Gun Control

[bigdaddybus]

I did weapons buyback programs for the US military in Haiti in 1994-95. I cant even imagine doing that in the US.

We paid so much for weapons (pricing was tiered by caliber, and fully auto or not, plus grenades, plastic explosives, mortars, and rockets were bought back as well)
I could easily see people here taking up breaking and entering just to steal guns to sell at the govt buybacks prices.

[Singuy]

Hmmmm... ask the Russians and the U.S. how well our massive technology worked in Afghanistan. They can't kill us all. That's why no one will ever invade China.

When you are following rules of engagements..it's pretty difficult to invade any country. If you vow to kill every citizen in the U.S (or in the world)...launch all the nukes and sit back and eat some popcorn.

The guns you own is a false sense of security if one day you think you can take on the U.S military. The U.S military can F up the entire world if no one cares about collateral damage.

[bigdaddybus]

You've never been to Afghanistan.

True, the US is gaining multi generational hate for the US and nothing more in Afganistan right now.

[corn18]

When you are following rules of engagements..it's pretty difficult to invade any country. If you vow to kill every citizen in the U.S (or in the world)...launch all the nukes and sit back and eat some popcorn.

The guns you own is a false sense of security if one day you think you can take on the U.S military. The U.S military can F up the entire world if no one cares about collateral damage.

Hmmmm, do you think the people that operate those weapons will remain loyal to a tyrannical gov't? I wouldn't.

[Singuy]

Hmmmm, do you think the people that operate those weapons will remain loyal to a tyrannical gov't? I wouldn't.

Exactly...so it's not guns that stops the tyranny, it's the people. As long as the people, the government, and the military are all trying to work for a better tomorrow, guns are not needed to prevent a government take over.

[james.hendrickson]

Singuy,

If I understand your argument correctly, what you are saying is that, in effect, state militaries have overwhelming ability to apply force, therefore an armed citizenry will be unable to control political power, so it doesn't matter if Joe and Jane average are allowed to have weapons.

So, here is my take/truth on this subject. Before getting into internet publishing, I spent a year in Afghanistan in 2013 as a data analyst/data manager. I rode a desk in Kabul and provided statistics on culture, sociology and demography for the U.S. Military.

I witnessed and heard things so violent and so extreme that they would sear your brain like a piece of raw meat. Massacres, torture, kidnapping, insurgent activity were a commonplace experience when I was there. Most Americans have no knowledge of this and have no basis for understanding and comprehending it.

If you believe that an insurgency in the US isn't possible or you believe that a motivated population capable of bearing arms can't contest state military power, then you need to take a long, long, hard look at your assumptions.

The insurgency in Afghanistan has resisted efforts by the cream of our military to put it down. The best units we have - the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division, First Marine Division, Special Forces - West Point grads, the smartest, fittest, best equipped units - have been knocking on the Taliban for a decade. The Taliban and their ilk are still around.

So, yes, the right to bear arms allows you to contest political power.

[Fishindude77]

I live rural, have lots of guns of all types and lots of ammo, some for hunting, some for recreational shooting, and some just because. I'll bet there is one or more guns in nearly every neighbors house around the area. No crimes are committed with them, nobody has been hurt with them, and a possible side benefit is that we don't see many crimes, theft or break ins.

Any gun you buy from a dealer requires a federal background check, and I had to get fingerprinted and approved by law enforcement to get a conceal carry license, and more of the same to purchase a silencer.

Here's the thing ..... the people committing crimes and causing all of the problems don't follow laws. The weapons they use are often stolen or purchased via some shady scam. Chicago and DC have some of the toughest gun laws around yet they have ridiculous numbers of shootings. All more laws and restrictions will do is make it tougher on those of us who don't cause problems.

Get tough on the bad guys and nuts and keep them locked up. Let our cops do their jobs and don't throw them under the bus every time some thug that needs to be shot gets shot.

Regarding these cases where young kids have shot up schools, etc., these are mental health issues and parenting problems. I'll bet in nearly all cases, the parent(s) and family knew these kids were unstable, yet still allowed them access to guns. I don't know the answer to this, but much of it is the result of kids being raised with little or no parental oversight.

[kork13]

I'm in the military, and probably have more familiarity with guns than most... I don't own a personal firearm, though I've been taught to shoot since I was a teenager, all of which likely colors my opinions. But personally, I have no qualms at all with concealed carry in almost any circumstance, with minor exceptions (bars/night clubs most especially -- guns & alcohol can never mix). I'd be happy to see nationwide concealed carry permitting, which should also be paired with mandatory, periodic firearms handling and safety training.

Open carry seems needless though, because like it or not, weapons are seen as intimidating. You can protect yourself just fine while not advertising the fact that you're armed. Besides, openly carrying only makes you the first target, and you give up any surprise you might have in appearing unarmed, then suddenly you're the one securing a bad situation.

Gun free zones like schools seem reckless, because signs and laws will never keep a criminal or lunatic from causing harm. I hate to say it so bluntly & callously, but schools are often the targets of mass killings because they are a victim-rich environment with very few active safeguards. Nationwide police response times average ~8min to arrive on scene, let alone securing a situation. How much damage can be done in that much time? No, I would prefer to have teachers trained & certified to be armed, and have classroom access to a firearm (such as in a desk or closet safe). That way they would have the ability to barricade themselves into a classroom and, if necessary, protect the lives of their students.

Background checks most certainly need to be strengthened, and also simplified. Make available a central database for these checks that quickly and securely give retailers a simple "yes or no", with a transparent means to appeal a "no" determination. But as I said earlier, criminals (by definition) will not follow the law. Laws can make gun access tougher, but they can never stop a determined individual.

Bottom line: I see firearm training & access as our best defense against violent crime, especially the terrorism and active shooter/attacker threats that are sadly on the rise. Reasonable restrictions need to be in place, but I believe that an armed populace can keep itself more safe than one which fears and shuns gun ownership.

[Singuy]

Singuy,

If I understand you argument correctly, what you are saying is that, in effect, state militaries have overwhelming ability to apply force, therefore an armed citizenry will be unable to control political power, so it doesn't matter if Joe and Jane average are allowed to have weapons.

So, here is my take/truth on this subject. Before getting into internet publishing, I spent a year in Afghanistan in 2013 as a data analyst/data manager. I rode a desk in Kabul and provided statistics on culture, sociology and demography for the U.S. Military.

I witnessed and heard things so violent and so extreme that they would sear your brain like a piece of raw meat. Massacres, torture, kidnapping, insurgent activity were a commonplace experience when I was there. Most Americans have no knowledge of this and have no basis for understanding and comprehending it.

If you believe that an insurgency in the US isn't possible or you believe that a motivated population capable of bearing arms can't contest state military power, then you need to take a long, long, hard look at your assumptions.

The insurgency in Afghanistan has resisted efforts by the cream of our military to put it down. The best units we have - the 82nd Airborne Division, the 101st Airborne Division, First Marine Division, Special Forces - West Point grads, the smartest, fittest, best equipped units - have been knocking on the Taliban for a decade. The Taliban and their ilk are still around.

So, yes, the right to bear arms allows you to contest political power.

I believe you are comparing apples to oranges.
The best units are there to take out specific targets only. If the US government were exterminate all its citizens..why would anyone need special forces? Carpet bomb the city and call it a day.

[james.hendrickson]

Singuy - whats your point man?

[cooliemae]

Gun free zones like schools seem reckless, because signs and laws will never keep a criminal or lunatic from causing harm. I hate to say it so bluntly & callously, but schools are often the targets of mass killings because they are a victim-rich environment with very few active safeguards. Nationwide police response times average ~8min to arrive on scene, let alone securing a situation. How much damage can be done in that much time? No, I would prefer to have teachers trained & certified to be armed, and have classroom access to a firearm (such as in a desk or closet safe). That way they would have the ability to barricade themselves into a classroom and, if necessary, protect the lives of their students.

Bottom line: I see firearm training & access as our best defense against violent crime, especially the terrorism and active shooter/attacker threats that are sadly on the rise. Reasonable restrictions need to be in place, but I believe that an armed populace can keep itself more safe than one which fears and shuns gun ownership.

I hear what you're saying here and mostly agree, however the school part is somewhere I have to diverge. I do believe that schools should have resource officers assigned to them in order to help prevent/response incidents at schools. However, I think that putting weapons in teachers hands takes away from their main focus and in the heat of the moment even seasoned police officers who are required to practice their shooting have problems. The Empire State Building Shooting that happened in 2012 is a good example. Wikipedia Entry
So 9 bystanders were injured by police shots and not the actual gunman. Most people will never have to make a choice whether to shoot another person in the heat of the moment, yet even those that are continually trained to do so can have a hard time accomplishing the feat.

The other side is the introduction of guns into an environment such as an elementary school where one careless mistake by a teacher can have devastating consequences.

I do agree that training is paramount and I find it funny when we require training and when we don't. As a CDL holder, I have to get a physical every 2 years to ensure that I'm capable of handing a large vehicle and have a driving test to begin with. Yet, if I want to buy an AR-15 with multiple extended clips I just have to pass a background check and no one cares if I can shoot it or not.

[creditcardfree]

CCF, why is it a tough issue to allow guns on school? You sound less gun control but should there be areas it's banned? Schools? Hospitals? Churches?

It's tough because children are involved. Children shouldn't be able to access guns, if you own one it should be in a locked safe and at the right age children should be trained in gun safety. However, no guns in schools makes them a target...no one with a gun on site to fight back. I'd actually feel better if some staff members had them.

I don't think guns are are biggest problem. I think mental health care is. I'm for the least restrictions to my freedom as possible. And honestly, two years ago I would have been for many restrictions, but my eyes have been opened wide to the limits on our rights in this country and it's in our food supply, our medical system and schools.

Yes, there are probably some places that guns should be banned. Airports seem like a good one, but notice they are heavily manned with security personnel. They are public interstate infrastructure. Hospitals and churches are much more local and that should be determined locally not federally.

No policeman can protect you from a direct assault on your home and person until after you call to report it, by then it is usually too late. Although, most people probably aren't a good aim, but the threat is there.

FWIW, we are not gun owners. I personally don't feel threatened or need one. But I absolutely want the right to own and carry one if I change my mind.

[kork13]

However, I think that putting weapons in teachers hands takes away from their main focus and in the heat of the moment even seasoned police officers who are required to practice their shooting have problems. ...... Most people will never have to make a choice whether to shoot another person in the heat of the moment, yet even those that are continually trained to do so can have a hard time accomplishing the feat.

The other side is the introduction of guns into an environment such as an elementary school where one careless mistake by a teacher can have devastating consequences.

The way I see it, most teachers in active shooter situations want to protect & defend their students anyway, such as the Sandy Hook teachers found lying atop their students, or hiding kids in cabinets. May as well give them the actual capability to do so. It is extremely easy to cover a single barricaded door against an intruder, and it only takes one person with a decent shot to end the situation. Nearly anyone can hit a human sized figure at a range inside of 10 meters, almost without even aiming.

And I wasn't clear about this originally, but I would only want to make it an option to teachers with the desire to be armed... I would never force a weapon into the hands of someone unwilling to use or possess it.

As for the risk of teachers accidentally injuring a student or another faculty member... I honestly see that slight possibility as an acceptable risk. The accidental death of one person is justifiable, if it means stopping someone intent on killing as many people as quickly as possible.

I just see these mass killing scenarios as so tragic, especially knowing that they can be mitigated by having even just a few armed, trained individuals in any given building or office space or whatever... Another fact I learned only just today (I happened to be doing a training course today on this very topic) -- in a vast majority of cases, when faced by armed resistance (police, armed citizen, whoever), active shooters will either: A) commit suicide; B) run & try to target a different area; or C) get tunnelized focus on the one individual, allowing others the opportunity to run, and eating up the precious time until the cavalry arrives.

ETA: I completely agree with CCF -- mental health care in our nation is horrifically lacking. IMO, this is largely caused by the stigma associated with seeking care (having both witnessed and experienced it myself). Until out society realizes and accepts that getting help is actually desirable and not shameful, we will be a nation plagued by our psychological frailties.

[bigdaddybus]

well said Kork!

I just don't understand the liberal mind when it comes to gun control. When I see a no gun sign on a daycare, school, grocery store, etc.... I don't think "Wow, I'm safe now." I see a potential target of opportunity for someone looking to do damage.

As previously stated in this thread, Chicago has tough gun laws and is setting a new record for firearm deaths RIGHT NOW! 657 shot and killed YTD.

Do people seriously think the murders in Chicago would go up if law abiding were trained and carrying firearms? I imagine that might be the case for the first few months, but after that thugs would figure out pretty quick that there aren't as many soft targets as there used to be.

[rennigade]

This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.