[Lapwolf]

Now we need to define what we as a society tolerate is an acceptable price to pay for the current "guns for all, unless.." law (fill in the blank with "mentally unstable, criminal etc, etc). If that answer is less (or 0) shootings/killings, then we have established that the current law is dysfunctional and requires change. It is that simple.

If we're really serious about reducing the number of mass shootings, the answer is multi-faceted. Obviously mental stability issues must be addressed and better documented as nobody of sound mind would choose to go to a public place and open fire. In addition, we must reduce the "gun free" places as they are obvious targets (the andedotal evidence is that even crazy people with guns don't choose places where they might find opposition). For example, in schools there MUST to be faculty members that carry concealed firearms and it MUST be know that these people are always on the premise.

All states should have a reasonable process to allow the law abiding public to carry concealled weapons. How many mass shootings have happened in Florida malls? I'm not saying everyone should carry, but the more law abiding citizens that do will be the best deterent.

As for assault weapons, when picking up your newly purchased AR-15, in many states you must show or buy a trigger lock. I have no problem with 30 round clips, but anything above that is excessive (10 round clips are pain in the butt). I am loathe to restrict lawful ownership of assault weapons as I do believe the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is make sure the government knows the public can turn into a large army in short order (I forget George Washington's quote, but I remember it being quite profound). Remember your history, King George tried to disarm the colonists as he feared a revolution which is the case of most tyrannical governments, they disarm the populace before they show their true intentions.

That might be paranoid, unless you're right...

[arnie]

If we're really serious about reducing the number of mass shootings, the answer is multi-faceted. Obviously mental stability issues must be addressed and better documented as nobody of sound mind would choose to go to a public place and open fire. In addition, we must reduce the "gun free" places as they are obvious targets (the andedotal evidence is that even crazy people with guns don't choose places where they might find opposition). For example, in schools there MUST to be faculty members that carry concealed firearms and it MUST be know that these people are always on the premise.

All states should have a reasonable process to allow the law abiding public to carry concealled weapons. How many mass shootings have happened in Florida malls? I'm not saying everyone should carry, but the more law abiding citizens that do will be the best deterent.

As for assault weapons, when picking up your newly purchased AR-15, in many states you must show or buy a trigger lock. I have no problem with 30 round clips, but anything above that is excessive (10 round clips are pain in the butt). I am loathe to restrict lawful ownership of assault weapons as I do believe the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is make sure the government knows the public can turn into a large army in short order (I forget George Washington's quote, but I remember it being quite profound). Remember your history, King George tried to disarm the colonists as he feared a revolution which is the case of most tyrannical governments, they disarm the populace before they show their true intentions.

That might be paranoid, unless you're right...

How do u know the faculty member won't snap (for what ever reason) and start shooting? It is kind of like a wolf in sheep's skin... There is no guarantee he or she wont. We only need 1 to slip through the cracks so to say... And that will already be 1 to many. Then we don't only have a shooter, but also a person who knows the property inside out and who students are familiar with. The shooting in Norway this year where the killer was dressed up as a police officer and the victims therefore approached him thinking he was there to protect them shows that "trusted" or perceived as trusted shooters are even more lethal.

Or what about the possibility of that faculty member being disarmed? I have personally several years of martial arts under my belt (pun intended) and disarming somebody with a firearm is really as easy as 1-2-3. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are superior, often quite contrary since it makes you "locked in".

Purposefully spreading guns -with the idea to protect- among the defenseless would IMHO therefore be true insanity. I would not feel safe knowing my children were on a school where faculty carry guns. I can't wait for the headline "teacher executes class; said he had enough".

Paranoia can never be the basis of a sound legal system.

[Mkx41]

There are holsters and leashes designed to help prevent someone from having their gun taken away. And I would personally advocate trained, senior faculty. Not the whole lot of them. Of course one of them could snap. A police officer could snap in a crowded mall.

Or what about the possibility of that faculty member being disarmed? I have personally several years of martial arts under my belt (pun intended) and disarming somebody with a firearm is really as easy as 1-2-3. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are superior, often quite contrary since it makes you "locked in".

It all depends on the situation. A situation like the Sandy Hook shooting it obviously would help. Armed faculty would be better able to combat the threat. You can't possibly argue that, with a gun, they might be worse off against a madman with an assault rifle because they might get disarmed.

However, in a emotional exchange with, say, a larger student, it does open the possibility for a crime of passion. So if it were to happen there would have to be very good training and very good procedures to prevent situations like that from occuring (e.g. no teaching while armed, no tutoring while armed, etc.)

[Lapwolf]

How do u know the faculty member won't snap (for what ever reason) and start shooting? It is kind of like a wolf in sheep's skin... There is no guarantee he or she wont. We only need 1 to slip through the cracks so to say... And that will already be 1 to many. Then we don't only have a shooter, but also a person who knows the property inside out and who students are familiar with. The shooting in Norway this year where the killer was dressed up as a police officer and the victims therefore approached him thinking he was there to protect them shows that "trusted" or perceived as trusted shooters are even more lethal.

Or what about the possibility of that faculty member being disarmed? I have personally several years of martial arts under my belt (pun intended) and disarming somebody with a firearm is really as easy as 1-2-3. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are superior, often quite contrary since it makes you "locked in".

Purposefully spreading guns -with the idea to protect- among the defenseless would IMHO therefore be true insanity. I would not feel safe knowing my children were on a school where faculty carry guns. I can't wait for the headline "teacher executes class; said he had enough".

I guess I prefer my what-ifs to be reasonable as no solution to any problem is guaranteed. I have yet to see any of these shooters come from a life where they have close interaction with educated collegues. In addition, I'm sure those close to them in the work environment, especially a school, would notice mentally disturbed behavior.

As for your disarming concern, I think the problem is crazy people bringing there own guns, not going to the target and using the available weapons.

While you say you wouldn't feel safe with your child in this scenario, how many parents in Newtown would agree with you today?

[Pretzel Logic]

So far,I am somewhat disappointed with the replies because nobody answered my 2 questions I posted (satisfyingly). Neither has any of the replies so far acknowledged that a shooting like last is too high a price to pay for the so called right to bear arms. Unless and until we can acknowledge that it is too high a price to pay can a dialogue be fruitful. If we do not acknowledge that, then one has to draw the logical conclusion that one agrees that it is a justifiable and acceptable price to pay (and that it was just an event that can be justified with a shoulder shrug and "move along nothing to see here"). It is therefore a basic philosophical premiss and requirement that needs to be fulfilled to be able to move forward in a constructive dialogue that tries to identify what aspects of the current gun ownership law(s) require to be changed.

Alright, I tried to remain out of this discussion, but I can't.

Respectfully, Arnie (you know I love ya!), I think the logic you present above is based on a presupposition that needs to be examined before we can accept your conclusions.

The presupposition that you've accepted without question -- and drawn your entire conclusion from -- is where the discussion needs to start. And the underpinning philosophy/presupposition that comes before your argument is:

"Guns are pointless and serve no purpose, therefore every death that occurs by a gun is pointless and could have been prevented."

And thus the whole argument, at its core, goes back to whether one believes guns serve a useful purpose or not.

There's where the meat of the debate is: do guns serve a purpose? Because if they don't, then every death by gun is pointless -- much the way every death by alcohol is pointless.

But if they do serve a purpose, then what we are willing to accept in terms of loss is much different -- and that point is easy to illustrate, by using cars as an example. Nearly 40,000 Americans are killed in car wrecks each year -- but because we view cars as serving a purpose, you don't hear cries of: "Another life lost pointlessly in a car wreck! WHEN WILL WE COME TO OUR SENSES AND BAN THESE DANGEROUS MACHINES???"

Gun deaths pale in comparison, so we know that objection to guns is not really about the loss of life -- it's about whether we feel the losses outweigh the gains and vice-versa.

And that, my friend, is partially a philosophical question. At its deepest, it challenges my rights as an individual to protect myself and my family -- and therefore the answer to that question should not be presupposed and skipped over.

The opposing philosophy to that presupposition says:

"Guns serve a purpose as a tool for self-protection, for protection of others, and for hunting. Unfortunately, most tools have some inherent danger if abused -- but there is simply no solution for this, because the problem isn't in the tool itself, the problem is in the individual who wields the tool."

And, in fact, the very same deranged individuals who use guns to kill are part of the reason that many "sane" individuals want guns to remain legal. The logic is simple: a madman isn't going to "live and let live" simply because he doesn't own a gun. If he can't find a gun, he'll use a knife. If he can't find a knife, he'll use a rock. Or he'll poison bottles of Tylenol, or lure kids into his basement, or he'll build mail-bombs... or any of a million other ways crazy people inflict harm.

You're not going to stop him by banning guns, because his intention is to hurt or kill others. The tool he uses is secondary to that intention.

But, by banning guns, you will make him harder for other people to stop.

Will gun laws stop someone from killing? Well, we've already got laws against murder... and usually these laws carry the harshest penalties we can imagine. So the answer is: no, gun laws will not stop criminals from killing. Gun laws are completely and utterly pointless as a deterrent to gun crime, we know that with simple logic. Someone who's going to kill someone else is, by definition, NOT CONCERNED WITH THE LAWS. This seems self-explanatory.

However, by passing laws against guns, you do keep the sane people (the law-abiding people) from protecting themselves against the crazies who don't play by the rules anyway.

To boil it all down: Each year, a number of people are beaten to death with hammers. Yet, no one is out parading for a "Hammer-Free America." That's because even people who don't own hammers can see they serve a useful purpose.

People who see the purpose served by guns don't want them banned (and people who see no point in passing laws against guns when we've already got laws against murder don't want guns banned).

People who see no purpose in guns do want them banned.

So... that's where I think the true debate lies: do guns serve a purpose, or not?

[arnie]

Alright, I tried to remain out of this discussion, but I can't.

Respectfully, Arnie (you know I love ya!), I think the logic you present above is based on a presupposition that needs to be examined before we can accept your conclusions.

The presupposition that you've accepted without question -- and drawn your entire conclusion from -- is where the discussion needs to start. And the underpinning philosophy/presupposition that comes before your argument is:

"Guns are pointless and serve no purpose, therefore every death that occurs by a gun is pointless and could have been prevented."

And thus the whole argument, at its core, goes back to whether one believes guns serve a useful purpose or not.

There's where the meat of the debate is: do guns serve a purpose? Because if they don't, then every death by gun is pointless -- much the way every death by alcohol is pointless.

But if they do serve a purpose, then what we are willing to accept in terms of loss is much different -- and that point is easy to illustrate, by using cars as an example. Nearly 40,000 Americans are killed in car wrecks each year -- but because we view cars as serving a purpose, you don't hear cries of: "Another life lost pointlessly in a car wreck! WHEN WILL WE COME TO OUR SENSES AND BAN THESE DANGEROUS MACHINES???"

Gun deaths pale in comparison, so we know that objection to guns is not really about the loss of life -- it's about whether we feel the losses outweighs the gains and vice-versa.

And that, my friend, is partially a philosophical question. At its deepest, it challenges my rights as an individual to protect myself and my family -- and therefore the answer to that question should not be presupposed and skipped over.

The opposing philosophy to that presupposition says:

"Guns serve a purpose as a tool for self-protection, for protection of others, and for hunting. Unfortunately, most tools have some inherent danger if abused -- but there is simply no solution for this, because the problem isn't in the tool itself, the problem is in the individual who wields the tool."

And, in fact, the very same deranged individuals who use guns to kill are part of the reason that many "sane" individuals want guns to remain legal. The logic is simple: a madman isn't going to "live and let live" simply because he doesn't own a gun. If he can't find a gun, he'll use a knife. If he can't find a knife, he'll use a rock. Or he'll poison bottles of Tylenol, or lure kids into his basement, or he'll build mail-bombs... or any of a million other ways crazy people inflict harm.

You're not going to stop him by banning guns, because his intention is to hurt or kill others. The tool he uses is secondary to that intention.

But, by banning guns, you will make him harder for other people to stop.

Will gun laws stop someone from killing? Well, we've already got laws against murder... and usually these laws carry the harshest penalties we can imagine. So the answer is: no, gun laws will not stop criminals from killing. Gun laws are completely and utterly pointless as a deterrent to gun crime, we know that with simple logic. Someone who's going to kill someone else is, by definition, NOT CONCERNED WITH THE LAWS. This seems self-explanatory.

However, by passing laws against guns, you do keep the sane people (the law-abiding people) from protecting themselves against the crazies who don't play by the rules anyway.

To boil it all down: Each year, a number of people are beaten to death with hammers. Yet, no one is out parading for a "Hammer-Free America." That's because even people who don't own hammers can see they serve a useful purpose.

People who see the purpose served by guns don't want them banned (and people who see no point in passing laws against guns when we've already got laws against murder don't want guns banned).

People who see no purpose in guns do want them banned.

So... that's where I think the true debate lies: do guns serve a purpose, or not?

Actually I wrote about the 40K deaths per year by cars in the US in a previous reply, but decided to delete it (to stay on topic). Again, and to be even more clear than in my previous posts:

I AM NOT FOR A BAN ON GUNS! (I hate caps locks but it must be made clear, or the discussion keeps on circling back to it, for some weird reason ...., and not move forward...)

Of course guns serve a purpose, I clearly stated that actually already: "everything has a place in society, even guns". That goes without saying for me.

The whole philosophical question is "are we as a society willing to accept the price (of innocent defenseless children being slaughtered to the tune of an entire class room) because of our current gun ownership law(s)?". Because that answer will logically be "no", we thus need to change the law. That is the only logical next step after acknowledging something is wrong. Change can only come from accepting something is wrong. And apparently the current law is dysfunctional. (otherwise we are self-justifying... the biggest and most dangerous mind-trap of all)

Why would we otherwise spent so much time, money, energy, manpower, etc on trying to make our roads and cars safer? Because we have accepted it ain't perfect, but it requires change. Will we ever get 0 deaths per year in traffic? No, of course not. Can we reduce the number of deaths? Yes we can. Hence our constant work on changing the situation (traffic laws, traffic safety, cars etc). So we don't scream for a ban on cars, that's silly and unrealistic, but we as a society do demand less traffic-related deaths and improved traffic safety.

It is therefore logical to conclude that we can also work on improving our gun laws to reduce the number of gun related deaths and to improve gun safety. Or would that be too much to ask??? Improving them so that next time, because there will be a next time (just like there will be a next car accident) we may be able to safe a life. One life saved will already justify all the changes. That would be beautiful.

That's pretty much all I am asking for.

[arnie]

I guess I prefer my what-ifs to be reasonable as no solution to any problem is guaranteed. I have yet to see any of these shooters come from a life where they have close interaction with educated collegues. In addition, I'm sure those close to them in the work environment, especially a school, would notice mentally disturbed behavior.

As for your disarming concern, I think the problem is crazy people bringing there own guns, not going to the target and using the available weapons.

While you say you wouldn't feel safe with your child in this scenario, how many parents in Newtown would agree with you today?

I don't know how many would agree. I am sure neither do you, so why don't you ask them? Maybe their answers will surprise both of us!?

[Pretzel Logic]

Actually I wrote about the 40K deaths per year by cars in the US in a previous reply, but decided to delete it (to stay on topic). Again, and to be even more clear than in my previous posts:

I AM NOT FOR A BAN ON GUNS! (I hate caps locks but it must be made clear, or the discussion keeps on circling back to it, for some weird reason ...., and not move forward...)

Of course guns serve a purpose, I clearly stated that actually already: "everything has a place in society, even guns". That goes without saying for me.

The whole philosophical question is "are we as a society willing to accept the price (of innocent defenseless children being slaughtered to the tune of an entire class room) because of our current gun ownership law(s)?". Because that answer will logically be "no", we thus need to change the law. That is the only logical next step after acknowledging something is wrong. Change can only come from accepting something is wrong. And apparently the current law is dysfunctional. (otherwise we are self-justifying... the biggest and most dangerous mind-trap of all)

Why would we otherwise spent so much time, money, energy, manpower, etc on trying to make our roads and cars safer? Because we have accepted it ain't perfect, but it requires change. Will we ever get 0 deaths per year in traffic? No, of course not. Can we reduce the number of deaths? Yes we can. Hence our constant work on changing the situation (traffic laws, traffic safety, cars etc). So we don't scream for a ban on cars, that's silly and unrealistic, but we as a society do demand less traffic-related deaths and improved traffic safety.

It is therefore logical to conclude that we can also work on improving our gun laws to reduce the number of gun related deaths and to improve gun safety. Or would that be too much to ask??? Improving them so that next time, because there will be a next time (just like there will be a next car accident) we may be able to safe a life. One life saved will already justify all the changes. That would be beautiful.

That's pretty much all I am asking for.

In this case, the first question that we need to answer is: "Can new laws actually make a difference with something that is already being used by a lawless individual for a lawless purpose?"

I don't think they can. I think the only thing laws do is impact law-abiding citizens, and law-abiding citizens aren't the problem to begin with.

Put simply: Guns aren't the problem: murder is the problem.

And we already have laws against murder. So new laws won't make one ounce of difference to the actual problem, which -- put another way -- is immoral people who don't care about laws.

Gun deaths are only a symptom of the root problem (murder), and we can't make a society well by treating the symptoms. Just like taking an aspirin for a brain tumor -- it might make us feel a little better temporarily, but it's not going to cure a damn thing.

And we have precedence for this: virtually every major city that has outlawed guns has seen violent crime rates INCREASE. So we know by experience that the practical result of gun laws shows they do not decrease violent crimes. Laws do keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding populace -- but they do not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Why would "next time be different"? Why aren't we learning from this?

We're not learning from this because it's not an issue most of us approach rationally -- we approach it emotionally, from a heartbroken "senseless tragedy" viewpoint. And I can totally understand that. But if we were approaching it rationally, we would look at the stats and say, "Gun laws don't help, because unfortunately, there's no easy fix for murder."

If we viewed it totally logically, then perhaps we'd even pass laws REQUIRING people to carry personal handguns -- after all, stats indicate that solution would most likely lower violent crime.

And that's the problem with these types of debates -- our heart wants to fix the problem, even when our head tells us we don't have a fix for it. So we grasp blindly at perceived "solutions," in order to make the pain go away... in order to feel like we're doing something proactive to try and fix the problem. That's why I feel it's important to first realize what the problem actually is (murder, not guns). And in those cases, just like trading, I try to take the emotion out of it and do what my head says makes the most sense. And, based on the facts, my head says more gun laws won't help one iota -- and could actually be more harmful and make the root problems worse.

[Wng]

Great discussion. The root of cause is violent and aggressiveness of American culture. Gun does kill, and people do.

[arnie]

In this case, the first question that we need to answer is: "Can new laws actually make a difference with something that is already being used by a lawless individual for a lawless purpose?"

I don't think they can. I think the only thing laws do is impact law-abiding citizens, and law-abiding citizens aren't the problem to begin with.

And with that answer you've limited yourself already... It is actually quite a fatalistic point of view. Now we can argue about the validity of fatalism (or determinism), but that's a whole other discussion.

However, based on a fatalistic point of view (we can't change it), the next question arises: So why ask? It is like standing in front of a closed door, and then asking yourself: "Can I open it?" If you answer "no", then you will NEVER (try to) open that door. Not until you answer "Yes, I can", will you be able (to try) to open that door. Now if that door is locked is something else, but you won't know that until you actually try to open it. Chances are equal -since you don't know- that the doors is not locked and you can step through it. Once you have stepped through it, then you have changed!

This self-justification for actions is a real mind-killer. In my daily life as a semi-pro windsurfer I get into these situations all the time. People ask me how to do, say, a forward looping or a backloop. I explain them, and then they respond "Oh, I can't do that"... WTF over, did they ever try? Why bother asking then. They already limited them self with their thinking that they can't. Once they actually convince them self they can, and all can, then they can try. The forward loop is THE biggest mental blocking move in windsurfing. Each and everybody that has learned them from me, started with "I can't do that". A week later, once they dug deep in their mind and soul, they said they could do it, got over their fears (fears for the unknown) and did them.

Last night, President Obama also echoed my sentiments that as a nation we are not doing enough to keep our children and people safe. He said: "We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change." I couldn't have said it any better, and he exactly hit it to the core of the issue. Given his words, I feel even more confident that I am on the core of the issue. The rest, such as purpose, murder, etc etc are all peripheral issues. Now HOW we will change the law is something else, but we can't get there until we realize we must change.

My 3 rules I proposed fully acknowledge the 2nd amendment; we all have a RIGHT to bear arms. However, my 3 rules acknowledge that not everybody can or should bear arms. Because it is the RIGHT to, it is not an ENTITLEMENT to. Like a driver's license you have to show you are able to safely handle, take care and operate, etc etc a gun. If you can't; you can't have one. Just like a car; if you can't drive one, you can't get a driver's license.

[Mkx41]

Arnie,
I can't disagree with much you wrote above (other than the door metaphor... I don't think the metaphor adequately convey's there might be consequences to trying to open the door). But I think a little doubt and humility is appropriate when philosophizing on such things.

Take this statement:
I have a right to protect myself from those who would do me harm; I have a right to bear _______ to protect me and my family.
Fill in the blank: Pepper spray? Taser? Hunting knife? .22 cal pistol? Desert Eagle? M16? AK47? UZI? Machine gun? Bradley armored vehicle? Tank? B17? Atomic bomb?

What point in the spectrum do you say "yes, as a flesh-and-blood human being, as a law-abiding citizen who hasn't forfeited your rights, you have that right, and nothing can strip you of that right"? And what point do you say "yes, but only if you can prove you can use it safely and keep it safe"? And what point do you say "No. No matter what your credentials, if someone bad got a hold of it, it is just too dangerous"?

You have to remember, a lot of people believe it abstract truths, and those truths don't change (this is fundamentally at odds with progressivism, but that's another subject). The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To a lot of people, those don't change, never, for no reason, no matter what the cost. And to these people (I among them) believe that government intrusion (bans, limitations, etc) into small arms constitutes a risk to those rights. Again, the point is, where do you draw the line? I wouldn't be terribly upset if the government banned so-called assault rifles. I don't think it would do much good, but I don't think a ban on assault rifles constitutes much a risk to my liberty and freedom. I don't think it'd be a bad idea to require gun purchasers to show proof of ownership of a gun safe before purchasing anything bigger than a hand-gun. (It'd be silly to require that for handguns, if it is meant to be available in an emergency). But these items constitute encroachment on our liberty. Of course, we freely give many, many of our liberties to the government as part of the social compact, so being an encroachment on our liberties, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. At what point do you have an acceptable surrender of liberty for the good of society, and what point are your inalienable rights in jeopardy?

Let's say we had a national standard for safety courses for handguns. If you passed a course that met that standard, and you aren't a criminal, and you don't have a history of mental problems, you can buy a hand gun. Sounds reasonable, right?

Let's say we had a national civics and literacy test. If you passed this test, and you aren't a criminal, and you are older than 18, you can vote...

[Pretzel Logic]

Decided this topic was a bit too politically-charged for the market section, and figured I'd head this off before it turned into a big debate there...

Disagree with you entirely. The real problem in the Lanza family was the lack of mental health facilities available to parents of children with personality disorders. In fact, there are none. Lanza's mother was left on her own to deal with a son who had severe mental/emotional problems.
As long as we are adhering to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I will advocate for the right to own guns.

Given how the reply boxes work, your response made it appear that you vehemently disagreed with my decision to move this topic to its own thread.

[Pretzel Logic]

And with that answer you've limited yourself already... It is actually quite a fatalistic point of view. Now we can argue about the validity of fatalism (or determinism), but that's a whole other discussion.

However, based on a fatalistic point of view (we can't change it), the next question arises: So why ask? It is like standing in front of a closed door, and then asking yourself: "Can I open it?" If you answer "no", then you will NEVER (try to) open that door. Not until you answer "Yes, I can", will you be able (to try) to open that door. Now if that door is locked is something else, but you won't know that until you actually try to open it. Chances are equal -since you don't know- that the doors is not locked and you can step through it. Once you have stepped through it, then you have changed!

This self-justification for actions is a real mind-killer. In my daily life as a semi-pro windsurfer I get into these situations all the time. People ask me how to do, say, a forward looping or a backloop. I explain them, and then they respond "Oh, I can't do that"... WTF over, did they ever try? Why bother asking then. They already limited them self with their thinking that they can't. Once they actually convince them self they can, and all can, then they can try. The forward loop is THE biggest mental blocking move in windsurfing. Each and everybody that has learned them from me, started with "I can't do that". A week later, once they dug deep in their mind and soul, they said they could do it, got over their fears (fears for the unknown) and did them.

Last night, President Obama also echoed my sentiments that as a nation we are not doing enough to keep our children and people safe. He said: "We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change." I couldn't have said it any better, and he exactly hit it to the core of the issue. Given his words, I feel even more confident that I am on the core of the issue. The rest, such as purpose, murder, etc etc are all peripheral issues. Now HOW we will change the law is something else, but we can't get there until we realize we must change.

My 3 rules I proposed fully acknowledge the 2nd amendment; we all have a RIGHT to bear arms. However, my 3 rules acknowledge that not everybody can or should bear arms. Because it is the RIGHT to, it is not an ENTITLEMENT to. Like a driver's license you have to show you are able to safely handle, take care and operate, etc etc a gun. If you can't; you can't have one. Just like a car; if you can't drive one, you can't get a driver's license.

Let's run with your driver's license example, because it's perfect. Imagine that, instead of guns, the problem was that murderous people were running over pedestrians. The President gets on TV and says, "These tragedies must end! We need stricter laws limiting driver's licenses!" And the emotional public says, "Yeah! Background checks for all applicants; let's raise driver's license fees; let's make people go through a waiting period before they can get their license..." etc.

The problem is: none of this helps one iota with the real problem, because people without driver's licenses can still drive. They just can't do so legally. Now, we already HAVE laws against running people over. Will stricter laws on driver's licenses help stop people who want to run someone over??? Not one bit. They'll just get in a car and do it anyway because they don't give a shee-it! about having the "required" license.

Note I am not saying that "nothing can be done about anything, ever." Not in the slightest. I'm saying I can use my brain to extrapolate the future based on the facts of the present. That's not fatalism; that's acknowledgement of reality -- and that's where any true solution needs to start. It's also where we can realize that, unfortunately, there is sometimes no solution to a particular problem.

Again, this stuff is not without precedent.

To go a step further, let's look at how well "laws work" to keep things out of the hands of criminals. Let's start with drugs: do criminals have any difficulty obtaining them? Nope. Even most schoolchildren know how/where to obtain drugs. So, we already know just how effective our laws that ban things are: not very! And that's despite the fact that, each year, the War on Drugs costs us $47.7 gazillion-jillion dollars (I'm too lazy to look up the actual number, but I bet it's high enough (no pun intended) to make my point).

So, guns will be different? Why? How? What will make this effort to ban/limit guns different than all previous attempts to ban/limit anything else? Why will it "be different this next time"?

And there's another problem, and that problem is NOT hypothetical.

To illustrate, let's go back to the drug comparison and draw an analogy: imagine that three cities passed a law which intended to limit drug use, but studies later showed that some unintended consequence of this law actually caused drug use to INCREASE. Would we not call the law a failure and reverse it? Or would we say, "Hey, great law! Let's do that same type of thing everywhere!"

That thinking applies to guns: Most cities that have banned guns have seen an increase in violent crime rates. So, no guesswork needed: clearly, laws "intended" to limit gun crime simply don't have the intended effect; in fact they make the problem worse. I think that means trying to pass those same types of laws on an even bigger, national level, is a huge mistake.

If something has been tried and doesn't work, then the concept is broken. That's not fatalism, that's common sense. I don't subscribe to the type of thinking that says, "this next time will be different!"

Couple that with the fact that I have a philosophical issue with banning (or trying to strictly limit) guns, and I think the right move is to err on the side of caution and leave things be -- not push blindly ahead with false, feel-good solutions; especially when logic and experience both tell us those "solutions" will fail.

As the old saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[Mkx41]

Just had some thoughts on this...

In the 2008 supreme court ruling it was held that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right, i.e. not that states could arm militias, but free men could arm themselves. Now, unless you're a lawyer trying to convince a judge, it's a pitifully weak argument to suggest that we should have the right to weapons just because the constitution says so. That's, in effect, saying "Some dead guy with influence said we could, and that's good enough for me!"

So the question is, why did those dead men write that, were they right, and are there any new arguments to be had on the subject. As I have heard so pithily noted, they didn't write the 2nd amendment to protect quail hunters. I just finished reading Federalist 29. Mind you, this predates the bill of rights, but I think it provides important insight. In it another dead guy argued that standing armies are a threat to liberty, and therefore the primary means of defense should be the militia. (He was defending the power of the federal government to call up the militia). This also explains why, under the Powers of Congress, they can "provide and maintain" a navy, but "raise and support armies". And note funds for the army can't be appropriated for more than two years (the very easy work-around is to simply refund every two years...). The point of arming the people wasn't (OK, I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I beg forgiveness if this isn't strictly true) so they could defend themselves against the government per se, but so there would be no legitimate reason for a standing army, and therefore the people would both be protected from their government (who, without an army, hadn't the means for oppression) and from invasions. Makes a lot of sense to me.

But we have a standing army, so does the argument still hold? I suppose you could argue that the whole pretense for an armed society is gone, so we should just be rid of the second amendment. I suppose you could argue that, since we do have the standing army, the threat to our liberty, we need arms more than ever.

Personally I favor the latter argument. Christ, just look at a picture of Governor Cuomo. 95% certain that guy is with the mafia. Look at his haircut, all the evidence you need. How much safer is NYC for the mafia, who don't have any trouble getting illegal weapons, with all the citizens disarmed? Hard to beat a man, who owes you money, in front of his family when his wife can pull a 12 gauge out from under the sink.

That being said, if you believe in natural rights, we all surrender liberties to the government for the general welfare of society. Might the right to bear not also be surrendered to prevent mass murders? I say, if you're going to take away my liberty, two things: 1) repeal the second amendment; don't debase the constitution, and 2) Make sure it's really the only way. I think there are things we can do to curtail school shootings that don't involve restrictions on liberties. I favor training and arming administrators, some people favor armed guards.

[Forgiven]

More thoughts.....

Just because we have a standing army now is no guarantee we will always have one. I hate to think we would come to a time without an army. So we should not give up the right to be able to defend ourselves.

Having to show the safe use of a firearm in order to own one....as in the use of vehicles, I can own a vehicle and not have a drivers licence. I would be able to start with a learners permit to drive. Does not prevent me from owning a vehicle that I am aware of.

We make driving safer by adding safety devices to vehicles, protective equipment to wear, better signs on roadways, fresh paint and fill potholes or other maintenance on roadways, adding traffic signals, stop signs, crosswalks. The laws in place are to penalize the violators, not the ones who obey the laws. Enough violations or serious offences puts your use at risk.

I do not own any firearms nor have I ever owned them. I do like the fact that if I choose to protect myself, that right is there. I also like the fact that I am not limited to only one. I may need a 30 round clip to defend against the criminal who is coming at me who does not give a sheet as PL mentioned. Another for various types of hunting as was mentioned. Different firearms have their purpose. I get to own as many vehicles as I want.

It is tragic with all the gun violence in the news the last 20 years or so. I suppose we should put an end to the military.....look at all the innocent people are killed in the name of peace and freedom. All the wistle blowers coming out to let us know what is really going on with our military and government. I dont think we need to dismantle our military as we dont need to disarm.

If more people were concealed permit holders, maybe we could stop more of these criminals. Seems the only ones who have lost the right to bear arms on the campus are the ones who obey the laws, criminals get to take arms anywhere they choose. Seems to me we need to open that door to the those who obey the law and properly permitted to carry for those who wish to. Law breakers will continue to take arms where ever they want, even if we stop making firearms to try to control the use, they will still get them underground and use them where ever. Now I prolly opened up a big can of worms by saying to allow guns on campus but how else do you argue that guns are coming illegally and how do you protect and defend it there is no protection onsite when the enemy shows up? If we are to not allow firearms on campus, then what can we do to prevent them from showing up? Big metal detectors at the campus entrance that when triggered close and lock the gate from further intrusion? I believe that a criminal will use any means necessary to carry out their crime. If they cant get a firearm because of metal detectors, then molotov cocktail or something that wont set off the detector. I dont think that limiting guns are the answer.

[Will]

Closing this thread for the time being. Join the political debate at the following active thread:

http://www.deepwaveanalytics.com/forums/...p?tid=2020