Well Leon, I'm a liberal and I fully support the right of responsible Americans to own guns. I have absolutely no issue with it.

But it angers me to no end that the Parkland shooter (I can't even remember his name) can walk into a gun store and buy an AR-15 the same way I can buy a quart of milk. Why isn't there a system in place that can prevent an unhinged lunatic from so easily buying one?

Are you saying that Justice Stephens didn't say that just because of the news source?

Would it give you a nice warm, fuzzy feeling inside if it came from MSNBC?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...ndments-repeal

Barry,

Hyperbole, because he couldn't and didn't. Although there could be a more effective process.

As far as discussing solutions, two of the biggest deterrents would be not declaring schools as gun-free zones and not providing 24/7 coverage to these events.

Some of the biggest obstacles I've noticed in the debate between sides is this POV from the gun rights advocates that if you use a term they don't agree with or think is technically wrong in some minute aspect re: firearms there is this tendency to then dismiss anything else that is said.

Some of the biggest obstacles I've noticed in the debate between sides is this POV from the gun control advocates that if you use Fox News as a source of information there is this tendency to then dismiss anything else that is said.

So are you saying that term definitions and technical accuracy are not relevant for a discussion on laws? That seems odd to me. Just curious for an example of "a term they don't agree with"?

Assault Rifle for example. The term seems to matter to gun advocates but in my opinion its semantics. I think people are really saying they have an issue with a type of weapon, let's say AR-15 since it has a history of being used in these types of situations, and it doesn't truly matter if Assault Rifle is the definitive term. They're saying they see a pattern of abuse of a certain weapon, that is the true point. But that is sometimes lost in an endless loop of definition.

Well, it's very important if the facts either don't support the claim or your intention for banning/restriction is unclear. So let's use your definition for sake of argument. Assault Rifle = AR-15. Why do you or others want assault rifles (AR-15s) banned (or restricted)? Is it because of the amount of damage they can do based on the magazine capacity? That would be my guess, but facts and technical details don't back up the claim.

"One of the Columbine shooters used 10-round magazines, and the Virginia Tech shooter used mostly 10-round magazines. The shooter from the recent Florida school shooting, although he had an AR-15-style rifle, used 10-round magazines to commit the crime. And Maryland, where the most recent school shooting occurred, already has laws banning the purchase of “high-capacity” magazines." - http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/21/...trol-debunked/

Many other weapons have this capacity (or more) including handguns. If your real reason for wanted these types of weapons banned (or restricted) is something other than capacity, then please correct me.

Hopefully with the above you can understand it's not just semantics.

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

Most handguns are semi-automatic. A lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do you even understand the difference in the action of a gun - automatic, semi-automatic, pump, lever action, bolt action, etc.?

So you want to ban handguns and hunting rifles?

That's not totally true though. In some states handguns are met with stricter restrictions than rifles. In Colorado for example, you need to have a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun but you don't need one for a long gun. You could conceal your rifle lawfully but not your glock.

And what's even more rare? That these people tend to carry out these type of shootings in zones that aren't "gun free" zones. So banning all "assault rifles", what's next in the gun free zones? I mean, since most shootings occur with handguns. Care to venture a guess?

The conversation likely devolves because "people" are reacting more with 'feelz' rather than facts and logic. I'm not imply you are, and I appreciate the discussion.

And I'm not proposing the silly argument that handguns kill more people so mass shootings aren't 'important' (bad choice of words, but at times seems suggestive on the gun rights side). Both are a problem, but the solution isn't further restriction.

I didn't say anything about handguns and hunting rifles have not been semi-automatic since their inception so I see no logical reason why you couldn't hunt with one that wasn't semi-automatic.

I live in NC now, but yelled out Holy Sh*t so loud the other day when I saw something on the news, that my wife thought something happened to me. I am now the proud alumni of the school district in PA that wants to put buckets of rocks in the schools to throw at someone with a gun. I hope they decide to issue fake beards so that the girls can throw them as well. :D

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

Hunting is not about feeding anybody anymore it is a sport(hobby) done for recreation. Semi-automatic guns make hunting more fun.:)

I heard that as well. I thought it was a joke at first.

Barry, I don't have the answer. When I asked you the same question, you didn't have the answer either. Guess what? There are many problems in America that we just don't have answers to. If we had all the answers, why is there still a drug problem in America? Why is there still a gang problem in America? Why is there still a (fill in the blank) problem in America?

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the tools are in place to try and prevent the whackos from getting the guns, but the information isn't being disseminated. Look at the church shooter in San Antonio. He received a dishonorable discharge from the military, but the military failed to report that. That should have kept him from purchasing the weapon. And look at the Florida shooter. The cops were called to his house thirty-something times. He was reported to the FBI more than once. But, once again, the information wasn't disseminated.

I certainly agree that better information would be one way to make things safer. And I didn't dodge your question, but like you said I didn't have an answer. I'm smart enough to know that you know a whole lot more about gun culture than I do. I didn't grow up in that environment, never owned a gun, and never knew anyone who had one where I lived. So it's silly for me to pretend I have all the answers. I don't. I would rather listen than preach.

And CNN.... Any better?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/polit...ent/index.html

We do in fact have background checks, and have for a few years.

Without the "semantics" I can only assume the 37 states mentioned don't require then for intrastate transfers. Interstate transfers have to go through a federally licensed dealer, and that dealer has to file the proper forms and get the background check done.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

Let's stop all this garbage and go back to the original request:


What idea do you support that could reduce the number of mass shootings?

GETTING SUGGESTIONS AND SHARING REAL IDEAS IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED REQUEST.

Please stop all this other @#$%& and try to contribute possible life-saving ideas!

So far, this is a microcosm of why nothing this important gets changed!






.

It's not an either or. See Post 54 ("two of the biggest deterrents would be not declaring schools as gun-free zones and not providing 24/7 coverage to these events."). Those will be the biggest deterrents (IMO), though I acknowledge the second one would be much harder to do. There are other factors as well (social media, violence accepted as part of the culture, lack of respect for others, lack of responsibility for ones actions, et al).

I question all those asking for changes in gun laws to show me were this has worked. Gun laws and access to guns including semi and fully automatic weapons are more restrictive now than in the 40s-60s, yet there are more mass shootings now. The AR-15 was introduced in the mid '50s (I believe), yet has only recently become the 'weapon de jour'.

The problem I have with ANY laws is they are useless if not or capriciously enforced.

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

So, what's your idea to reduce mass shootings?

Taylor- if you want schools not to be gun free zones, who do you see as having the guns? The teachers? The students? I just don't know how that could possibly work.

Form a national registry of firearms, which I think will promote more accountability from owners. It would also help law enforcement to monitor stockpiling of weapons, report stolen weapons, and connect weapons to crimes outside of local jurisdiction, which could prevent an attack, perhaps.

Require anyone buying ammo to present a current license to own a firearm. That way a person can't purchase ammo for an illegal firearm, or a firearm that belongs to someone else that they may have access to.

Close all loopholes that enable someone to purchase a weapon without a waiting period or background check or official registration. You can make private purchases of firearms in many states and at gun shows without any type of oversight, especially in states that don't require a license at all.

Make rifle and handgun legislation mirror each other. That way if it's illegal in your state to carry a concealed handgun, it would be similarly illegal to conceal a long gun.

These are just some of my own ideas.

Not sure of the point, but would like a citation, please.

The authorities were quick to praise the school resource officer at Great Mills High, Deputy Blaine Gaskill, who they said responded almost immediately to the gunman and fired his weapon. Deputy Gaskill was unharmed in the exchange.

“He pursued the shooter, engaged the shooter,” Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron of St. Mary’s County said. The officer, he said, then “fired a round at the shooter; simultaneously the shooter fired a round as well.”

That would lead me to believe that he fired at the SRO as well. He probably didn't mean to though, right?

He shot the shooter in his hand while the shooter was shooting himself in the head. The officer's shot came after the shooter fatally injured his target and turned his weapon on himself:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mar...story,amp.html

Not sure that I would call the Maryland incident a school shooting. It was a different situation and could have happened anywhere.

Anyone who can legally possess a firearm should be allowed, but not required. The real key is you don't advertise somewhere as a gun free zone.

There was a psych study done a while back that I can't remember who/when/where or find it now. Maybe not pre-internet but a WHILE ago and I read it non-electronically somewhere. Some interesting results, not just on guns. They had people answer a few sets of questions anonymously. It had to do how they want others to see them and what they might want or not want strangers to know about them. Some 'hot button' topics (abortion, guns, sex, religion) mixed in with normal stuff (sports, movies, etc).

The premise was whether they would want a sign posted on their lawn for each item they claimed (if I remember correctly). In one (of a number) of sets of questions the sign had to be true. In another set (of a number) it could be a lie. One of the fascinating things I remember is how many people claimed they owned or used guns and did (the true signs), however even more interesting were those who lied about owning or using a gun but did not. Very few lied the other way (claiming they did not own/use a gun but really did). Of course, sex was another interesting one. LOL

I think it makes for a good thought experiment today, if you want to be honest with yourself. If you had publicly claim you did or did not own or use a gun, and provide your address on the internet with that statement, what would you do?

Thanks for the link. Even with all the sources, it's hard to find things at times when you are looking for specific details (assuming anything reported is correct, of course).

So it wasn't an intended mass shooting then either. And assault weapon ban wouldn't have mattered. I get your point about an SRO not preventing the incidents, but are you really trying to use this as an example of how an SRO (or anyone for that matter) could have prevented a single intended victim incident?

No, just a larger point that having an armed presence isn't always a deterrent. I don't know for a fact because I'm not local to the shootings, but I would think students are aware there is an armed presence at their school.

Couldn't agree more.:)

EXCELLENT! I hope everyone reads every bit of your response. BRAVO!

a registry by it's nature is potentially something to be abused by govt.

you may think govt is this wonderful thing designed to take care of you and rub your head while you go to sleep. I happen to know it isn't, it's generally a terrible way to solve most anything.

there will never be a gun registry because we shall never allow it. It really is that simple.

bolded mine


Gun owners, and 2nd amendment advocates, have given and given on this issue, from 1934 to the stupid assault weapons ban of 1994 (that was dropped because they discovered it did zero to stop gun violence) and we are not giving one more inch without a fight.

The problem is, if you give up one thing, then it becomes the foundation for them to move on to the next thing, and the next thing. If you don't think the agenda of the "gun control" movement is abolition then you are either delusional or in cahoots with them. (and the "you" is rhetorical not directed at you Leon personally)


"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"


not to mention that these people know zero about guns, what right do they have to attempt to take away the rights of law abiding citizens when they aren't even willing to take the time to understand what they are fighting against?

they banned them because of ignorant, panicky politicians not because of any threat to society.

and you can still possess an automatic weapon, it just costs more and requires giving more $$$ to the govt.

semi-automatic rifles are not the most often used weapon in a mass shooting, handguns are

you don't get to take my rights away because you want safety. anyone who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither.

any individual who thinks that gun laws stop violence must also think that prohibition stopped drinking

I gave a large list a few pages back on what could be done.

and no, more gun laws will make no difference at all. They never have and they never will. Not only that, but they are morally abhorrent.

Not one anti-gunner has been able to demonstrate that gun laws stop violence. Why might that be?

hahha, so tyranny, oppression, govt intrusion and oversight of my inalienable rights?
never will happen, NEVER "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

How can you say that when it already exists? Convicted felons can't purchase a firearm and are barred from owning one. So that would be an infringement and an oversight. That's just one example. You’re protective of your rights and you should be, but an inalienable right can still be regulated and your rights preserved.

Nick- I totally agree with you on the need to enforce existing laws. There is a possibility that doing so would, by itself, resolve the problem...yes, there is a chance.

This is why it is important that more people registered to vote. With incumbents being so tied to Special Interest Groups and Lobbyists, it is going to take a great deal of folks interested in the common good to even get existing laws enforced, the prospect of passing more enforceable versions of those laws would be even harder.

Your second point is a very important one...everyone should be alert to any strange or dangerous activities. Any follow-up on such reports, IMO, should be tempered with the fact that those folks being observed could still be completely innocent of what is 'perceived' to be dangerous and strange, in itself, is not a threat.


The time has come for a new generation to select leaders and representatives who are not only sincerely interested in their needs, but are actually tied to them, body and soul.


Thanks, Nick - for expressing yourself...I hope we are producing something here.

but they din't even enforce the laws we DO have, I see no reason to think that more will do better "this time ,you watch, we will enforce the laws!"

and just because you regulated before does not mean you get to again. I am not willing to make the mistakes of 1934 and 1994 again.


ETA: we aren't talking about convicted felons, we are talking about your attempts to besmirch the rights protected by our constitution for law abiding citizens.

term limits would help, no reason that federal politician should be a career


enforcing the laws,as I said, including follow ups on felons, harsh penalties for prior felons caught with guns and being firm on "straw purchases" (when a non-felon buys a gun for a felon to subvert the law)

when law enforcement gets told about troubled people, maybe they should look into it. not use it as a catch all to strip gun rights without due process or anything, but at least take a gander? maybe?

All this being said, there is no law to stop mass shootings. Not in a nation this free, this vast and this populated. Norway has strict laws and that Andres Brevik guy killed 70+ in one day .....

The truth is, mass shootings are a tiny part of gun violence, but the one most feasted in by the media. why no outrage over black on black violence in our inner cities via guns? after suicide they are the #1 category of gun violence in the nation!

ETA: top 3 categories of gun deaths are suicide, gang/criminal on criminal violence, and domestic violence. the rest are a very tiny part of our nation's crime (and semi-auto rifles are a tiny part of that)

Family Values
 

The issues with gun control are not the guns but with the was children are raised, desensitization of minds and the media.

I have been an avid shooter and sportsman since 5 years old. I was raised with guns in the open in my home. Difference is I was educated on safety, use and history. I was the state championship in marksmanship with a rifle at 11 and then again with a shotgun for trap and skeet at 13. My family takes opening day of pheasant and deer season off each year. BTW, hunting is not just sport. I do fill a freezer and feed my family for a year with my harvests, and yes at times I use a semi-automatic shotgun.

Families don't sit down for dinner each night, play board games or spend the quality time together as in the past. We see horrible images in pop culture that would have shocked our grandparents. The media makes sure that they get the highest ratings by replying over and over again tragedies across the globe. Here is the root of the problems that plague our country. The gun issues are not global but local. Why? Family values and upbringing. Unfortunately, we can't parent all the children that have a lacking home life but small steps can help. Turn off or disconnect the cable/dish TV, shut off the Xbox and power down the PC. Buy a firearm, learn to safely use and teach your children the same and finally get a permit to carry. These sick humans wouldn't think of harming our children if the entire lawful community was armed.

I know this is a pipe dream that Americans way of life will de-evolve to a simpler way but one can hope.

Sorry for the long rant.

Craig

Hey Craig, legit question from someone who has never done shotgun shooting.

what is the difference between trap and skeet?

thanks, and thank you for your support of the 2nd Amendment!

Trap:
https://www.fieldandstream.com/begin...-trap-shooting

Skeet:
https://mynssa.nssa-nsca.org/skeet-basics/