for many years, to include combat time, are in some way responsible or complicit for some nut job shooting up a school just because they own a weapon similar to that used in that shooting.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

i'm not coping out, bro. i did come out and say it. the tactical rifle industry is an abortion. it's a public menace. it's a public shame. yes, those guns are fun. go have fun.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Pointing out that the 2nd Amendment says nothing about muskets has pretty much zero to do with AR-15s. Asking if I believe that the Founding Fathers knew about AR-15s is again, a strawman that I never made. The 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep and bear (not bare) arms shall not be infringed. Period. Says nothing about arms types. And the strawman is that I’m saying that because a ban would be difficult means that it shouldn’t be done. I never said that, I’m pointing out to certain posters who claim that it’s “not rocket science” that it wouldn’t be that easy.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

It's funny, this gun control thing, because here's who typically goes to prison for violating gun laws: Minorities. In 2011, blacks (49.6%) and Hispanics (20.6%) went to jail for firearms violation. Whites came in at 27.6%, far less than the combined black/Hispanic number. Those numbers have probably held steady, or even increased for minorities, since then.

Here's how gun laws work: get caught violating them and you go to prison. Just for owning an illegal weapon -- not using it in an illegal manner, such as threatening someone with it -- you risk a significant years-long prison term. So once again, just as with drugs, we seem to have laws that disproportionately harm the poor and minorities. And that's precisely what gun control would do in this instance, if the more draconian control measures advocated by some here were to be enacted.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Wow. Can I assume that since adverstising glamorizes alcohol, and that there is a serious problem with alcohol abuse in this country, that anybody who consumes alcohol is complicit in alcohol abuse? Anybody who imbibes is complicit in each and every death caused by an intoxicated driver? Do you scorn and shame those around you who drink because of their reprehensible behavior that encourages alcohol abuse?

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

You mean sorta like what this guy did?

"I will be the change I want to see in this world. If our lawmakers will continue to close their eyes and open their wallets, I will lead by example."

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

 



i own a car. i don't drink. so, am i part of the drunk driving problem? perhaps so, if i'm unwilling to recognize that my "weapon" is used by people less responsible than i am. so, how about this: breathalyzers in every car, phased in over a decade. fine by me. anything past .07 and your car won't start. i'm happy to pay my share to make this happen. if i'm unwilling to help solve a social problem of this magnitude then yeah, i should share some of the shame.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Most of the Founders had an easy familiarity with firearms and the ever-evolving nature of gun technology. Many even knew of the semi-automatic firearms of the era, including the Girandoni 20-round repeating rifle. It was air-operated (making it an air rifle) and it had a 20-round tubular magazine and could fire off 30 rounds before its air reservoir had to be refilled. It was gravity fed, meaning the next round in the magazine would fall into the chamber as long as the rifle was held at the correct angle. The explorers Lewis and Clark carried the rifle with them on their historic expedition.

So to say the Founders would never have countenanced the murder-death-kill scary black rifles and guns of today, had they known about them (because the musket was the "only" rifle of the time) isn't accurate. Many of them were military men and saw and used a wide variety of firearms and even the ones who weren't military were quite comfortable with the idea of a well-armed citizenry.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Not what I asked. I’m asking if you have the same amount of scorn for those who drink that you do for people who own assault rifles. Seems to me that the situation is quite similar in terms of advertising and glamorizing something that nobody really “needs,” and yet is causal to far more deaths per year than assault rifles.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

fckn a. thank you. made my day.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

let me see if i can do this justice. if a brand of alcohol was designed and marketed as a way to get somebody drunk and prostrate, so you could commit sexual assault, and a small but significant user group actually took the manufacturer's hyberbolic message seriously, and did buy the brand of alcohol for that very purpose, and put that into practice, and the product produced the advertised result then yeah, everybody who buys that brand should at a minimum stand against the culture created by that sort of manufacture and marketing.

that's the closest i can come. i spent some time surfing tactical rifle websites, both sales and user communities. maybe you oughta give that a go, see what you see. see if you think that's a benign message getting sent. i'm beyond certain that the large majority of folks who buy these guns find ways to sidestep the marketing and the culture that the marketing breeds. these users themselves heap scorn on the tacticool. the problem is that the legitimate owner of this kind of gun knows that there's something very wrong with this culture. as slowguy points out, guns have been part of our fabric forever. but mass shootings have not. those who patronize the industry who supports this culture have a responsibility. whether they accept it is on them. i'm out.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

It wasn't a book, it was an issue of the magazine. It was prior to the 1986 FOPA, so it included select fire weapons (i.e., "full auto") available for civilian sale. Those were dubbed "assault rifles."

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Except, no matter how much you hate the marketing and product in this case, there aren't any gun manufacturers designing and marketing AR-15s, or any other weapon, as a great tool to go out and shoot up schools.


I dislike the "tactical" shit as much as anyone, but you have yet to demonstrate, really in any way, that the shooters in these school incidents bought or used their weapons in an attempt to be tactical badasses. I get that it bugs you, but just because it bugs you doesn't make it a contributing factor to the issue of mass shootings.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

This is a long thread with a lot of replies so I am not addressing anyone except the OP...

It is fucking crazy to think that the solution to your problems is to arm teachers. Fucking ludicrous. Insane.

Just. Fucking. Crazy.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

i think they all think they are tactical badasses. paddock especially, but not exclusively. the problem is the packaging, messaging, marketing, the user culture that's sprung up (the slowtwitches of mayhem weapons), more than the actual weapon. one could do the job just as well with a semi auto hunting rifle with a pretty solid walnut stock but it just... doesn't... feel as good mass killing with that weapon. which is why nobody uses it.

you don't think there's anything to see here. you think these mass shooters are all buying and using specifically this class of weapon for some other reason, and that's it's the responsibility of all of us who note this coincidence to prove to you the nexus. agree to disagree.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I don't know for sure what the nexus is or isn't. I like it when people who offer an assertion back that assertion up with some sort of evidence. I don't think that's a particularly oddball request. Unfortunately, in the gun debate, both sides rely almost entirely on emotional response, and toss concepts like evidence, knowledge, and facts out the window.

"These mass shooters" are NOT all buying this specific class of weapon. As has been repeatedly pointed out, more of these mass shootings (more than 3 times as many incidents since 1982) have been perpetrated with other types of weapons, handguns mostly (by an almost 2/1 ratio). Again, facts, knowledge, evidence.

When you plan to ban something, or blame someone/something, it's on you to back up those opinions with facts.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Haha, I didn't realize I was typing it that way. Thanks for the correction.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

Another way to look at this. The citizens were allowed to have firearms that were similar to what the military/militia was using at the time.

the tactical rifle craze is newer. and in particular i think it gained a of steam when the kenyan became president. here's an interesting trend note from guns and ammo: "The first is that many people bet heavily on a Hillary Clinton Presidency. That means making as many ARs as the machinery could turn out, and a lot of those ARs are still clogging the arteries of distributor and retailer shelves."

no nexus there between the hate machine and AR sales.

so, do you mind if i start at 2008, and i'll leave nothing out? and i don't know the answer i'll find. i'm just going to go down the list and do a little checking and see where the facts take us. i'll just start with the largest number of deaths and work down, until i'm done with the double digit deaths.

las vegas, 2017, 58 killed, tactical rifle
orlando, 2016, 49 killed, tactical rifle
sandy hook, 2012, 28 killed, tactical rifle
sutherland, tx, 2017, 25 killed, tactical rifle
parkland, 2018, 17 killed, tactical rifle
san bernardino, 2015, 14 killed, tactical rifles + semi auto pistols
fort hood, 2009, 13 killed, semi auto pistol
binghamton, 2006, 13 killed, 3 x semi auto pistols
washtington navy yard, 2009, 12 killed, tactical rifle
aurora, 2012, 12 killed, tactical rifle
kinston, al, 2009, 10 killed, tactical rifle

so, there you go. make of that what you will.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Exactly. Amazing to me that this point get so often overlooked.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Affirmatively arming teachers would be an asinine idea. In addition, I am not claiming arming teachers in any manner is the answer. But, assistant football coach and school counselor Aaron Feis was also a security guard. He shielded students with his body, taking rounds intended for them. Shouldn't he have at least had the option to return fire?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I fully concur. Anyone who thinks that arming teachers in schools, whether mandatory or not, would be a good solution for this issue, is a fucking idiot without any critical thinking skills.

Are you a teacher and do you carry a CCW permit?

People often have lots of strong opinions and very little knowledge or experience. That gets old. How about STFU unless you have a valid opinion based on some sort of knowledge or experience... People who have no clue about firearms have the strongest opinions and expect to be taken seriously. Fucking ridiculous.

I think you are lacking some critical thinking skills because you're too blinded.

Arming some teachers (nobody is suggesting arming all teachers) is probably more likely to help than banning "assault rifles" as it could provide some deterrent in some situations. Nobody has proposed a reasonable way to remove the AR's, but even if you could, the homicidal maniacs would switch to handguns, shotguns or other devices. Assuming you are suggesting banning AR's your solution would do nothing to prevent these things from happening.

Remember that many mass shootings end with the shooter killing themselves when they encounter armed resistance. They want to go out on their own terms versus spending life in prison. If one or two armed teachers provided some armed resistance - SOME of the shooters would likely end it themselves.

No and no. But I simply don't believe the fantasy of "good guy with a gun will stop bad guy with a gun." Sure, it's possible, particularly if you have a well-trained individual who happens to be in the right place at the right time. But I think it's unlikely, and probably more likely to cause other problems with collateral damage, or when law enforcement responds. I'd bet money that there are very few teachers who want to be armed.

Well, I think you are wrong.

Both parents are teachers and so is wife. 2/3 would carry if allowed. 2/3 have taken classes and trained regularly. Have 2 little girls in elementary school and even the worst of their teachers would take a bullet for them. How about giving them a chance to fight back, or at the very least create the element of doubt. I would trust every teacher I've come into contact with (keep in mind I grew up around a ton of teachers) to carry a gun, in school. Can't think of one whom I wouldn't trust with such a responsibility.

You know fuck all about the situation yet feel entitled to call others out. My family works in the most obvious soft target(s) in the nation and aren't allowed to do anything except throw soup cans or lacrosse balls if some fucktard decides to become famous.

So what about the increased risk of accident, homocide and suicide in schools.

Because you must know that is the biggest risk of having more guns around.

Again. Arming teachers is stupid. It’s quite possibly the stupidest “solution” to the problem ever.

Thanks Trump!

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Then please explain your superiority. I'll wait.

And please also look up STFU, and the difference between that and FU.

Then you are exactly the person I want carrying a gun to defend my children. It's a shame that you are unwilling to take on such a responsibility.

This is a long thread with a lot of replies so I am not addressing anyone except the OP...

It is fucking crazy to think that the solution to your problems is to arm teachers. Fucking ludicrous. Insane.

Just. Fucking. Crazy.[/quote]

I fully concur. Anyone who thinks that arming teachers in schools, whether mandatory or not, would be a good solution for this issue, is a fucking idiot without any critical thinking skills.[/quote]

I think you are lacking some critical thinking skills because you're too blinded.

Arming some teachers (nobody is suggesting arming all teachers) is probably more likely to help than banning "assault rifles" as it could provide some deterrent in some situations. Nobody has proposed a reasonable way to remove the AR's, but even if you could, the homicidal maniacs would switch to handguns, shotguns or other devices. Assuming you are suggesting banning AR's your solution would do nothing to prevent these things from happening.

Remember that many mass shootings end with the shooter killing themselves when they encounter armed resistance. They want to go out on their own terms versus spending life in prison. If one or two armed teachers provided some armed resistance - SOME of the shooters would likely end it themselves.[/quote]

----------------------

I didn't say anything about the ban. But since you brought it up: yes, SOME maniacs intent on doing damage will continue to find ways to do damage. If it is more difficult for anyone to get what appears to be a weapon that is highly popular among school shooters, the AR-15, then fewer aspiring school shooters will be able to get one. Some of their plans will still "succeed," others will result in fewer deaths, and still others will be stopped completely.

We are the only country with this problem. Every other country has people that are mentally ill. Every other country has glamorized violence in the media. Every other country has violent video games. We have this problem because guns are too easy to get and we have way, way more guns per capita. If you make it harder for people to get the most destructive weapons, there will be fewer of these incidents. I'm not saying these incidents won't occur - but I am saying there will be fewer and they will be less lethal on average.


As to armed teachers - I just think the risks far outweigh the possibility of a successful intervention by the armed teacher. Teachers are there to teach students, not to worry about when the shootout is going to begin. Too many gun owners seems to picture themselves like 007 shooting the bad guys with a perfect shot every time, but even trained police officers can't always do that. Do you want your kids in the middle of the crossfire between the school shooter and the science teacher? It just seems so obvious. I think an armed and trained security guard or police officer at the school would be a better option, but those things cost tax money, and we know how certain political parties feel about paying taxes.....

BTW, why the vague wording on your experience and training? Seems like you may be bending the situation a bit...

----------------

What about the possibility of collateral damage? What makes you think that even a teacher that has a gun and is trained to use it, is able to remain calm and collected, and take out the suspect, without other children or adults getting killed? Yes, it's possible, but to think that is the default result during the chaos of an armed shooter on a rampage in that school - that's plainly ridiculous.

You seem concerned about your family members who are teachers. You should be in favor of strengthened universal background checks, preventing terrorists and the mentally ill from buying guns, and bans on high capacity, military style weaponry. Why aren't you?

Of course teachers shouldn't be expected to run towards danger, that is the job of law enforcement, not the CCW, whether teacher or not.

This is the frustrating part of the debate. You have no idea what CCW is about, what is being taught in the classes, nor the role of the educated and trained CCW person. It is NOT to run towards danger, nor to replace the law enforcement. That is what NOT to do. It is LAST RESORT, when there are NO OTHER OPTIONS.

Heaven forbid my kids are in a school under attack but I absolutely want my kids in a crossfire with the teacher and gunman if the alternative is an uncontested fire in one direction TOWARDS MY KIDS. I don't expect teachers to step into the hall like John Wayne. That is truly ignorant. What I expect is for them to try like hell to escape and if that fails, have something that might possibly give them, and my kids a chance to survive. The coach that died in Florida may have still died but at least he'd have had a chance to do something other than to absorb bullets.

Because it is a fantasy. Simply not realistic to believe that you can keep weapons out of the hands who wish to do people harm. I choose to live in the world as it is rather than the world as I wish it was.

-----------------

What you posted means that it is even LESS likely that an armed teacher is going to encounter the suspect and be able to do something about it. Again, risk vs. reward. Although I'm sure every CCW person would take out the shooter on the first try. /pink

The Parkland shooter bought his AR-15 legally. If it had been banned, he would not have been able to make that purchase legally. He would have been forced to the black market, or to choose another weapon. Perhaps he would not have carried out his plan at all. As stated several posts above, SOME shooters will still succeed with their plans, but if you make it harder to obtain the most deadly weapons, some will be less successful, and others will be thwarted entirely. This isn't rocket surgery, and dismissing a ban as "simply not realistic" is the answer of someone who prefers the status quo.


I've always been agnostic on guns. If you want 'em, you can have 'em, has been my position with respect to other people and their desires for self-defense and hunting. I don't own any because I choose not to live my life in fear, and the odds of ever needing a gun for self-defense are very, very remote. But, as Slowman has alluded to in this and other discussions, the intransigence of the NRA and pro-gun people in the face of our uniquely American tragedies is making me less sympathetic to gun owners. And I am not alone. The majority of Americans favor bans on assault weapons, better universal background checks, and bans on sales to the mentally ill and those on the terrorist-watch-list. If the those simple things don't become reality, then, like Slowman said, people will push even harder for further restrictions.

And yet we do limit the arms that we can bear currently, which does infringe on our rights. I think we all support limiting them. We just disagree on where to draw the line.

You do realize that we do not allow citizens the right to bear the arms that the military has, right? So do you feel that is constitutional?

These AR-style rifles are semi-automatic and except for largely cosmetic differences are largely indistinguishable from most other semi-automatic rifles on the market. This was partly why the 1994 ban on "assault weapons" ended up being a complete failure. They also project a fearsome appearance for sure. But that's about it.

I think there are things that can be done to prevent mass school shootings, though, starting with improving school security by hiring armed guards. You can also tightly restrict entry by non-students and non-authorized personnel. You could even allow teachers, if they want, to obtain concealed carry permits (but you simply can't force them to... and I'm still not all that keen on sticking guns into the hands of teachers at any rate). Also, the "gun-free zone" is a stupid concept and it should be done away with.

We also need to address mental health issues in this country, though that's a much stickier and thornier problem. Still, school shooters have almost uniformly been crazy, with this latest one being a particularly eye-wateringly apparent example of lunacy. He told everyone who would listen that he intended to be a school mass murderer, and it looks like absolutely no one was interested in acting on his threats, including school staff, the school district and board, the sheriff's office and the FBI. One day soon, we're going to have to do something about blatantly crazy and dangerous people BEFORE they act, not after it's way too late to do anything about them.

The FBI deserves special recognition in this latest school shooting, too. It dropped the ball in a spectacular, truly disastrous, fashion and the Bureau is obviously in desperate need of an overhaul. This should begin with the firing of the bureaucrats who are more interested in playing political games than in preventing crimes.

Lastly, I don't see where 15-to-18-year-old kids have any special insight into mass murders, especially those committed by the mentally ill, but that hasn't stopped various special interest groups in the gun reform lobby from using them to suit their own purposes in this tragedy.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Looks like up-gunning schools is being contemplated in other states as well:

Kentucky Moves To Add Guns To Schools After School Shooting.

The flippant side (okay, once again; the A-HOLE side) of me would say that it's good to see folks taking a common sense approach to gun violence.

Edited to add:

Man, I hate being right all the time. (Okay, not all the time. Maybe not 99.99% of the time. But I really nail it .01% of the time.)

The Hill: Calls for new gun laws are falling on deaf ears.

But I wonder if it's because those "calls" are mostly based in dumb emotional bullying?

"Renewed calls for stricter gun controls following a school shooting in Florida that left 17 dead are falling on deaf ears.

Legislators in states across the country have delayed, defeated or refused to take up new measures to prevent more gun violence — despite the impassioned calls of victims from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

In Florida’s legislature, House Republicans blocked a Democratic effort to revive debate on a measure to ban assault weapons with student survivors from Parkland watching in the gallery. . . .’ (ed. That measure was defeated by something like a 31-76 for/against ratio, indicating that it wasn't even close)

Students from Parkland who have blanketed the media to call for gun reforms have expressed incredulity at the lack of action."


Honestly, I think it's more that the media has blanketed them, in yet another effort to generate the political results that the media wants.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Yes, that was my point. There are restrictions to the amendments so adding an AR-15 to the list does not create a constitutional crisis. I'm with you, I believe many people want to set limits but disagree with where they are to be set. That is where the discussion breaks down.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

So what was the purpose of ensuring that citizens were allowed to have guns similar to what the military/militia had at the time? And what does that say about the Second Amendment today and what it should allow?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

It's a tough nut to crack, for sure. The old law school graduate (and I loved CON LAW studies) in me would observe that the Second Amendment has taken on much more significance these days, where once it was basically the stepchild of the Bill of Rights for much of the 20th century. Today, a ban on AR-15 style firearms might well be held unconstitutional, given the precedential history of gun rights decisions issued by the Supreme Court in the 21st century. This would be both under 2A as well as the due process rights found in the Fourteenth Amendment. Courts could conceivably find that a ban on AR-15s irrationally distinguishes between that style of rifle -- and it's America's most-popular firearm today, being known more commonly as the "modern sporting rifle" -- and the many other semi-automatic rifles available on the market. The differences between the AR-15 (from any manufacturer, with "AR" standing for "Armalite") and other such rifles are largely cosmetic and mainly designed to give the AR-style weapon a really fearsome appearance that belies its essential .22 caliber (.223) nature.

As others here who own and handle guns regularly have observed: a firearms user who's intent on firing the maximum amount of rounds can just as easily put that much lead in the air from a rapid cycle rate (i.e. dropping a magazine and inserting a fresh one and continuing firing) as from having a so-called "high-capacity" magazine. The Virginia Tech shooter had two semi-automatic pistols and managed to kill 33, for a good reason: he overwhelmed his victims with extreme violence and they, in turn, reacted as many people would do: they went into some sort of shock or momentary paralysis that allowed the shooter to herd them and then take them in detail.

The above can be overcome, though, by training of subject populations. Training in how to respond to an active shooter, for instance. We need that in some schools (or all schools, sadly) for sure, and for starters. Simply trying to ban some sort of specific firearm will be completely insufficient to the task, in my opinion.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

My wife is a teacher. My two brothers and their wives are teachers. My mom was a teacher. I went to school and knew teachers. My kids are in school and they know teachers, and I know their teachers. Do I qualify as knowing "fuck all"?

I would not trust any of them (with the possible exception of one brother, who is a hunter) with a gun in a school. You are talking about introducing hundreds of thousands of guns into schools, with the hope of intervening in the one or two school shootings per year. You think that there would be no adverse effects from having that many guns around? Nobody mishandles them? No student gets hold of them (and students out-think teachers on a daily basis)? No teacher panics and shoots someone? No teacher goes postal and threatens or shoots a student? No teacher accidentally shoots another teacher in the case of a real attack?

Do you require military-style training for anyone carrying? How many weeks per year of ongoing training? Who certifies them? How much background do you investigate? How often do you check each one for psychological issues that may have arisen to make them unsafe? How much do you spend to provide the facilities for each teacher to secure their gun during the day? What about teachers (like my wife) who move between multiple classrooms every day? Do they have a secure gun safe in each room? Who has access to each safe? Or do teachers carry them through the halls that are crowded with students between classes, and keep them holstered during class? Or maybe put them in their desk drawer during class, next to the spare pencils and calculators? What can *possibly* go wrong?

On the way to school this morning, my ninth grade daughter laughed when she heard the suggestion on the radio that teachers should carry guns.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

In that instance they could then have their fight and we can all see if they really are 'assault rifles'.

I am just not a fan of arming teachers, for all of the reasons you state. If a school system perceives the need, then they should hire trained and vetted security guards whose only job is to protect the school. Or, perhaps, local police should be on the hook to rotate officers into the schools.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Apparently, the East Brunswick district here in NJ has just approved putting armed security in every school in the district.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I have to admit: arming teachers, whether they want to arm themselves voluntarily or not, makes me very uneasy, and I'm usually a "right to arm bears" kind of guy. I'm not sure we want one of the prime shapers of kids' minds to be sporting that pink ladies Ruger I displayed in my OP.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Perhaps you think this teacher knows "fuck all," too?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Despite your snark, I'll bet cash dollars that my 9th grade daughter knows more about teachers than do you.

Great idea for teachers to be walking in student-crowded halls while carrying. Should my wife have her gun in her purse, or in her computer bag, or in a holster for all to see? When she puts her purse down in the classroom, is that "on their person"?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

No, the real problem is that it is unconstitutional.

Nobody is going to require your wife to carry a gun. Your comments seem to indicate that she and those you know will be required to carry and I haven't seen anyone propose that. They are obviously not the type of teachers who would be good candidates. But just because they are not good candidates (n=3) it doesn't mean that there may be one or two who are.

Sure there are some logistical issues that would need to be addressed, but it doesn't mean that it is impossible. It is odd that you don't want teachers to carry to stop the one or two school shootings a year, but you want to have (some) guns banned for that same reason.

Amend it then

I was using my wife as an example to understand how someone *like her* would need to carry her gun.

My attitude is not odd at all. Like the lottery: someone is likely to win, but it ain't gonna be you. So you shouldn't play.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

You know this. Even Dan repeatedly acknowledges this. The purpose then, as in now, is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

1) educate me, if you think I'm smart enough to understand you
2) fix your quotes
3) congrats on the correct usage of "whether" (by omitting "or not") although the "regardless" is redundant

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Renewed calls for gun legislation is falling on deaf ears because corrupt politicians are afraid of the gun lobby. That’s all. They are addicted to the money. That is what is preventing any sort of common sense gun legislation.

---

===============
Proud member of the MSF (Maple Syrup Mafia)

Obviously I don't, or I wouldn't have asked. And your answer wouldn't have occurred to me, as it isn't part of the Second Amendment last I checked.

So, how is it that owning guns, in reality, meets that purpose today? "Red Dawn"? Or against an oppressive government of our own? What threat to the Constitution do you see that owning guns protects against that threat?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

There's a process -- right in our Constitution -- for doing just that. I think folks who are really passionate about diminishing or eliminating the Second Amendment should get right to work on that and then let us know how that's working out for them.

It's difficult to amend the Constitution for a very good reason. It insulates our controlling document from the passions of the crowd, for one. If we didn't have that built in to the thing we'd be just like every other half-a$$ed democracy in the world.

Meanwhile, by the way, while we're all wringing our hands over trying to get gun reform laws passed that would have done absolutely nothing to prevent this shooting -- as well as all the other ones over the decades -- Congress is continuing to push through, at a good clip, federal judges nominated by Donny Two Scoops. He really will have remade the judiciary (for at least a decade or more) by the time his first term is over. Always excepting those lunatics over on the Ninth Circuit, that is. ;-)

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

I'm not going to rehash this argument with you. If you really care, you can easily find it. Dan has some great commentary on this topic, which includes blasting Team Donkey for ignoring this very real and very relevant aspect of 2A that Team Donkey loves to wholly ignore.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

You know, that's kind of funny. Because for 2016, the NRA and other gun rights groups gave a total of about $54.4 million to Republicans (through direct donations, though the majority of such donations went to PACs and the like).

But the liberal group Priorities USA and three other similar political action committees gave about $393 million in independent contributions to Democrats in that same election cycle. Each group gave an average of $98.25 million to Dems, easily exceeding the combined total of contributions from the NRA and other gun rights organizations to the GOP.

So I'm wondering why no one complains of the pernicious effect on our democracy that such a staggeringly large sum of money from liberal-type groups is bound to have?

The power of the NRA doesn't lie in any money it gives to Republicans, because even the Vox website has noted that the gun rights organization isn't anywhere close to being the largest donor to any Republican serving in Congress, and that the really important votes in Congress aren't affect by any monetary activity. Rather, the NRA speaks for millions of gun owners, all of whom are increasingly motivated to get out and vote, especially when talk about banning their firearms gets going whenever one of these completely preventable mass shootings occurs.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

BK. I wonder if instead of banning a specific rifle or specific type of rifle, which bogs down in the semantics quagmire, what if they limited the speed of fire?

Yeah, rate of fire might actually be more effective, especially in the personal self-defense realm. One reason we don't give civilian citizens access to true military weapons (the AR-15 is, at best, a pale imitation of a common US military infantry rifle) is that they're select-fire (single-round, three-round burst or full automatic) or fully automatic, and they've never really been available to the general populace for many decades now.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

No, she doesn't know fuck all, because she's talking like teachers will be forced to carry a weapon and no one has ever suggested such a thing.

---

I miss YaHey

That's what you got out of her column? Yikes. How about all the things she listed that could go wrong with someone who *does* choose to carry a gun? Or are they all 007-level killers?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

You've argued with everyone here, and you've dismissed the arguments of a teacher.

Now you can argue against this Afghan veteran, who raises the same issues as all the others. I'm sure he knows "fuck all," too.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

-------------------


The NRA is a gun manufacturers' lobbyist. It espouses positions with which the majority of Americans disagree. That's not the case with the other groups you mention.

Where did I state that Mr. Miller knows fuck all about the topic. He makes valid points, but does so with an inaccurate idea of the role of CCW. He is writing based upon his experience as military which is very, very different than the role of CCW in civilian life.

He also vastly overstates the training and practice levels of the vast majority of LEO. There isn't enough money in the budgets of police forces to purchase the ammunition necessary for officers to shoot very often. Required qualification is once or twice a year for the average police officer with 50 shots per qualification and passing scores are somewhat surprisingly low. Many officers shoot more frequently, but at their own cost and on their own time and I am sure that many seek additional training to become true experts, but that is not true for the vast majority of officers.

And Priorities USA and the other liberal groups aren't lobbying? That betrays a lack of understanding about what goes on in Washington DC.

Also, I'm not really sure the so-called "majority of Americans" actually disapprove of gun rights. It's all in how the questions are put to them, because two surveys in the aftermath of this high school shooting show, on one hand, that there's been no movement in support for additional gun control measures while another survey, on the other hand, shows a large movement. So which is it?

The above is why we don't usually legislate by polling when it comes to the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part. Pro-gun and anti-gun lobbies and groups can, of course, cite any poll they feel suits their purposes to push a point.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

In one military unit I was in back in the day, we expended over 100,000 rounds of 5.56 mm ammunition and another 200,000 rounds of 9mm ammunition in just three months. And there were less than 50 of us in that organization.

One of my Detroit Police Department cousins, who is a sergeant, says she typically goes to the range, either for annual qualification or a single training session, twice a year. She's not about to buy her ammunition for her service weapon on her own, she says. She's been DPD since 1998 and has never pulled her weapon in the line of duty, even. Her original intent was to do three to five years on the big city department before landing what she called a "cushy suburban police officer job." But for various reasons, she's stuck it out in Detroit. Something that makes me question her sanity, to be quite honest. ;-)

On the other hand, I have several other friends who serve as police officers, and they train on and fire their weapons more frequently, though most purchase their own ammunition, when given permission to do so by their departments.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

And most school districts are rolling in so much money that ongoing training and qualification for teachers shouldn't be a problem at all!

The article written by the teacher is based upon a false premise. Nobody is suggesting that it is her RESPONSIBILITY to shoot the attacker dead, even if she CHOOSES to be armed. She could, and has the right to, do absolutely nothing even if she is armed and present during an attack. This is yet another example of the lack of understanding of the role of CCW compared to LEO or military.

This is an excellent point and one I had never even considered. Since a lot of the discussion is about "killing a lot of people quickly," banning specific speed of fire could make very good sense.

Thank you for bringing something new to the discussion. If someone else had brought it up, I have not seen it.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

I never said those other groups aren't lobbyists. Their positions are more in line with the majority of Americans. The NRA is not:

"Support for universal background checks, a mandatory waiting period for firearm purchases and an assault weapon ban came in at 97%, 83% and 67%, respectively. Sixty-seven percent of respondents also said it is currently too easy to buy a gun in the U.S., and three-quarters said Congress needs to do more to reduce gun violence."

http://time.com/5167216/americans-gun-control-support-poll-2018/

That could happen every day with the 14.5M CCW holders in the US. But, it doesn't.

Look, I am not comfortable with "affirmatively arming" teachers. But, I think guys like Aaron Feis should be able to shoot back, rather than just serve as a human shield, if they so choose.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I'll see your anecdotalism and raise. I am a teacher. Of the dozens and dozens that I know, I do not know of a single one who would ever think that this is a good idea. The entire "I want an armed teacher around when this happens" ignores the basic probability that it is extraordinarily unlikely to happen in any given school, and that you have now created an environment in which way more loaded guns are in easy access on school grounds.

Any idea how many of them carry a weapon at all times on their person? Just wondering. I would assume that a very large number of them don't. Do we know?

And I believe that you should have the right to abstain if you so choose.

If your CCW is "easily available" to anyone other than yourself, regardless of where you are, you are doing it really, really wrong.

I hate semantics and the word games they lead to. I own guns. But I don't see the benefit of weapons that inflict mayhem. I was wondering why we couldn't limit the number of rounds a firearm could discharge within say a minute. Then it wouldn't matter what you called them. It wouldn't matter how you did it (via a bump stock, etc.). My gut tells me it would probably even pass Constitutional muster. As I've stated previously, I think all of us support limits on 'arms', we just disagree where to draw the lines.




Huh?

I have never heard of anyone mentioning this type of resolution, speed of fire, and that is what I meant.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

I'm wondering how this would be accomplished. Any semi auto, including DA revolvers, is limited only the speed of the finger pulling the trigger. I guess making all guns single action would do the trick.

I would hate to have a limit on the rate of fire with the gun I carry in the mountains when bowhunting elk. A 10mm handgun is woefully underpowered to stop a grizzly bear so I'm planning to send a lot of shots as fast as I can in his, more likely her, direction and hope that she quits advancing before I quit breathing. I used to carry a big revolver in Ruger .480 but that thing was a beast (heavy) and only carried 6 rounds. The Glock 20 I carry now offers much less energy (and recoil) than the revolver, but I get 16 tries to deliver an effective projectile.

The problem being that the characteristics that make a weapon better for self defense, also tend to make them more efficient to do harm.

I'm a hunter too. I own handguns, shotguns, rifles. So let's explore this. Would you need 100 rounds per minute to defend against the bear? Seems like a lot to me. Maybe 30 rounds per minute would be sufficient.

It is just an idea. Trying to find the balance between the need to protect yourself and the desire to avoid mayhem.

While I haven't had to shoot a bear in self defense, my impression is that at that moment, as many rounds as possible as quickly and accurately as possible will be my only desire. Obviously, it's an infrequent circumstance, but I guess that could be said about almost any of the scenarios we're debating.

I don't think there is any way of knowing that. I have seen estimates ranging from 10% to 75% of holders actually carry daily. My experience tells me the number is around 35% of holders actually carry daily, but, that is just based on my personal experience and that would just include the actually daily carry folks, not those including those who carry "most of the time" or "some of the time."

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Yeah, but your "personal experience" was that virtually all gun owners owned gun safes ;). I would ususally take the estimates as being more accurate, if they didn't range as far as 10-75% (WTF?!?).

Yep. Depends on to whom you want to listen. The NRA and other gun advocates will tell you that number is at the 75% mark. The anti-gun crowd poo-poo the 14.5M CCW number and say only 10% actually carry.

Yep, my personal experience may be skewed, I will admit. But, if I look at the source of the estimate, it seems more "neutral" sources are in that 35% range, FWIW.

Like I said, I don't know whether it is possible to get an accurate answer on that number.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I've been a concealed (and occasionally open when I go with my father on business into Detroit), carrier for years and most of the people that I associate with regularly are concealed carriers, at minimum (some of them would walk around with a semi-auto rifle on their back if the cops around these parts wouldn't constantly give them a hassle about it). Just subjectively and anecdotally, I think 75% is too high when it comes to concealed carry. For awhile, it was a grind trying to figure out where you could carry and where you couldn't, and which place would have a cow over it and which wouldn't, so you tend to start self-selecting out the times you carry. 10%, and even 35% around here is also too low. Maybe half the time or a little more, in my opinion.

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

Half correct. It is not the money it is the votes. The sums taken are rather paltry at least in direct donations. Senator X got 3000 dollars from the NRA etc. But they are afraid of the NRA. Or more correctly voting patterns of NRA members.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGYFRzf2Xww

that pretty close to sums 'er up.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman