Master Index of Archived Threads


Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Kong76 Dec 14 2012 03:55 PM

Let's keep it out of the tragedy discussion for the next few days. I'd implore my FB friends to do so too, but it's already too far gone and a lot of people hurting other people's feelings, so I'm just staying out of it all. Just saying.

metirish Dec 14 2012 04:57 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 14 2012 05:12 PM

I just don't see any reason why a civilian needs the type of weaponry that this monster had.......bought and owned legally apparently. http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-the- ... rs-2012-12

Swan Swan H Dec 14 2012 05:05 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Fair enough Kase, moving this here.

metsmarathon Dec 14 2012 05:10 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

I'm turning into more and more of a liberal. There's no part of me that believes for a second that's ending teachers into schools while armed with concealed handguns would bebeneficial to anyone outside the undertaking industry. And no. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns just make it somuch easier to kill many many of them, with rapidity and separation. Point and squeeze. That's all. Don't even have to get dirty save for some powder residue. It's a he'll of a lot harder to do these awful acts with a knife.

Kong76 Dec 14 2012 05:11 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

I just don't see any reason why a civilian needs they type of weaponry that this monster had.......bought and owned legally apparently. http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-the- ... rs-2012-12 There is no reason a civilian needs to be legally armed with that.

Ashie62 Dec 14 2012 05:29 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

None whatsoever..

cooby Dec 14 2012 07:26 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

I hate to even say this. My husband said that the one gun shop he passed on the way home was parked full and across the street. On a day when 20 five year olds died, they want to be sure they get their guns before it's illegal. 1. Stupid. Do they think it'll happen tomorrow? 2. Shameful.

Fman99 Dec 15 2012 03:48 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

The whole thing makes me sick. I was raised in a home where guns, even toy guns, were not permitted. It was not something my father endorsed or allowed. As a kid, growing up in (fairly) rural Ulster County, this separated me from many of the kids in my neighborhood who were not the children of transplanted New Yorkers, and I resented it at the time. Not any more. We're now raising our kids with the same attitudes. I don't see any value in it, for play, recreation, self protection, or otherwise.

The Second Spitter Dec 19 2012 03:55 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Firstly let me say that I’m a firm believer that America is the greatest nation on Earth and I love America more than I love the country of my birth. However, this issue is the single worst thing about America. If I can relate the experiences of this country – In 1996 Australia had its largest kooky gun-related massacre. Following that the most right-wing government in this nation’s history bought every privately owned self-loading and pump action rifle in the country using taxpayer’s funds. There hasn't been one since. (I realize if Rush Limbaugh reads the above paragraph, his brain may implode causing a singularity that may lead to end of the world.) As an American colleague of mine said, the Second Amendment lost its relevance in 1914. The significance of that year is it is when the tank was invented.

themetfairy Dec 19 2012 06:36 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

metirish wrote: I just don't see any reason why a civilian needs the type of weaponry that this monster had.......bought and owned legally apparently. http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-the- ... rs-2012-12 Agreed. There is a distinct difference between a hunting rifle or a gun to defend a home and these weapons of mass destruction. They simply should not be in civilian hands.

Frayed Knot Dec 19 2012 07:02 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

First thing that needs to happen is for the sane portion of the right side of the aisle needs to shout down the paranoid portion who argue for the legal possession of any type of gun so as to protect themselves, not merely from criminal home invasion, but from any possible tyranny from the government. Look dipshit, the armed forces of the U.S. aren't staging a coup d'etat and marching down Main Street into your home anytime soon and, if for some reason they decided to do so, your guns and your weekend training are going to be out-classed anyway by the even bigger ones wielded by professionals anyway. Get that notion off the table, and then we can have some legitimate debates about what specifically constitutes an "assault weapon" and about what is reasonable for self-protection.

metsmarathon Dec 19 2012 07:21 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

the states have their well regulated militias and their armories. the private citizens who wish to keep and bear their assault weapons should join up. learn to handle the big boy guns and ammo with the big boys. if you're really all bent out of shape over law and order, join and support your local police force. joe schmoe getting his rocks off blasting holes in cardboard dolls and cement walls does nothing to further the cause of such a well regulated militia, and does little to promote our national or collective defense.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 19 2012 07:24 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

First thing that needs to happen is for the sane portion of the right side of the aisle needs to shout down the paranoid portion who argue for the legal possession of any type of gun so as to protect themselves, not merely from criminal home invasion, but from any possible tyranny from the government. From the Unbelievable But True Department: the NRA is incredibly well-funded and spends a LOT compared to gun-control advocates. One gets the impression that most anyone who gets independent-minded from said aisle's right side would find themselves with SERIOUS challenges in their next primary (less than 18 months for a plurality of Reps); the NRA's support is apparently VERY effective in getting its "guys" in once they're tabbed, too.

Edgy MD Dec 19 2012 07:55 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Accepting NRA support can also be like joining a gang. If you decide to drop out, they'll go after you twice as hard as they ever went after their opponents. With or without the NRA, we have to be willing to talk about guns like adults. Here's one way --- never use the term "gun control." Talk about regulation or something, but "gun control" has become one of those flash terms that end any thoughtful conversation, like "vouchers" or "amnesty" or "welfare."

Benjamin Grimm Dec 19 2012 08:19 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Good point. How about "anti-slaughter"? That puts the opposition in the position of being "pro-slaughter".

Edgy MD Dec 19 2012 09:10 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Not exactly a good strategy to end up on common ground at the end of the conversation.

Edgy MD Dec 19 2012 10:31 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Obama taps Biden to lead gun task force.

Fman99 Dec 19 2012 10:31 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

metsmarathon wrote: the states have their well regulated militias and their armories. the private citizens who wish to keep and bear their assault weapons should join up. learn to handle the big boy guns and ammo with the big boys. if you're really all bent out of shape over law and order, join and support your local police force. joe schmoe getting his rocks off blasting holes in cardboard dolls and cement walls does nothing to further the cause of such a well regulated militia, and does little to promote our national or collective defense. I'm all about this. You can't convince me that this is what the Founding Fathers in their pantyhose had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 19 2012 08:45 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Hence the justification clause. Liability insurance seems the logical endpoint here, doesn't it?

A Boy Named Seo Dec 21 2012 09:42 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Anyone watch NRA bro's presser? A call for armed police in every school. Let's say we do exactly that and nothing else, how many armed cops (and with what type of gear) would be needed at your kids' schools to cover all entries, exits, playgrounds, etc., from a dickhead like Adam Lanza? To offer real security and protection like he's talking about? At the smaller-sized elementary school where I do contract work, I feel like it'd be at minimum 3 or 4. At some of the larger public schools in Long Beach, it'd have to be half a dozen or more, maybe 10. And what do you arm them with to protect from a guy who's wielding one of those Bushman rifles, spraying bullets everywhere? The same type of guns? Ignoring the bigger picture and just arming everyone, who here is in any way comfortable with that as a solution? Was trying hard to not insert my opinion here, but that idea is fucking idiotic.

Edgy MD Dec 21 2012 09:53 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

I wouldn't expect them to back off their position now.

seawolf17 Dec 21 2012 09:54 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't expect them to back off their position now. Exactly. They've got no place else to go, which shows how completely off the deep end our country has gone.

Edgy MD Dec 21 2012 10:15 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Maybe. I'm kind of glad they're coming back with the old a-more-armed-citizenry-will-make-us-safer saw now, when we're all thoughtful enough to arm ourselves with the cold light of reason. They could have laid low, waited for bills to start rolling out, work behind the scenes, quietly spread the money around to get provisions thrown into the bills that effectively gut them, and not made any overt public stand until fall when they've mapped out a more nuanced version of the same old position, and everybody is more preoccupied with a new season of Idol or Survivor.

A Boy Named Seo Dec 21 2012 10:16 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Edgy MD wrote: I wouldn't expect them to back off their position now. Yeah, me neither. Just thinking about the actual implementation of that and trying to keep my head from exploding. If every school had armed security and the next shoot-em-up was at a grocery store, do we then put fully-armed guards at all Trader Joe's? It reminds me of this adorable kitten chasing its tail. Me-mow.

seawolf17 Dec 21 2012 10:32 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

One argument against the NRA's worthless plan: Fort Hood, which had (I'd think) probably a reasonably well-trained armed guard or two.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 21 2012 10:43 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

"People making a big stink about the feasibility of this just... haven't looked at the numbers. It's really quite doable. All you'll have to do is raise tax--" [Felled by bullet from Grover Norquist]

Mets – Willets Point Dec 21 2012 10:56 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Exact quote from the NRA press conference. "This is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking any questions."

cooby Dec 21 2012 11:46 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

A call for armed police in every school We already have an armed guard at our high school. Too bad he didn't shoot Sandusky.

metirish Dec 21 2012 11:55 AM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

cooby wrote: A call for armed police in every school We already have an armed guard at our high school. Too bad he didn't shoot Sandusky. well said....

metsmarathon Dec 21 2012 12:59 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

it occurred to me that placing cops at schools was a possible solution, but the problem quickly escalates. one cop isn't enough against a well-armed shooter, and since the adversary has the advantage of surprise, he'd almost be useless against a ar-15-wielding gunman. unless he's got his finger on the trigger of a drawn gun for each and every visitor at the school, be it scheduled & expected or not. in fact, there's little reasonable precautions that could be made against what newtown faced. the school already had a single point of entry system, positive identification of visitors prior to admittance. the only thing they were truly lacking was blast- and bullet-resistant glass. is that really the next logical solution? but fine. lets pull the string a little further. let's pretend that the principal had a gun on her. shooter busts through the door/window with his ar-15. she comes running to investigate. does she have her gun drawn the whole time? is it just SOP for her? if not, she's dead. should she just fortify herself in the office and lay in wait? should a secretary? or is the gun already mounted on a tripod facing the door, waiting... ? its an ambush. none of the first few people there had any chance to stop what was to happen. active shooter at elementary school. what do the teachers do? tehy get their kids to fucking safety as best they can. check hte hallway for any stray kids, close the door, lock it, and hide the class away from the door. ideally behind furniture or something. instead of comforting the kids, or keeping hte kids calm, teacher should then drop on to a knee, assume a shooters' position, and wait for the gunman, whose form they know nothing of? maybe lie prone? the kids are just gonna keep quiet all by themselves? the kids won't need soothing, or anything? the door opens, or is forced open, and you expect each and every teacher to be able to assess the identity of the shooter, and quickly and effectively neutralize him, like jason freaking bourne? and then what hapens? you have an active shooter, who may or may not be neutralized, may or may not still be present. the teachers holed up in their classrooms will be on edge. how does an all-clear get sounded? how do you ensure that a kid who was frightened an din teh bathroom, and foolishly ventured back into the hallway to find a safe classroom wasn't on the other side of the door? or another teacher? and what about when the cops finally come? how do you really prevent terrified teachers from shooting innocent kids or arriving cops? it's a gun-owners' wet dream to single-handedly neutralize an active shooter with steely nerves and a well-placed shot. trained police officers frequently unload far too many rounds into armed and unarmed, dangersous and harmless, suspects. you expect the same not to happen t a school, all the whoile willfully ignoring the far greater liklihood of a distraught armed teacher using his or her own weapon on the premises, or a distraught student or group of students overpowering an armed teacher for the purposes of acquiring the weapon? it's absurd. this isn't kindergardedn cop. this is real life. real teachers are not navy seals or army rangers. true story. our military is very well experineced in handling weapons and handguns. they're trained. a lot. they know what they're doing. you know what you can't do on a military installation? carry* a weapon, just for kicks. gee. why is that...? *some limitations and exclusions apply

Mets – Willets Point Dec 21 2012 01:02 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

seawolf17 wrote: One argument against the NRA's worthless plan: Fort Hood, which had (I'd think) probably a reasonably well-trained armed guard or two. Virginia Tech has a campus police force as well. The amount of armed guards necessary to perform the function desired is a lot more than they think.

Ceetar Dec 21 2012 01:07 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

metsmarathon wrote: the kids are just gonna keep quiet all by themselves? the kids won't need soothing, or anything? the door opens, or is forced open, and you expect each and every teacher to be able to assess the identity of the shooter, and quickly and effectively neutralize him, like jason freaking bourne? Oh, I'm sure no one will panic and fire when the kid that was in the bathroom and is now petrified comes barreling back into the classroom.

themetfairy Dec 21 2012 01:12 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

The only part of your scenario I will quibble with is that schools are pretty well-versed in drills these days (they have a zillion of them), and the all clear signal will have been practiced in advance. But then again, you can't have an all clear signal until the cops have checked the entire building. So your point about nervous teachers accidentally killing cops is valid. And what about substitute teachers? Do they carry guns too? Teachers in upper grades often switch classrooms during the day. Do they just carry their guns all day? If they let down their guard for a moment, who's to say that some kid doesn't grab for it, either as a prank or for some other reason? Way more people will be shot than saved under this kind of a scenario.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 21 2012 02:45 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: "People making a big stink about the feasibility of this just... haven't looked at the numbers. It's really quite doable. All you'll have to do is raise tax--" [Felled by bullet from Grover Norquist] I'd be behind this plan if it's paid for by a 50,000% tax on every gun sold and a 35,000% tax on each bullet.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Dec 21 2012 10:19 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

One argument against the NRA's worthless plan: Fort Hood, which had (I'd think) probably a reasonably well-trained armed guard or two. Virginia Tech has a campus police force as well. The amount of armed guards necessary to perform the function desired is a lot more than they think. Columbine had two armed guards on-duty at the time of the incident, IIRC. OE: Close-- One armed officer on-campus, one nearby police officer.

metsguyinmichigan Dec 22 2012 05:13 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

[url]http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/12/with_violence_in_grand_rapids.html I editorialized on the topic this week.

themetfairy Dec 22 2012 05:16 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

Well said michigan.

Swan Swan H Dec 22 2012 05:28 PM Re: Gun Control -- Have at It Here

You said it, MGIM. So did this guy.