Associated Press
In the wake of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) believes local school districts should be allowed to arm teachers and administrators. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) is thinking along the same lines: "If someone had been armed [at Sandy Hook Elementary], there would have been a possibility to stop the person from coming into the school. I know there is a knee-jerk reaction against that, but I think we should have a discussion about it."
For the record, when far-right politicians respond to a national tragedy by calling for an increase in the number weapons around children in elementary schools, I don't think it's their detractors who are guilty of "knee-jerk reactions."
On the other end of the spectrum, meanwhile, congressional Democrats are eyeing a series of reforms in the new year. Greg Sargent reports:
"This is likely to be part of a package of proposals," Senator Dick Durbin told me, in a reference to the assault weapons ban, adding that Dems would consider including other ideas like limiting high capacity magazine clips, beefing up background checks, expanding mental health services, and looking at violence in movies and video games. He said action was likely "early next year."
Durbin has previously said he plans a hearing on gun violence next year. In the interview, he told me that a key goal would be to spotlight the Second Amendment. "I want to spell out exactly what the court has said in terms of the authority of Congress to limit Second Amendment rights," Durbin said.
In an ambitious dream of bipartisanship, Durbin also told Greg he's hopes to get 10 to 15 Republican votes for his measures in the Senate.
As for the White House, officials today confirmed that President Obama supports Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-Calif.) revised assault-weapons ban, and the president reached out directly to Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to explore ideas on gun policy.
Leave a Comment:
And what prevents the teacher from going postal and blowing the whole class away???
I know substitute teachers who are still in therapy from when I was a kid
Obviously all of the other teachers and students who are also packin' heat.
I wish I were kidding.
Me too, but your point is one that has been made by the "other side" - arm the kids.....As if "more guns" make US safer, yeah right...
The conservative approach is more guns in more places. We already have more guns in more places than any other developed country in the world. That's working out great, right?
Many Americans hold some version of the vision of the brave colonial or pioneer protecting his family from bad people, their only defense being his personal firearms. The big problem with that fiction is that the colonial/pioneer was trying to keep the people from whom he stole the land, from taking it back.
The amendment establishing the right to bear arms may have made some sense at the time the Constitution was written, but not now. It was adopted largely because many wealthy landowners wanted to be able to hire thugs to do what thugs do.
No one except police and the military need a semiautomatic anything. No one but police and the military need a handgun.
But we can't even discuss it, because too many of our judges and legislators are owned by corporations and a few wealthy people. Any Republican who has not already denounced the Taliban/Teaparty is a national security threat.
I am a teacher and I think arming teachers is a big mistake. It is hard enough to manage a class without managing a firearm. Imagine a momentary lapse and a child shoots someone, that would be a very bad day at work.
Just get rid of high capacity weapons and start to deal with the social issues, mental illness, the pervasive violence in media etc. We need to start up a single voter issue organization to counter the NRA-members would vote absolutely for gun control advocates.
It think it's time for the "Aggie Joke" to make a comeback...call them "Perry Jokes"...
A Redneck & Rick Perry are driving down a country road in a pickup when they see a sheep with it's head stuck in a fence.
The Redneck pulls over, shuts off the pickup, gets out, goes over and "does" the sheep.
After he's finished, he get back in the truck and says to Gov. Perry, "Okay, your turn."
Perry gets out of the truck, walks over, gets down on all fours, and sticks his head in the fence.
Zora- A 6 grader actually took a 22 to school in Utah yesterday, claiming his parents encouraged him to do so for self defense. (story)
Ooops (Story here)
Maybe allowing a 6th grader access to a deadly weapon is grounds for revoking a gun registration? Oh right. Background checks for don't judge responsible handling of deadly weapons, just extreme mental incapacity. Also the background check is only for the purchaser of the gun, not those authorized to possess the gun.
And it does nothing about the owner subsequently becoming so incapacitated that they can no longer take care of their own finances. Actually, you will pass a background check even if the Social security administration or VA have determined you cannot handle finances. Right. But the person can judge when to use deadly force?
Even though the government can know that a gun owner later becomes ineligible due to mental incompetence or felony conviction, there is no mechanism to revoke registration and compel surrender of the gun.
In fact, no national registry of guns.
Our system is so absurd it is amazing that we are killing off each other at such a sluggish rate.
the topper has to be megan mcardle's marvelously insane idea that the kids should rush AT the shooter.
i guess the idea is that even a semi-automatic wielder couldn't possibly pull the trigger fast enough to kill an entire classroom of six-year-olds before reloading and going to the next classroom and doing it again.
i wonder how many six-year-olds she thinks it takes to pull down a healthy, crazed, twenty-year-old.
the woman (must...resist...using...other...terminology) is *bleep*ing nuts. makes these other 'wads look positively sane in comparison.
During the election, Republicans insulted women, single mothers, blacks, Latinos, gays, environmentalists, teachers, unions, the unemployed, poor, old folks. With the refusal to pass the Violence Against Women Act, they are going after native American women. Now they are going to go after the mentally ill. But, hey, teachers with guns will solve the whole problem. Don't forget what some of these folks are saying come 2016. Having representatives in Washington that I disagree with - no problem. Having representatives in Washington that have no concept of reality is pathetic.
Just be sure, Senator Feinstein, that this time you write the assault weapon ban in such a way that we don't spend ten years deciding what is or is not an assault weapon and how many changes a manufacturer has to make to an existing weapon to make it "new" and therefore unregulated under the law. Write the damn law in such a way that it covers all of these things!!!
Fuggetaboutit. If it looks like an AK 47, AR-15 or M16 that is just cosmetic. If it has all the elements of a military assault rifle but doesn't exactly match the battlefield specs, it ain't an assault rifle. When the NRA lobbyists get done with Feinstein's bill, the balance will fall heavily on the side of the obviously ludicrous instead of the ludicrously obvious meaning of assault weaponry. And in the interests of looking like they are doing something Congress will pass a bill that is just as watered down as the previous bill.
Which frankly is why the assault weapon ban is the wrong approach.
At issue is not what the gun looks like. Nor is it a matter of what functionality we should deny legitimate owners.
At issue is gun violence.
1) Ban all weapons with a barrel length of less than 25". That gets rid of all pistols and mini-guns, the weapons responsible for most gun related deaths. It means the weapons people can own can't be concealed.
2) Ban all magazines, clips, drums. or stips of more than 10 rounds. This is a reasonable limit that gives hunters and sports shooters time a few shots before having to reload, but doesn't allow someone to rip off 30 rounds without a second thought.
3) Require every gun owner register their weapon. Require them and every member of their household to take and pass annual gun safety and psychological exams.
4) Fund comprehensive in-patient and out-patient mental health care, rebuild our public mental health infrastructure, and ensure those who need help can get it.
5) Fund a massive public awareness campaign on mental health to de-stygmatize the illnesses, and to educate and encourage people to seek help if they need it.
daw: Why 10 rounds? Hunters bearing shotguns have accepted a capacity limit of 3 shells permitted by state hunting regulations for decades. I have never seen much bitching about it from hunters. It goes with the "ethics" of making the first shot count and not risking crippling shots at running animals or birds that have flown out of range. These limitations on shell capacity evolved partially from reaction to the slaughter of market hunters.
As for target shooting, most of us who participated as kids in target shooting started with single shot 22 rifles. Reloading was never seen as an obstacle. And of course, it greatly improved the safety in the group.
I add that the 3 shell capacity also increases the safety for oneself and his hunting companions by reducing the chance of leaving a shell in an "unloaded" gun and by reducing the opportunity for "wild assed shooting" and losing sight of your companions during the melee. When unloading just about everyone can count to three. And as for the second reason ... file under Cheney, Dick.
Daw55 you can't ban every gun under 25" barrel length. Eliminating high capacity magazines in handguns is reasonable, but banning handguns altogether is not realistic in this climate. Hopefully, sometime in the future we will have rid ourselves of all guns and war, but for now let's focus on banning the high caliber assault weapons.
c_p_71, yes, yes we can (and not just this climate is changing). and eliminate the high-caps for long arms not just handguns (whaddya wanna do, cut that deer in half?).
if you need a gun for "personal protection" a shotgun is much more effective at home and carrying it around outside really makes a statement.
as for high/small caliber, who cares. a .223 will kill you pretty dead and the tumbling of the round inside you must hurt like hell.
It's time to start challenging Republicans and the NRA on their belief that more guns will solve everything. Guns have become so ingrained on our culture that we are seeing more and more incidents of people solving problems by shooting rather than more common sense, and more peaceful solutions.
Well, at least hearing this, all of us can be grateful that Governor Perry has remained in Texas!
Joy Ann Reid was just on television and after hearing about the governor's suggestion, said, "What kind of people does he think we are?!!?". I couldn't agree more! We are moving further and further back in time with these kind of notions, aren't we?
Anyone who wants to arm teachers needs to become familiar with police target hit rates:
New York Police SOP-9 data:
Year 2000
Total Number of Incidents 134
# of shots fired by officers: 471
total hits by officers on Perp: 58
Average contact distance range: 6-15 feet
Breakdown of hit probability by distance:
0-2 Yards : 69%
3-7 Yards: 19%
8-15 Yards: 6%
Police are trained in firefight techniques. They are expected to practice monthly and pass an annual certification exam.
Do we expect teachers to do better?
And, if we expect teachers to merely perform as well as some of the best trained police in this nation, what do they expect to happen to the 88% of the bullets that we expect to miss the intended target in a school full of kids?
100% correct, and rent a cops are way worse than cops. The gun nuts want you to believe everyone is Annie Oakley, and that everyone will be able to instantly see good guy/bad guy.
Well said, the both of yuz,
And a further question for the "arm the teachers" crowd: How come so many COPS are killed by gunfire?
Very good, fact-based response. The problem on the other side is the same as they have decrying regarding the shooters: this video-game, action-movie mentality that guns are magic. They imagine a hero teacher leaping through a window guns blazing. It's pure fantasy. The sick thing is how similar it is to the twisted fantasies motivating the shooters. The gun nuts must face the fact that the ones in this story who most closely share their love and fascination of guns, are the killers.
daw55,
You are soo right! I can remember all the stuff they put us through before shooting to show is that when adrenalin is high, hitting a target (much less a moving human being) becomes MUCH more difficult.
And, lets not forget all the requirements that law enforcement officers have to go through to carry those weapons - shall we now impose all of that on teachers?
1. At least six months of training to know when and where lethal force is applicable? And at least three months of field training to gain the practical experience?
2. Physical fitness requirements to ensure they are physically capable of all the stresses that may ensue from carrying a gun?
3. Psychological testing to ensure that the person has the correct mental traits so that they won't use the gun inappropriately?
4. Weapons training and qualification quarterly?
5. Will the teachers have to wear bulletproof vests? Now that they have guns, they become targets just like police officers do.
What the hell - why don't we just get rid of cops and put teachers in the patrol vehicles? Or maybe get rid of teachers and put cops in the classrooms.
So - where are we going to get all these people with the right loving and empathetic skills to be grade school teachers, yet have the toughness and wariness of police officers? Aren't we asking a lot?
BTW, where are they going to keep these guns? To be useful, they have to be ready to be used in an instant - like in a holster - and one thing cops is ALWAYS protect their weapon - so does that mean that the teacher can no longer hug students or get close to them for fear of one of them trying to touch the gun?
What a hell of a place to put our childern!!! Why not just send them all to prison? Correctional Officers don't carry guns when they are with the general population!
The NRA pushing for more guns in public will indeed make people and society safer but has the NRA thought this through thoroughly?
Their concept is to have so many guns in society that the bad guys will be afraid to use them due to fear of being shot. But this philosophy is a bit odd to say the least!
A person walks into restaurant intent on killing people but he then decides against it when he discovers that 20 people in the place also have guns. He won’t kill anybody and the 20 responsible people won’t kill anybody so we have 21 guns and none of them are used.
So the NRA is pushing for a world where the very thing they support will ideally never be used. I guess that’s a good thing in a backwards kind of way.
If that's the case why not give everybody a gun now and expedite the process...
I hope that made sense.
The only problem with the NRA's theory is the conceal part of conceal and carry. If they want us to go back to the old west then they should be pushing for people to be able to wear their guns on their hips, out for everyone to see.
Many of these school mass murders involve assault weapons. Does Rick Perry believe that all teachers should have assault weapons, or does he think that a teacher with a hand gun is a match for a shooter with a war weapon? Or is he even thinking?
The problem with the NRA position is that crazy people don't CARE how many guns you have - they will just "will" them away. And crazy people aren't thinking about who will shoot them - not a part of their reality at the moment.
Then it is obvious that NRA doesn't know what killers know - if you ambush someone, they don't have TIME to pull out their guns.
No, the problem is the DETERRENT part. Sure, a rational criminal like a robber would be deterred, but the problem we're debating now are the madmen who are determined to die anyway.
The relevant pro-gun argument is that more guns would mean the madman is brought down sooner, but that assumes a fantasy scenario which is at odds with the real-life chaos of a firefight. There have been well-documented instances of "contagious fire" even among trained law enforcement officers, where people start wildly shooting out of panic because everyone else is shooting. Check out http://sleepless.blogs.com/george/2005/07/contagious_fire.html
Can you imagine what might happen in that hypothetical restaurant? All the accidental woundings and killings from bullets flying everywhere? It's madness.
There are a lot of assumptions about what would and would not happen. I don't think that most of the would be killers are worried about being killed, in fact many of them kill as many as they can and take their own lives.We are assuming that these people are rational, which in most cases they are not. I don't think that most people who would shoot and kill a lot of people give being caught a lot of thought. I suspect a lot of them would like to get in a fire fight, it would make it more exciting. I think many people today find their reality in video games and movies that are nothing but non-stop violence. The Newtown shooter, according to reports, spent a lot of time playing Call of Duty. I looked at it and it is nothing but violence. Most of our media offers us a constant stream of gore and violence.
Another factor I believe is that we are a fearful people,especially after 9-11. We have been at war for over eleven years. We are always being told that someone is going to do us harm. This was especially true during the Bush years. The US has kill list and routinely kill whomever we want. There is a lot of animosity displayed in the blog comments. Perhaps we should relax and try to be nice to people.
the only problem with the nra's theory is this.
the only problem with the nra's theory is that.
the problem with the nra's theory is the nra's entire theory!
stop trying to subdivide something that is entirely insane. if everybody had guns there would, sooner or later, be a shootout. if everybody in the whole US is armed, the response to one shooter would be other shooters shooting at the responders because nobody saw who started it. then you would shoot me because i shot your buddy. and so on, and so on, and... pretty soon the whole country would be one big pile of rotting flesh so soaked in adrenaline that the buzzards would explode from eating it.
Whenever I hear people say 'if only someone was armed' I can't help but remember the witness from the Arizona shooting. He is a gun owner with a carry permit and he admitted that if he had his gun with him that day he would have used it. The problem is that by the time he arrived on the scene the man he would have shot was one of those who had tackled Loughner and taken his gun away from him.
Even police officers shoot the wrong person, either by being wrong or missing their intended target. How can anyone expect the average citizen to do better.
And will we hold people accountable if they do kill the wrong person. There are some who don't even want to hold George Zimmerman accountable for killing an unarmed teen who was doing nothing wrong.
Or you could have a policy presence, sure not as cheap as it would be having teachers going through firearms and police courses, but far more effective.
Arming teachers? not the best idea. "I became a teacher to teach. If I wanted to defend our children I would have joined the Marines" How many unemployed veterans with arms experience and even mastery are there in this country? Since we can't seem to make a socially acceptable effort to keep firearms out of the hands of disturbed individuals, I would like to make DAMN certain my son is safe at school when I am out earning a wage in hopes to provide him with the childhood in which he deserves. I would be comfortable knowing that I had to pass security to enter a building full of innocent and defenseless kids. Why not create some jobs and keep our kid's safe if the process? Unfortunately these solutions are not within the school district's budget.
Someone needs to remind Gov. Perry that Texas is no longer a frontier state. I was born and raised in Texas and I lived there for at least 30 of my 72 years. My grade school, junior high and high school did not have armed guards nor were the doors locked as soon as classes started. This was back in the 40s and 50s and 60s. Texas was really a very civilized state back then.
What Perry is assuming is that Texas has reverted to a time when there was no government and no rule of law. We have governments and laws in this country. When people establish a government, the citizens surrender some freedom to the government in exchange for protection. We elect governors and hire police to protect us. That does not mean we have no responibility as individuals to keep order and prevent crime. We are all responsible for respecting the law and for electing good lawmakers, hiring and training police, and maintaining and equiping a citizen army. And we need to be willing to pay for these services by paying taxes as necessary.
The "Wild Frontier" is a myth.
In reality, very, VERY few townspeople carried- or owned- guns. And there was not much violence, either.
Marshal Dillion et al are fiction, folks.
bflynch
Do you have any idea how at odds this sentence is with the fundamental foundation of this country? Franklin stated "Anyone who will trade freedom for security deserves neither" Those words are as relavent today as they were when he uttered them.
If you're willing to relinquish your rights and responsibilities to the goverment don't sell the rest of us down the river with you.
The reality is very different from the Texan myth. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/1218/Sandy-Hook-massacre-The-NRA-s-gun-rights-are-a-fabrication-of-modern-times?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem
Why not? The NRA has already sold the rest of us down the river with their propaganda that 300 Million guns in this country would make us all safe!!
That's your opinion and you are certainly welcome to it but the facts don't support it. Since passing concealed and open carry legislation most states have seen a decrease in violent crime over the last 10 years according to the FBI UCR. So there is at least some evidence that legal guns in the hands of law abiding citizens make a difference. It still doesn't help the "gun free zones" like Chicago, DC etc.
Tell you what get the bangers to give up their AK's and Glocks and then we'll talk about mine. Till then I'll be keeping mine where they belong.
Actually, crime has been going down and it has NOTHING to do with guns - it has more to do with an aging population than anything else.
Yea, when do YOU run into bangers???? How often does THAT happen to you? Often? Maybe you should change YOUR habits and stop going to places that encourage violence!
It's encroached on our cities and neighborhoods over the last 20 years and more. I don't put myself into situations where violence is enevitable but when it drops in your lap you expect me to run? call the cops? cower in the corner? How about I protect my family. It's time we stood up to the culture of violence and crime that spawns this violence. Don't handicap a lawabiding citizen and ignore the criminals.
Get a dog - it works far better than a gun! The dog is smart enough not to kill your wife or your child if they should be coming in late!
One of the saddest homicides I was ever involved in was an old guy who shot his best friend when the friend knocked on the guy's window. The old guy thought he was a burglar and shot him. The old guy ended up killing himself a week later. Dogs don't do that kind of violence and they are very effective in scaring off bad guys - a much better deal than owning a gun!!!
Sorry can't carry my dog into Walmart. My 45 fits nicely in my waste band though. And out of the 100s of time I've been out and about with it it's never jumped out and shot a single person or thing.
Oh, you ARE mental - bad guys coming just to shoot you in Walmart???
Every time a bird fly into your window, do you need a change of pants?
Everytime you hear a strange noise, do you pull your gun out of under the pillow?
Every person you see you think is an "enemy" just waiting to kill you?
Just so you know a bank employee was brutally murdered by her knife wielding ex in a local walmart. On his way out of the store he threatened several shoppers and employees. This happened to be our local Walmart at that time. So things can and do happen. I'm not looking for trouble, but I'd rather be prepared when it shows up. No I don't keep my gun under my pillow and I don't think every person is an 'enemy'
I am aware of my surroundings and the people in it but I have a responsibility to protect myself and my family. I'm not paranoid and I go out thinking or hoping something is going to happen. In fact if I never have to pull my handgun I'll be happy. But I would rather be prepared than not. That's still my right, for the time being at least.
What a total fantasy land you live in - you afraid your wife is going after you with an ax? Nothing is going to stop crazy people - nothing.
Don't you think that woman would have run away if she'd of had some sort of warning? Don't you get it? People who are intent on killing you DON"T GIVE YOU ANY WARNING OR ANY CHANCE TO DEFEND YOURSELF. You have a VERY false belief that your carrying a gun is going to save your life or your family's life.
Meanwhile, your paranoia is putting other people in danger - especially your family!!!
Exactly how does my carrying a firearm put others in danger? Realizing you know absolutely nothing about me, my background, training, or disposition....
No the bad guy doesn't give you warning.... hence the best defense is situational awareness. I don't really care if you don't understand or don't agree with my position. I have a right and I will and have exercised it without harming anyone. Again don't blame law abiding citizens while ignoring the problems that criminals and ILLEGAL firearms represent.
Yup, your "rights" are more important than anyone else's right to life!!!
Spare me your "rights" BS!
And that pretty mcuh sums it up doesn't it... you're fear and paranoia trump the rights of millions of law abiding citizens. Go ahead take all the guns and see how soon the violence ends...
Are you "projecting"? I'm not paranoid. I don't carry a gun and in my job, I go into some pretty bad slums in every major city in this country! There are other ways of protecting yourself.
Psst: A couple of secrets for you from my law enforcement days:
1). Bangers kill each other more than they ever kill innocent people.
2) Most people who die from gun violence in this country, do so at the hands of a relative or a friend!
You're not paranoid? Without knowing me, my training, background or anything else you list me as dangerous and claim I'm like to injure or kill somone around me? Ok, maybe you're not paranoid, just ignorant. If you're going to simply make assumptions without facts then there really isn't any point in a discourse. And if you are going to make your decisions and cast your votes in that same manner god help us all.
What objection do you have to law enforcement knowing that you are carrying a firearm near a school? What is wrong with requiring installation of thin transmitters on all guns? No problem you can own and carry. But what is so bad about preventing law enforcement from being aware of the presence of guns?
"Sorry can't carry my dog into Walmart. My 45 fits nicely in my waste band though."- CD James
Wow, that tells you all you need to know about this guy, what a complete and utter ignoramus.
It's neanderthals like him that drag us all down. We have to marginalize this whack job.
I've been through background checks and training to carry concealed and have for awhile now. Why am I the bad guy? I personally have no problem with background checks. Transmitters on guns? Why not one on me so the authorities know where I am as well? As to allowing law enforcement know of the presence of guns by law I am required to show my permit and inform an officer who is acting in an official capacity that I am armed. I've never had any issue with this and all the LEO's I've interacted with have been polite and courteous in return.
And were so when we're at the range shooting at the same time as well I might point out....
citizen_pain_71
luckily we still live in a free country. Well at least for awhile.
Oh, I see - you are "special". We aren't allowed to make assumptions about you from your posts (which we all do with all posters whether you like it or not) but YOU are allowed to make assumptions about everyone else???
And you have TRAINING!!! WOW!!! A 2 hr. hunters course? A week long "retreat" where you and your buddies went shooting?
Every gun nut I talk to has had "training" and it turns out to be a few hours at a gun club! Yea, that'll teach you when to and when not to shoot!!!
Nope my training started in the military and continued as a civilian, in addition to the CWP course mandated by my state I've taken defensive pistol courses as well.
And since my pistol still hasn't jumped up and shot a thing on it own..... I really really have to surmise that it must be working at least in part....
CWP? ROTFLMAO!! The 2 day or the 4 day course?
The point of that course is to give you a basic understanding of the laws of your state and to show prociency with your handgun on the range.
Sigh, yea that's "REAL" training alright! Now that make me afraid!!
There is no public safety issue about where you are, but there is legitimate public safety interest if a couple of mac-10's show up near a school. Responding to a question with a question is not an answer.
Could you answer the question please. Do you have any objection to this measure, and if so, what is the basis for your concern?
Yes I have a basic objection to the measure of placing a location transmitter/tracer on my gun. I've undergone the background checks and training to own/carry. I don't believe I should have the goverment looking over my shoulder to see where my firearms are at any given time. While it would be helpful to know if they're in fact in a school zone it might be easier to collect them if it ever came to that as well.
oncearepublican,
what makes you qualified to judge?
On what constitutional basis? Right to privacy?
If so, why does your claimed right of privacy outweigh the responsibility of the state to protect a child's right to life?
Nothing outweighs a childs right to life, well accept maybe a womans right to privacy. You're missing the point that it isn't a gun problem as much as it's a crime problem... if you do what you want the criminals will get the guns or go around the counter measures.
Ok, so you make no constitutional objection to the transmitter on guns. You just think they are an offensive intrusion.
Why should we not conclude that safeguarding children overrides your exaggerated sense of privacy?
As for the foolproof objection- that is silly. Stop lights are not foolproof but they save lives. The cops see a couple of assault weapons at the same location near a school and the cops are there in a minute asking questions. Seems like a reasonable safety measure to me.
The "foolproof" objection refers more to the criminals ability to obtain a firearms without a background check/tax stamp etc. or to be able to circumvent tracking technology.
You want background checks ok. You want to ban guns from schools not a problem. Why are you coming after the law abiding citizen before addressing the criminal problem we have in this country. The answer isn't to ban the guns from the average person btw.....
Sorry? We aren't discussing banning weapons. The law is not "coming after law abiding citizens" when they require you to place your registration tags on your car in a publicly conspicuous location. Same thing.
You seem to have no constitutional objection to the transmitters. They just makes you feel bad.
Cry me a river. The dying children felt worse.
Face it. After grousing about it, you would realize it wouldn't affect you one least bit and you would realize your gun rights weren't threatened in the least.
We personally were discussing a tracer/transmitter on firearms. But banning weapons is very much in the news and the thread of this conversation today.. so yeah we really are discussing it.
Aside from an intrusion to the right to privacy of an individual no I don't have a constitutional objection. I'm not after all a constitutional scholar. Simply a student of history.
My thoughts and prayers are indeed with the children and the families after this tradgedy. It's all to easy to put myself in there place I've got three kids in school. I don't believe guns were the problem here. I'll be roasted for that but that's the truth. It was a fundamental failure of the parents of the perpetrator.
I'd really love to know where the compassion for the child victims of drive bys and gang violence is btw....
No, only in your imagination were we discussing banning weapons.
The future victims of such massacres don't need your thoughts and prayers.
They need you to accept meaningful preventative measures that would safeguard them from nuts. It seems to me that you are unwilling to argue your right to privacy overrides their right to life.
I am gratified that even you were not willing to adopt such an untenable position.
There shouldn't be any future victims. But I'm afraid there will be. We've established to many gun free zones that are nothing more than hunting grounds for deranged predators. I don't have a perfect solution but I know for sure there is no simple one. Taking guns away even tracking them won't work in the long run.
Your perfection argument is nonsense- reductio ad absurdum.
Like stop lights, if gun transmitters work to prevent one death, then they work.
I have been in many Wal_Marts in many different states and have never been threatened. I was in Wal-Mart awhile back and it appeared that a civilian had a Glock looking pistol strapped to his leg. I didn't feel safe and I wanted to get as far away from that man as I could and as fast as I could. I don't feel especially safe when a cop comes into a store or restaurant with his armory. I want to be as far as I can from a packer if I know that they are packing. Gun owners don't make me feel secure, but rather quite nervous.
Your gun hobby is meaningless as long as people continue to die at the current rate. I don't give a ratsazz that anyone wants to tote a gun around, and keep them as cool toys. My guitar is a cool toy. Guns are not.
I'd like to ban all of them, but short of that, let people wait a nice long time to buy them. Make people prove, through as many steps necessary, that they should own a gun. Set the assumption that no one needs a gun, and let people go through hoops to own one.
"I want to spell out exactly what the court has said in terms of the authority of Congress to limit Second Amendment rights,"
I actually read the content of that District of Columbia v. Heller case--the one in which the five Supreme Court activists decided that their is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. Somebody check me on this, but my recollection is that the decision essentially said that some limitations to this so-called individual "right" applies, but such limitations were not delineated. The decision essentially said that the five justices would decide, on a case by case basis, which regulations are and are not constitutional.
Actually that makes sense. If you're going to decide that a right exists, when it doesn't, and if you're going to decide that such non-existent right should have limitations, then we have no choice but to look to the courts to determine what such limitations are. Since the Court decided to ignore the "well regulated militia" clause, then they have essentially left it entirely up to them.
So, before passing any firearms laws, perhaps we should give Scalia and friends a ring to see what, if anything, they would approve.
In the meantime, I think that we should start working on public opinion (a decade-long fight, if not longer), in order to get the Second Amendment repealed. Seriously.
great, throw more guns into the mix!
in the UK daily mail this week some stats about arms in the us made disturbing reading, some comparisons between UK/US
39 people killed by firearms in england and wales 12 months 08/09
9,484 people killed by firearms in the US in the same 12 months
of course the US is a lot bigger then the UK, so upscale the UK figures to a US sized
country 234!
(35 australia 60 spain)
some more stats from the same Daily Mail
94,388 people shot in the US so far this year
11 is the minimum age in minnesota to be eligible for a fire arms certificate
50% of guns worldwide are in the US - but just 5% of global population
40% of US gun purchases do not need a background check
and some of your politicians' only suggestion is to put more guns and arm more people as a way to solve the problem, why stop at teachers? What about the kids, the crossing guards, the school bus drivers. Instead of universal health care, why not universal gun care.
Guns dont kill anyone people do, but throwing more guns into the mix isnt going to help anyone
How about some citations for your statistics.
rather then going round the houses here is the link to the daily mail article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2249185/Nancy-Lanza-Did-paranoid-gun-crazed-mother-trigger-Sandy-Hook-Connecticut-killing-spree.html
The freedom to exercise my right ends when I begin to infringe on the rights of another person!
This as usual doesn't address the 10's if not hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens who own firearms. Nore the 10's of millions who exercise their legal right to carry those weapons publically. If you can't address the illegal guns in the hands of the gang bangers and thugs out there don't come for mine.
Detroit, LA, Chicago, DC all places with some of the most stringent guns laws in the country and they stil have massive problems with gun violence and illegal weapons.
Hundreds of millions of people that own firearms? What?!?!
You are sadly mistaken Mr. WalMart shopping .45 toting bloviating ignoramus @sshole.
There are only 300 million people in America. I can guarantee you not all of them own guns.
Why don't you go back to your job of bagging groceries at the Piggly Wiggly and let the adults have a meaningful conversation.
And here's the liberal trying to shout someone down. By all means lets shut up and let them do as they want. When they get all the guns we can see if they've accomplished there goal or if they've just made everyone into so many sheeple.
You are a paranoid extremist and are part of a fringe element in our society. You have the right to spew you're NRA talking points, it's a free country.
But no one in their right mind agrees with you except maybe Fux Noise and the NRA and whichever talk radio lunatic that has poisoned your brain.
Keep blathering your nonsense, it's encouraging to those of us who make up the reality based community. It helps to understand just how whacko you people really are. It keep us on our toes.
Thankfully for me there are more people like me than like you where I live.
Tell you what go ahead and collect alll the guns and when you're done let me know how that's working out for you.
And which holler do you live in?
Beyond that though, your reply is telling. You must live in some isolated hamlet, full of paranoid extremists just like yourself who have probably never left your surrounding counties or your state, much less the country to see what else is out there in the world.
You are circling the wagons in an echo chamber within a cocoon.
Nope I just don't live around a bunch of liberal sheeple.
Too bad, if you did you'd probably learn something.
How to shout someone down and bully people to your point of view? Nah I'm getting a lesson in that at a comfortable distance. It simply shows another divide that's splitting this country.
If you consider engaging someone in a meaningful conversation "shouting" and "bullying", you have a long way to go.
Quit playing the victim; that ruse won't work here son.
I thought you had to "marginalize" me?
Again you aren't interested in conversation unless it's onsided.
Not me specifically, no. Society in general has to marginalize backwards thinkers like you.
Face it pain we don't live in the same society. That's been becoming apparent for years now and the divide has becoming more apparent in the last decade.
However, just for the record I'm all for background checks and I'm all for keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals. But I do not believe that you can take away guns to the point where you will eliminate gun crime. All you're going to do is further endanger law abiding citizens. Criminals have shown again and again they will get the guns. it's just a matter of money for them and they seem to have enough of that.
But the attacks on average Americans because they feel they have a right to defend themselves is outrageous.
If it is well known that armed individuals are inside or around a building, the probability of an armed assailant entering said building to do harm to the mass of unarmed individuals inside, is greatly depreciated. Just handing guns to teachers is ridiculous. I honestly don't believe they want to just hand a gun to a math teacher and say "good luck defending those kids if anything happens!"
If we as a country ever figure out what the heck we're going to do about our guns, it will take a long long time. Until then, we need to have a serious conversation and come up with ways to solve our immediate problems. These two characters came up with something concrete to do. It's kinda stupid, but it's something. Words on paper ain't gonna cut it.
Rick Perry is an ape with an ape's mentality! I can't believe people listen to him.
The dystopian future Mrs. Lanza was concerned about ironically was manifested by her preparation for that dystopian future. She brought 'The Road' home and sporulated it into the community. Guns beget guns like war begets war. Vicious cycle when individualism trumps collective action -- the end of extremist GOP ways.
Nancy Lanza, by all accounts, was an avid, dedicated, and competent shooter and gun enthusiast. She owned numerous, high-quality firearms. If the theory proposed by NRA sychophants--that armed people can stop violence before it gets under way--is correct, then she would still be alive.
But, she was shot 4 times in the face while she slept. Why didn't she shoot her son instead of the reverse? Because she was sleeping, you idiots! Your argument is as dead as the victims of Sandy Hook, people. She had guns and knew how to use them and look what that accomplished...26 innocent lives taken in less than 10 minutes. I enjoy shooting, and have for many years, but this argument is riddled with holes. The answer is more gun control, NOT more guns. Time to reset and re-frame this debate.
I have been in education for over 40 years. Those 6 Newtown teachers are heroes. What I don't understand is why all teachers across our nation - union, non union, private, charter - don't unite with parents to march on DC and protest the delay in instituting "common sense gun regulation" (Euphemism now for gun control). Perhaps, even the hunters who have come out in support of background checks and limited ammunition would join as well.
If we had a million person march on Sat of Inauguration weekend, you bet Congress would listen. People mean votes, and legislators respond to what benefits them most. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
And when these measures don't stop the violence? What then?
c david james:
Our basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not trumped by gun rights.
You gun carriers need to take some pills for paranoia instead of packing your weapons. Try to make the world a better place with peace and education instead of violence.
How's that worked out so far? Reference LA, Detroit, Chicago, DC all with the most stringent gun laws in this nation? We still see gun crime, tons of illegal guns etc. The states that passed concealed carry or open carry laws have seen a decrease in violent crimes in the same time frame. I'm not a paranoid. I don't look for trouble and avoid places where it would normally be found. But I would rather be prepared to defend the lives and safety of myself and my family than be a sheeple and hence another statistic for the grist mill.
I have all respect for your life liberty and your pursuit of happiness, I've defended them, and I've defended mine. Don't take away my right to defend myself and not address the underlying problem of criminals and illegal firearms. The law abiding citizens of this country aren't the problem.
I don't know about the other cities, but I do know about DC. All anyone in DC has to do is get on the Metro and cross the river and go to a gun show in VA and get all the guns they want - no background check - no nothing. DC can't do anything about that!
I have no problem with background checks.. and when I go to guns shows in the carolinas they still run checks here. My problems start when you want to start taking guns out of the homes and hands of law abiding citizens.
Top ten State violent crime rates per 100,000 population, from the Census Bureau:
Nevada: 704.6
South Carolina: 675.1
Tennessee: 666.0
New Mexico: 652.6
Delaware: 645.1
Alaska: 632.6
Louisiana: 628.4
Florida: 612.6
Maryland: 590.0
Arkansas: 530.3
Note the absence of strong gun control states in the rankings.
Yes, DC has a high crime rate. As a city surrounded by states with lax gun laws, it fits the trend. States with strong gun control laws (e.g. New York, California) tend to have significantly lower violent crime rates than similar states with lax gun control laws (e.g. Texas, Florida).
And show the statistics since carry legislations was introduced in many states. You'll see a dramatic drop in the rates of violent crimes.
Where are your statistics that support that?
The FBI UCR
BS, the UCR DOES NOT say that - it NEVER says that! - I KNOW what the UCRs say! Here's MY link - where's yours:
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/october/annual-crime-in-the-u.s.-report-released
Oh I forgot you're our resident expert on... well everything..
Oh, my!!! Did I catch you in a lie??
Nope. I don't have to lie.. unlike NBC and well CBS gee is there a pattern there in the liberal media?
You just claimed crime dropped because of "carry legislation" and when asked for your statistics, you cited the UCR. Wasn't that a lie? Or are you using the same sort of "logic" you use to carry a gun with you everywhere - you know - the "reality isn't important - it's just what I WANT that is important" logic?
It dropped during the period that the legislation was passed. No the UCR doesn't state that it was passed.
As to my carry habits I never stated that. And for the record I don't get to carry it everywhere I want there are prohibited location for concealed carry here that I respect.
C David,
Violent crime rates have been dropping nation wide for better than a decade now. The murder rate in New York City, for example, has been more than cut in half over the last 15 years or so.
If access to guns and the ability to carry them in public reduced violent crime then Florida would have a lower crime rate than New York (the state). They have roughly the same population, large metro areas, and similar levels of development. (Not exactly the same, but it is not as though we are comparing Mississippi to Massachusetts.)
The best argument for carry laws is that in areas where we are awash with guns, letting people legally carry them helps discourage predators. The stats suggest that it is better to restrict access to guns so the predators will have a harder time getting them.
When you are busy fighting alligators, it is hard to remember you came to drain the swamp. That does not mean the solution is more alligators and more swamp.
Nevada has ridiculously lenient, bordering on non-existent, gun laws.
http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/nevada-gun-laws
You have to start somewhere. If assault weapons were banned (their only purpose is to kill people), and limited clips, plus no sales over the internet/gun shows without background checks and wait times, there will be a decrease in violence. Past history demonstrates that. Can we take back 300 million guns from 3 million people? I don't know. But I just heard that Australia had a recall of weapons that reduced their homicide rate 14 times. I think throwing up your hands and saying nothing will work is sentencing more people to death.
I heard SE Cupp spouting the old NRA mantra today of "if you are going to ban some guns, then I think you should ban all guns" like that is going to stop those of us who are intent on banning semi-automatic and automatic weapons. My answer to her? OK!!! If it has to be either or, I can live without any type of guns so that innocent children don't die!!
the killer's mother was armed,,the guns belong to her,,she still got killed,what about a shopping center or cinema? i do not think the teachers should carry guns,, who will be allowed to carry a gun other places when a crazy person wants to kill? it does not make sense,,what make sense is that a parent who possibly has emotional problem should seek help,and not have gun in the house,,if i have a child highper and moody,,i would not keep a gun in the house,,i know someone like that,,the mother is very highper,,so are the teenagers,,but she has a gun,,what if the son gets mad at her or at a teacher,,no matter that she has a gun,,she will be the first one to die,if her son flips,i worry about it,,,the parents are at fault in many cases,,the grvnt,,has to make the law tougher,,and check the whole family,,get a background on anyone in the house,who needs a gun who can kill 30 or more peoples in secondes,,,no private person should get that type of guns at all,the law has to be changed
I am amazed how the European press(but not the American) covers the tragedy with emphasis on the mother as a well-known "prepper" and member of the survivalist crowd. Nothing about this on MSNBC--is it making liberals a bit nervous to know that this person comes from the heart of conservative radicalism, the right-wing, racist culture that has emerged in the last 20 years? Nothing about this on Rachel, Ed, Matthews, O'Donnell. Her son seems to have suffered from autism, but his pathology is not discussed.
There is no way around the "assault weapon" definition problem. But their features become less threatening if the clips only hold 10 rounds. And the proposed legislation does outlaw larger clips.
But will the legislation take the next step and require that the new clips have a new design, so that existing large capacity clips won't work in the new rifles?
If the new clips have a new design so that existing hicap magagines won't work.... won't that preclude them from working in the existing firearms?
There is actually. You can prohibit the manufacture and regulate the use of the caliber of bullets used in those guns.
You can have all the semi-automatic weapons you want, but if you don't have the ammo, they're useless.
I know it does nothing about the weaponry and ammunition that exists out there today, but you have to have a starting point somewhere.
What about hand reloading? So what caliber would you allow?
Reloading cartridges is fine. Why wouldn't it be?
You just have to prevent the manufacture of certain calibers. Sure, there will always be some straggling remnants out there that can, but they won't be mass produced and readily available in insanely large amounts.
You really really need to brush up on reloading mass production is a relative term. An experienced reloader can produce hundreds of if not thousands of rounds within a day.
No, not really. Unless they have a larger operation they can't. And if some underground operation tried to crank out those kinds of numbers, there would be a lot of misfires and bad bad loads. It wouldn't be feasible in the long run.
Next.
even with a single stage press producing 200 rounds a day would be very doable. With a progresive press with all the bells and whistles 1000-2000 or more would be very doable.
It's not about taking away guns. It's about taking away some guns from all people, and taking away all guns from some people. We don't allow people to carry hand granades ... or drive tanks. With common sense, there has to be some kind of limit on types of guns and reload capability that isn't needed for hunting. And, people that own guns should be held responsible for making sure they stay more secured or charged criminally. The constitution will protect are rights to hunt and protect ourselves... I like hunting. But if we blind ourselves to thinking in the extremes either way, we just end up shouting at each other and fail to do what is needed.