Crap! A "Gun Control Task Force"

Relax, relaxxx, :mickey:

you know how fast I can go through 100 rounds just target shooting?

Buying in bulk makes the cost per round pennies instead of tens of cents.
Same as purchasing any consumable item in bulk, it's generally cheaper.

 

But Nox, you miss the point entirely.

Guns are the problem. :sunny:

 

Ehh, I love my tools.... I have a few torque wrenches, many sockets, some of which are duplicates, many pliars and vice grips, some of which are duplicates, etc etc.

You can burn off 100 rounds at a range in a matter of minutes, without hurrying.

I see no problem with people having thousands of rounds, the problem is with people who have other problems, combined with that capability.

So I say, let's regulate it. And not even by limiting the types of weapons you can have. Simply by requiring that those who do have weapons enroll in a militia, and train, and undergo military style mental screening. And of course, there should be exemptions for specific types of weapons, in the way that other countries do: some places off duty cops are required to wear vests, and carry, and that should be fine. Reinactors or gun collectors should have the reasonably easy ability to get a license. Hunters should be able to get a liscense.

But simply liscensing it and requiring some degree of responsibility would be a big step.

 

I made the comparison with air travel because there is a proposal that flights have armed air marshals.

 

And how would that be accomplished? You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Sorry for the cliche....it's very unlike me.

 

Right, there's a risk that teachers will blow away kids! Well, if that's the case, then they are mentally ill and wth are they doing in the classroom?

The point about mandatory classes is that it's those target members of community that are the problem and another group that now are in a position to need to protect themselves. So if government is are going to make this all about gun ownership, I'm going to keep reiterating whom we really need to focus on. Instead you want more regulations and gun safety lessons mandatory for the people that already know that shit.

 

Yes, they're obvivously mentally ill.

This shooters mother was some sort of gun enthusiast: so she knew her shit? Obviously not, because her guns where not secured. My suggestion that every gun sold come with a trigger lock could have averted this shooting that sparked the discussion you don't like: so why don't you like my suggestion?

The fact is, a lot of people are mentally unstable, and making it easier to get guns will make it easier to get guns for the mentally unstable.

You think that the government should not be telling you that you can't own a gun, but how is that ANY different from me thinking that the government should not tell me that I SHOULD own a gun?

And HOW can you claim to care about any sort of freedom or safety, especially that cliche safety from an abusive government (which guns obviously will not provide), when you support the idea of the government being the ones to decide who's insane, and as such, can't own a gun? You think that the government can't be trusted to take care of you, but CAN be trusted to arbitrarially decide who's sane, who's not, and as such, who can and cannot own a gun based on that simple "yes" or "no" question, and then keep careful tabs on not only who is or is not, but who attended the right class? How can you say "they're the problem" and encourage an armed apartied with gun nuts on one side, and genuine nuts on the other? Isn't it the government's job to take care of it's citizens, and not simply advance your personal, paranoid obsession?

Keep in mind, I generally find myself facing off against people like balbus, I'm generally against the outlawing of certain types of guns, even assault weapons. But I'm also not a fucking insane gun nut, who really secretly just wants the capacity to murder people. Well, as long as they're the "problem" ones, right? I guess all it takes is a gander at your list, to check that they where insane, to be cleared of all wrongdoing.

 

You're getting me confused with some other poster about "safety from an abusive government". I didn't write that, nor do I think that.

 

That's simply a standard gun-nut line.

Well it's good you don't think that, because your plan, for reasons outlined in my last post, looks like about the most efficient way to usher in a wildly abusive police state, at many times the speed that it is currently happening.

 

What you're missing is that it's ridiculous, just as is more "gun control". I'm illustrating it in such a asinine nature to drive home the point.

 

But it has absolutely nothing to do with the measures that I have proposed. At all. It's apples and oranges. Strawman apples, to my juicy, tasty oranges.

WHY is it rediculous to say that, following the constitution, each person with a gun must enroll in a militia and be well regulated? WHY is it rediculous to say that we should require a trigger lock to be included with every gun purchase, when that alone very well could have averted this particular tragedy that spawned the gun control task force you dislike? WHAT is wrong with it, considering that I'm proposing that anybody can buy fully automatic weapons, I'm suggesting that all limitations on gun ownership be removed, so long as every one is in a regulated militia for the duration of their gun ownership?

WHAT exactly is rediculous about my suggestions? They do not affect anyone who does not own a gun, other than by making them safer, and for gun owners they only make gun ownership reasonable and constitutional: AND more honorable, nobody will be suggesting that we take guns from the US army, because I'm suggesting that the people become the army, without a murderous imperial army deployed all over the world.

*Edit* I had only read short articles on sandy hook, but found this when I was looking up something on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

Now, imagine if every staff member had a gun: you have a shooter with a rifle, and a vest, who is prepared and thus has the advantage. You have a school of kids (and the first priority is to try to get them out of harms way, not go hunting the bad guy, these are teachers, not cops) and confusion. It sounds like more people would have died, not less, if everyone had a gun.

Read the (neutral) wikipedia article, and OP ("crap, they don't want me shooting children") will seem pretty barbaric. I started crying reading it.

 

Roo

Yes Roo but we always have fun…

That is an interesting suggestion.

At first I think fine, that would be closer say to the Swiss model, BUT then I get some disquieting thoughts.

A good majority of pro-gunners and legal gun owners are right wing, white and middle class (or higher) so replacing the US army with such militias’ would very likely mean the creation of an ethnical, political and class biased army (never a good idea).

In the present US army some 30% of the enlisted are black but there is a tendency for whites to cluster in front-line combat units whiles blacks mainly go into support jobs, whites shoot the guns while blacks are the mechanics or are doing the administration. But both black and white come mainly from the lower and lower middle class social groups.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-20-army-race-usat-_x.htm

The thing about the Swiss model is that it is a draft, a conscript army of all male citizens from 18 up to fifty. It therefore covers all social, economic and ethical groups within their society.

What you seem to be proposing I fear could turn into the armed wing of the NRA

Wow two smiles in one post it must be Christmas

 

Now this IS a problem I had not considered....

When you put it like that, it might mean the dissolution of the union, in fact.

Though it would be different in black "inner-city" areas, and this might have a very interesting effect on gangs and the like -- obviously they try not to have guns with papers, but none-the-less....

Then again, the military currently does draw from those some groups, all the white supremacists are ex-military, and you just don't see too many liberals joining up. I know one because of college debt, but, ehh.... Maybe it could be done carefully, by transposing the current power structure, and slowly migrating things.

If a migration was succesful (despite the dangers you mentioned, so, if) it might succeed in changing the US gun culture, and turning it INTO something more like the swiss one, in a few generations.

But yes, it would be a very delicate thing.

Or, another option, would be to take the second amendment and run with it (after all, the NRA has run one direction, why can't we run the other?) and really do something more swiss, where EVERYONE is in the military, and you don't have to own a gun and will have one provided, but you CAN own guns, and if you are determined unfit for a combat role, you lose the civillian capacity to own guns, as well.


But in the mean time, WHY will the right not discuss even the most simple solutions? OP called my suggestion that trigger locks be included with guns "rediculous", which, I think, is rediculous of her. If this shooter's supposed gun enthusiast of a mother had not taught him to shoot, and likely told him things that clashed with his personality problems, and then left her guns unsecured, well..... then the right wouldn't even have this uncomfortable discussion on their hands. So, why don't we take some more simple, non-invasive steps to offset the probability of tragedy?

 

Roo

It seems to me that any steps might have to be invasive in one sense or another.

I’ve suggested some ideas

Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure (and approved) safe. People that didn’t have an approved safe would not be allowed to own a gun.

I’m open to having a 'gunlock' as a starter, to see how effective it would be**.

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and banned from owning a gun*.

I mean not having it 'gunlocked' could be deemed as not showing due diligence.

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean loosing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

This has been the most problematic for some pro-gunners but in the UK for instance it’s the law that we have to have our cars tested to see if hey are safe to be on the road. I think finding out if the person with the gun hasn’t passed it to a criminal or has become unsafe to own a gun seems like a good idea.

*
Having accidents that cause injury or death with the gun would also come under this

**
I would add however

There are several types of [gun] locks that serve to make it difficult to discharge a firearm. Locks are considered less effective than keeping firearms stored in a lockable safe since locks are more easily defeated than approved safes. After stealing a locked firearm, a thief can bypass the lock at their leisure - [my brackets] - wiki

 

You could go to licensed gun ranges and buy all the ammo you want to practice with, as long as you don't take them home to your kids. Maybe there could be community ammo banks or some other solution to keep them out of homes.

 

Which is almost as ridiculous considering the current security measures in place at airports.

A few problems with teachers carrying guns:

Like I already said, no one would reach a gun in time if it was stored in a safe hidden from students.

Where will the funding come from to give teachers proper and extensive training? They've already cut the arts. Should we cut out science as well?

What about the likely majority of teachers who didn't get teaching degrees in order to be security guards?

What about parents like myself who feel totally uncomfortable with the idea of armed teachers?

What if a teacher did snap one day? It's possible. Teachers are underpaid and over stressed as it is.

School shootings are relatively rare considering the number of schools in the nation. I prefer not to raise my child in a culture of fear and paranoia over something unlikely to ever happen.

 

It's not a proposal. It's a fact.

There are also pilots that volunteer to carry a gun. There is a lengthy process to go through to get to that point but the chance there is a trained person with a weapon on commercial flights is good.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/24/gun-program-for-pilots-set-for-expansion-officials/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Air_Marshal_Service

 

But I don't see what that has to do with teachers carrying guns?

 

It doesn't.

 

If someone wants to kill someone then they will use what ever is needed.
Be it by gun,knife,or a candlestick I mean has no one ever played clue.
Outlawing guns would be like outlawing penises because someone could use one for a rape.