imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis

[quote=Screamin Scott]Once again quoting a 14 year old study & one that only uses 3 cities for it's sources, yeah it's likely really accurate I'm sure......As for giving a crook your wallet who demands your wallet, yes I'd give it to them too. Doesn't mean he won't shoot you anyway does it...I've seen many cases of robberies where the perp shot the clerk even after they gave up the money...


Show a study more recent that says gun control works - One that is an accurate and fair representation using proper and meaningful criteria for the research. Bet you can't do it. As for the perps shooting the victims. I was working the streets of St. Louis when the Supreme Court put a stop to all executions in the 70s. From the day that ruling hit the media, almost every robbery we responded to involved the shooting of the victim for no other reason than to get rid of a witness because the bad guys knew they would not be executed for their crimes.

Bangee5 Loc: Louisiana

I have often thought that this country could never turn to socialism or full blown communism but the last election shows that I could be wrong when just a little over half the population of the US is leaning towards Socialism. Why do we want to give up our freedoms to be like the rest of the world. Will our government ever turn against us? Take away our right to bear arms then our right to free speech. Next a one party government. Then "WORLD PEACE"! At last, Utopian! Of course we will have to kill a lot of people first but only those who oppose.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

[quote=imntrt1]

Attorney General Eric Holder said, "[W]e have to ask ourselves some hard questions" and "talk about the freedoms that we have." Let's do. Let's start with some hard questions about why the Department of Justice was selling Mexican drug cartels the same types of weapons Obama now wants to ban. Another of those Fast and Furious weapons just turned up at a Mexican murder scene in November.

Since Obama was elected in 2008, gun and ammunition sales have surged to historic highs. Perhaps if Obama is really concerned about the proliferation of firearms, he should resign.

Since the previous ban on certain semi-automatic rifles sunset in 2004, gun ownership has increased and crime has decreased.

According to the FBI, two-thirds of murders that involve guns were perpetrated with handguns. In fact, it's pretty embarrassing for Feinstein that her own summary statement says that her ill-defined, so-called "assault weapons have been used in at least 459 incidents, resulting in 385 deaths and 455 injuries" since the ban ended, because that's less than one-half of 1 percent of all gun deaths in that time period. Twice as many people are killed with an assailant's hands, fists or feet -- and almost five times as many with a knife -- than with a rifle. Furthermore, the gun-death statistics that leftists tend to trot out are invariably skewed by gang-on-gang violence.

Just this year in Chicago -- Obama's hometown and a city with the toughest gun restrictions in America -- 62 young people between the ages of six and 18 have been murdered with guns -- and nearly 500 people total. Not a word from Obama.

It must also be noted that the murders in Newtown, as well as those in Aurora, Virginia Tech, Columbine and other places, occurred in so-called "gun-free zones." The Useful Idiots of the Left are under the delusion that simply posting a sign will make people safe, when only the murderers actually are safe. Estimates are that the sociopathic killer in Newtown broke 20 existing gun laws, including entering a "gun-free zone" with a gun. Murder is also against the law no matter the weapon.

imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis

[quote=nimbushopper]

I only take issue with one of your statements..The rest I agree with. Chicago is up over 600 homicides this year.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

He was talking about Nazis here.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

Well, yes, but it could easily apply to any sort of tyranny or threat could it not?

BuddyLars Loc: Rockton, Illinois

tschmath,
thank you for you thoughts on this subject.
I have not read all of the reply's but I wanted to say that you made allot of good points.
I wish the government would tuse this type of thinking and find a good solid ground.
I will not nit-pick anything on your proposal as it would not solve anything, but I appreciate all of your thoughts you put down.

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Thanks for your support. What I've noticed as a result of writing the original post is that, with the exception of putting armed guards in every school, not one single suggestion had come from the conservative side of this issue. Lots and lots of reasons why my ideas won't work, but not one idea about controlling gun violence.

It was the same with the deficit. Lots of platitudes and generalities, but not a single specific suggestion about which deductions to eliminate, for example. All conservatives know how to do is obstruct, they never govern. Boehner's latest debacle with his own caucus proves it.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

The usual liberal delusional rantings & ravings...If it doesn't fit your liberal agenda, you besmirch & berate....Lots of ideas were floated, just not the one you wanted to hear....Ergo your asinine response...

cameraniac Loc: Huntingburg, Indiana

Although I think you're being a little cheap, I would go along with this idea of yours....

3. Congress will appropriate a sum of $6 billion to be spent
over ten years to create a voluntary gun and rifle
buy-back program. The program would work as follows:
a. any citizen could voluntarily turn in any handguns or
rifles they currently own. These would take place at
any local police station or National Guard armory.
Each gun would be worth $200, each rifle $250. No
citizen who owns a firearm will be forced to participate
in this program.
b. all firearms bought from citizens would be registered
with the ATF.
c. all firearms considered to be collectible must be
registered with the ATF
d. funds used to purchase firearms would be issued to
the seller in the form of a debit card, and could not be
used to purchase new firearms.

The rest of your ideas and even parts of the above, to me, are absurd.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Try & find any intelligent person who would turn in a rifle or handgun for such a pittance...Most cost way more than those dollar amounts. The only things that would be turned in would likely be inoperable ones...

cameraniac Loc: Huntingburg, Indiana

I hear you, Scott. Santa told me that the handgun that he just left for me cost him $700!! No matter how bad this economy gets, anyone that thinks I'd let it go for a lousy couple hundred dollars, is nuts. I wouldn't let it go for less than a thousand.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

I agree that tschmath's numbers are off the mark. There are certainly other issues with his proposal. Nonetheless, he has outlined some ideas that could form the basis for regulating gun ownership and sales. If you can't hit what you're shooting at with 5 (OK, maybe 10) rounds on semi-automatic, you need new glasses and lots of lessons. If you think you need 30-round magazines to defend yourself against your own government, you probably need to see a psychiatrist and get a prescription.

I don't have a problem with responsible gun ownership. But I do not want to see guns on everyone (or NOT see their concealed weapons), and it doesn't seem unreasonable to prevent the sale of weapons to those with criminal records or mental problems, and guns should be kept out of the homes of people who have mental problems, even if they aren't the owners. As for the criminal element, the punishments should be severe for possessing a gun during the commission of a crime, and drastic for using one.

Arm teachers and you paint a target on them. Mug your teacher, steal her gun. If she sees you, I guess you better kill her. That's the likely result. And that assumes that someone who goes into the teaching profession is WILLING to be armed. Many would not.

imntrt1 Loc: St. Louis

Regarding your comments about hitting your target with 5 rounds or get intense training. I've had intensive training and been involved in shooting situations. It's nothing like target shooting, or any shooting on a range. Several items in range training are beneficial. Rapidly being able to reload is one of the more important one. One of the reasons we all carry the same weapons within a department, is the availability of using another coppers ammo or clips if you run out. Another factor to include in this discussion is that people bent on death and destruction are often times so worked up that hitting them does not immediately stop them. Studies have shown that many people shot while committing crimes sustain fatal wounds and still keep shooting. If you have never watched the North Hollywood shootout of a few years ago, look it up on UTube. Those guys figured they were going to die and did not care..they sustained fatal wounds and kept on coming.

As for Arming all teachers....I don't think that should necessarily happen either - Only arm the ones who want to be armed, not have a mandatory arming. It takes a certain mindset to get involved in life or death situations in a voluntary capacity, a mindset you cannot force on a person. Shooting situations are most often short time events and occur very quickly which means you must carry that mindset with you at all times. The principal at Sandy Hook tried to do the right thing immediately, and had she been armed and in the right mindset, most likely the story would not have ended the way it did - for her or her students and staff. The teachers at that school had a target painted on them anyway, without being armed.

tschmath Loc: Los Angeles

Columbine and Sandy Hook. One school had two armed guards, the other had none. Twelve dead with armed guards who had nothing to do with ending the siege, 26 dead with no armed intervention. What's the point of arming teachers if it makes no difference?

What worries me more about teachers packing is the following scenario:

A high school in New York City. Or Chicago. Or South Central Los Angeles. Or Detroit. In a typical classroom, there's Miss Adams, a third year teacher, teaching a class of 45 twelfth grade remedial math students. She's 5 foot 3 inches tall, all of 115 pounds. She's got a Glock in the desk or her purse or in her belt. She's just handed back a test, and Andy failed yet another test. He snaps, and rushes the teacher. He easily gets the gun from her hands, and puts a bullet between her eyes before a stunned class can react and try to wrestle the gun away. In the melee the gun goes off and another student is hit. Two people dead, none injured

Picture the same scenario, but without a gun. Andy snaps, rushes the teacher. He tackles her, starts to punch her, and the rest of the class reacts. Two students subdue Andy, and the result is Miss Adams with a broken jaw. No one dead, one person injured.

I would NEVER send my child to a school where teachers carried guns.