Ban hands and feet

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I have to ask do you post things because you are trying to get a rise out of folks or do you really think in your mind what you say has any relevancy to the topic at hand? Even the people that are very pro gun agree with what I said, arming everyone isn't the answer. To lessen gun crime, you need to get to the root of the problem. For the hoods, clean them up, get the kids off the streets and back in school and church. It starts at home with parents and ends with the teachers, pastors, community folks. If you instill discipline and respect in people, chances are they will go further. For the suburbs, be a parent, not a best friend. Listen to those kids who have issues, pay attention to them and find out what they are doing and who they are hanging out with. And if you must have an arsenal in your house, for God's sake lock up those guns and make sure someone can't get his hands on them. Or stop bragging to complete strangers that you have guns, find something else to talk about. Shouldn't be too hard for you to do.

For once I give you a big amen....... You got it. The problem is not the tool it's the the decay in society of the user.

[himher 634]

You dodged the question sport. It is our position that everywhere you go there will be bad people who prey on good people and that those bad people have to be contained by force and that force is executed by good people. You have confirmed this many, many times in your endless and tiresome discussions about why good people should be targeted for what bad people do.

The question at hand is to identify a place, anytime, anywhere where security is not bought and purchased from through force (in recent times the barrel of a gun) and from the blood of those who held it.

Still waiting too. What's up? Thinking it over? Crafting an answer? Because if you don't have one then the NRA is correct. If you do have one it's time to start talking about it.

What example do you need? There are over 30,000 of them every year. 30,000 people die by firearm every year in this country. Safety by the barrel of a gun didn't work so well for them, did it? Many of them would be alive today if it weren't for a firearm. Firearms are made to produce death. And that is exactly what they do.

No, they lived in different times.

Edited December 29, 2012 by himher

[himher 634]

People who don't realize that they pay other people to carry a gun to protect them and their property then say the solution to security is fewer guns amuse me greatly

Your exactly right. Anyone arguing that it is important to have 10 round mags and not 30 is a weapons grade idiot. That does not understand how little difference that makes in most situations. Also it is soooooo easy to fabricate magazines. Once again it's an issue designed to excite people that know nothing about tactics or guns. If we want a gun ban then go after it. Stop pretending, by doing stupid stuff like calling for 10 round limits on magazine.

If that is your big issue you are either ignorant about weapons, dumb as a brick, or both.

Edited December 29, 2012 by himher

[james&olya 1,121]

LOL You folks are off the chain. So you think a non trained teacher could lunge at a young man with 3 weapons who is taking 2-3 seconds to reload and they might have a chance . You do know at some point he will have to reload a 30 round mag also. That is just insane.. That would not slow him down at all. Once again the ramblings of someone who does not understand tactics or weapons, but is running on emotion. .

Some of you with training and experience chime in on this idiotic statement please.

Tell you what would have "possibly" made a difference. Maybe that principal had some training and was packing a small frame glock and knew how to use it.

Let me tell you what would have "definitely" made a difference. If this deranged beneficiary of all you gun nuts constantly fighting for the privilege of few if any restrictions on availability of guns including the most easily lethal ones for mass shootings instead lived in a more sane society that did not allow the proliferation of these agents of mass death! Your 'solution' is just the insanity of adding even more guns!

[himher 634]

I would rather think it is your agents who have so much concern for the treatment of criminals and nuts and their rights to privacy and privileges that you would prefer that they freely walk the streets unsupervised than deal with them the way that countries with low crime rates deal with them.

I know that disturbed nutjob kids, thieves, felons, rapists, muggers, and murderers can do a lot less damage locked up or dead than they can do freely walking the streets leaving the 45 million households that legally own guns alone to freely exercise their right to do so

That's just me of course

Let me tell you what would have "definitely" made a difference. If this deranged beneficiary of all you gun nuts constantly fighting for the privilege of few if any restrictions on availability of guns including the most easily lethal ones for mass shootings instead lived in a more sane society that did not allow the proliferation of these agents of mass death! Your 'solution' is just the insanity of adding even more guns!

Edited December 29, 2012 by himher

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Move Mattapan Chelsea and Brockton to Vermont and see what happens to the crime rate. Put 2 million people in Montpelier with the same mix of people/minorities etc that other areas have and see what happens. I bet the crime rate will skyrocket. And why does Alaska have a higher per capita homicide rate than MA? Lots of guns there. And actually the murder rate went up in Vermont by over 14% due to one additional murder from 2010 to 2011. I'm not knocking Vermont or Gary, but it's not quite the same. If there were no guns in Vermont it would still be a safe place to live. An occasional psycho can appear just about anywhere.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Let me tell you what would have "definitely" made a difference. If this deranged beneficiary of all you gun nuts constantly fighting for the privilege of few if any restrictions on availability of guns including the most easily lethal ones for mass shootings instead lived in a more sane society that did not allow the proliferation of these agents of mass death! Your 'solution' is just the insanity of adding even more guns!

So tell us your wanting to stop murder by Gun but you are wanting to do it by attacking guns that arguably produce less victims of gun death than any other kind of gun including knives. 500 people were killed in Chicago this year alone, most of them with handguns. So tell me again why we are pushing for a ban on the gun that cause the least problem and carnage in this country.

So what do you propose ?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What's this gimme attitude? Can you try and be a little self sufficient from time to time? I gave you the link to the data. Everyone can click the link and see the data.

Computer literacy is not a high priority in Vermont.

[james&olya 1,121]

The lives are sacrificed because of people that refuse to do what is needed. People that use such tradegy as a means to a political agenda.

Agreed

People for whom the answer is a ban on the future manufacture of cosmetic add ons to firearms. BAN FLASHIDERS! BAN BAYONET LUGS!, BAN LASER SIGHTS...anything else? BAN HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES! Make him change mags every 10 shots! BAN PISTOL GRIPS ON RIFLES! BAN ACCESSORY RAILS...god forbid someone attaches a FLASHLIGHT to the rifle! How many of these children were killed by a bayonet? Yet THAT is what you propose to ban? The attachment point for a bayonet? Seriously James, you are far beyond this right? I expect such nonsense from some others, but YOU? I am a bit shocked.

The only thing in your list I have a problem with are the high capacity magazines. What needs to be added is semi-auto firing! As to cosmetics my kids love their air-soft guns that look very real. They shoot plastic BB's

You know that a police officer in every school would end this nonsense, police officers ALWAYS end this nonsense, so why should our children have to wait for them to arrive? Would it be better than banning carrying handles on rifles? More effective maybe? Didn't work at Columbine or Virg Tech. It may help but it is far from a complete answer

Would it be worth it? One lawyer has sued for $100 million already in the most recent case. How many police officers can you pay for with that? If our government could bring back those children for $100 million, would they? For $1 billion? For $10 billion? I would. I would volutarily pay an increased tax to prevent that from happening again. Would you?

YES

Works in the United States of America except where there are "gun free zones"

[james&olya 1,121]

So your advocating banning handguns also.. Is that what you are saying ?

Is that what I should be saying? Since you have suggested it maybe it is worth talking about!

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

People who don't realize that they pay other people to carry a gun to protect them and their property then say the solution to security is fewer guns amuse me greatly

Right. School shooting = CALL POLICE!

Police in schools = GUN NUTS!

Is that what I should be saying? Since you have suggested it maybe it is worth talking about!

Sure James. Congress will be all over that!

[james&olya 1,121]

How am I wrong. For that matter I am still not wrong. And you know it, James. Maybe no one else here grasps it, but I am sure you do.

The political makeup of this session of congress will not provide for the passage of federal firearms laws. Obama gave Biden something to keep him busy at the children's table while the adults that can speak English without babbling can address other things.

Any such proposals are DOA in congress. The Dems need to get control of both houses AND the Presidency in order to do this and THEN they will lose it (like they did in 1994) That is not possible before 2014. Actually 2015, and then they would have to willingly risk losing both AND the Presidency in 2016.

This IS politics James, and you ARE expecting politicians that have to stand for election every two years to do this for you. It cannot possibly occur before the Congressional session beginning in 2017.

We COULD however, have police officers in our schools before then.

But you were completely wrong about whether Obama had spoken out after all the shootings you mentioned. Did it get the media attention that Sandy Hook did? No, but that is not under his control. Do I wish he would lead more aggressively on this? Yes!!!

The rest of this post I agree with you on but just because it may fail to win approval this time does not mean that bringing it up for a vote is wasted. Make it a big issue, a VERY big issue and hold the congress-critters that vote against gun control measures to account for their votes when they are up for re-election. This issue is a sleeping giant politically and I think that giant is awakening! More than anything else this congress that is bought and paid for by the highest bidders believes in is doing whatever it takes to stay in office. Once they discover that a very significant majority of voters want action on these issues the tide will swing and swing quickly!

[james&olya 1,121]

I would rather think it is your agents who have so much concern for the treatment of criminals and nuts and their rights to privacy and privileges that you would prefer that they freely walk the streets unsupervised than deal with them the way that countries with low crime rates deal with them.

I know that disturbed nutjob kids, thieves, felons, rapists, muggers, and murderers can do a lot less damage locked up or dead than they can do freely walking the streets leaving the 45 million households that legally own guns alone to freely exercise their right to do so

That's just me of course

We already incarcerate a far higher percentage of our population in prison than any other advanced democracy. Some have suggested that prisons are basically graduate school for thugs. Maybe we need some other solution!

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

When I lived in Fairbanks I bought one similar to that to carry when we were hiking or picking berries. There you may need some firepower to discourage some really bad actors that might weigh up to half a ton of meanness. The 4-legged grizzly kind. Never had to use it but I was prepared. I left it with my brother up there when I moved back to the lower 48.

Pun intended?

That's what I got mine for. Fishing, camping, picking berries, etc... (bear). Back when I got it (late 80's) we would shoot road signs on our way to wherever we were heading to go fishing and I would shoot that sucker one handed like a pistol while driving 75 mph. 3" mag. slugs of course, no shot for bear. One hand on the sterring wheel, and my beer between my legs.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I see, it's not comprehension that's lacking, it's endurance or some sort of an attention deficit issue. Anything that's past the first sentence or two doesn't make it through to you. Let me try and highlight it for you. Maybe you'll manage to take it then. Let me know if that works, too, so I can make sure to highlight the relevant passages for you going forward.

Mr. Big Dog--Why are you all hung up on that assault weapons ban discussion? That's the least of the worries. Preventing access to firearms - all firearms - to people who should not have such access is what the issue is. THAT is what needs to happen. Assault weapons should not be in civilian hands - that is common sense. We know that gun nuts lack common sense so naturally they will not ever be able to grasp the obvious. It's not the big issue but those should come off the streets all the same.

Clear now?

It was clear from the first time you changed you position from it being the issue to not being the issue. I think you finally saw how absurd it was.

So what is the issue . What do you want banned and how ??

This is getting a bit tiring. Can't you consume more than two or three words at a time? The issue now highlighted for you. It's in the same response that you have looked at a half a dozen times now.

Mr. Big Dog--Why are you all hung up on that assault weapons ban discussion? That's the least of the worries. Preventing access to firearms - all firearms - to people who should not have such access is what the issue is. THAT is what needs to happen. Assault weapons should not be in civilian hands - that is common sense. We know that gun nuts lack common sense so naturally they will not ever be able to grasp the obvious. It's not the big issue but those should come off the streets all the same.

See that? That's not a ban but measures of sanity and responsibility. In addition to that, I maintain that assault weapons in civilian hands serve no valid purpose while they are fairly consistently the very weapons used in these horrific massacres. They do zero good and plenty of damage. Hence, they should be banned. There isn't a single valid reason that has been offered in support of keeping assault weapons available to the civilian public.

So, as you can see, I have not changed my position. There's also nothing absurd about banning certain types of weapons from civilian use. We do that already. Lots of weapons are banned for civilian use and reserved for military or police use only. Assault weapons ought to be added to that group of weapons that should not be available to civilians.