Conn. Heavily Controls Guns : Result : 20 Children Slaughtered

[Byng]

I don't think that's a fair comparison Byng. Japan has gone through a 70 year process of disarmament and cultural demilitarization. I'm not sure how common private firearm ownership has been in Japan historically but it's without a doubt an embedded part of American culture. I'm skeptical that we can ban something we're already flooded with, regardless of the merits.

The question posed was asking for a solution to our current gun violence so I provided a solution.

Of course it would not work in America and I am not an advocate of banning all guns but nor will we solve our present problems by nibbling around the edges looking like we are doing something while achieving nothing of consequence.

The real answer lays in revisiting the 2nd Amendment and bringing it more in line with "Field and Stream" magazine, rather than "Soldier of Fortune". The Framers could not have possibly imagined the state of the country 221 years later. Nor could they imagine automatic pistols and assault weapons. I’m sure the arms they had in mind could only be fired about once a minute, if the powder was fresh and dry.

[Jeebus]

You asked for a solution that would solve the problem, I gave you one.

That's not a solution, that's a dream.

Any solution that involves total confiscation and banning all new sales is not any more realistic than a solution that includes the tooth fairy.

[slapshot]

I do not have a gun or guns in my home.

So you say?

Would that have anything to do with your son's situation?

[Mom49of4]

So you say?

Would that have anything to do with your son's situation?

Asked and answered. I do NOT want a gun in my home but I do not want to deny any one else the right to have one if they so desire.

[slapshot]

Asked and answered. I do NOT want a gun in my home but I do not want to deny any one else the right to have one if they so desire.

Not in the house. Got it.

In your car, then.

Oh, and your support for not wanting to "deny any one else the right to have one", goes well beyond the 2nd.

You have a strong, vested interest in this gun debate, and how it turns out....just come out and admit you're a gun nut. It's very obvious, that you are.

[OldBay]

Not in the house. Got it.

In your car, then.

Oh, and your support for not wanting to "deny any one else the right to have one", goes well beyond the 2nd.

You have a strong, vested interest in this gun debate, and how it turns out....just come out and admit you're a gun nut. It's very obvious, that you are.

Thank you for providing such a perfect example of the kind of personal attacks that do exactly nothing to address the issue.

Name-calling and unfounded accusations are the opposite of the kind of dialogue that is needed.

[Calamari]

Asked and answered. I do NOT want a gun in my home but I do not want to deny any one else the right to have one if they so desire.

No one else? Prisoners? Adam Lanza? Convicted felons? Children?

[Mom49of4]

Not in the house. Got it.

In your car, then.

Oh, and your support for not wanting to "deny any one else the right to have one", goes well beyond the 2nd.

You have a strong, vested interest in this gun debate, and how it turns out....just come out and admit you're a gun nut. It's very obvious, that you are.

Your point?

[slapshot]

Your point?

You obfuscate by telling only incomplete, or half-truths.

[SomeIdiot]

The question posed was asking for a solution to our current gun violence so I provided a solution.

Of course it would not work in America and I am not an advocate of banning all guns but nor will we solve our present problems by nibbling around the edges looking like we are doing something while achieving nothing of consequence.

The real answer lays in revisiting the 2nd Amendment and bringing it more in line with "Field and Stream" magazine, rather than "Soldier of Fortune". The Framers could not have possibly imagined the state of the country 221 years later. Nor could they imagine automatic pistols and assault weapons. I’m sure the arms they had in mind could only be fired about once a minute, if the powder was fresh and dry.

I guess I come at the issue from a different angle. Incidents like Newton are tragic but they also tend to be the exception rather than the rule. America's rates of gun death compared to other first world countries doesn't arise from mass shootings with automatic weapons. Most gun crimes are committed with small caliber, unregistered revolvers in impoverished urban areas and are related to the drug trade. I'm not sure that restrictions on ownership of automatic weapons does a whole lot to address that.

Of course what goes unremarked upon in the conversations about these tragedies is the value statement we're making as a society about whose lives matter. We go into moral panic mode in each infinitesimally rare occasion of cute white children being gunned down but couldn't care less when its black males offing each other over turf wars, even though that's the much more accurate illustration of gun violence today. Even if we were able to stop Newton or Columbine or VA Tech type incidents (something I don't really think is possible) we'd still have way more gun deaths than any other first world country and yet that's never really what we're talking about when we discuss gun control.

On a totally unrelated note, merry Christmas to you and yours!

[Wizard777]

The question posed was asking for a solution to our current gun violence so I provided a solution.

Of course it would not work in America and I am not an advocate of banning all guns but nor will we solve our present problems by nibbling around the edges looking like we are doing something while achieving nothing of consequence.

The real answer lays in revisiting the 2nd Amendment and bringing it more in line with "Field and Stream" magazine, rather than "Soldier of Fortune". The Framers could not have possibly imagined the state of the country 221 years later. Nor could they imagine automatic pistols and assault weapons. I’m sure the arms they had in mind could only be fired about once a minute, if the powder was fresh and dry.

Ah, the old Our Poor Stupid Forefathers Argument. Let me make short work of as I always do. What these great visionaries addressed in the Constitution were constants. Things that will always exist for as long as there are humans. They addressed speech, communications, religion, privacy, movement, justice, private property and weapons to protect that private property as well as the nation. Yes, they had single shot muskets. But the muskets owned by citizens were the same guns used by the army. What our forefathers never ratified was the concept that the government must have arms that are superior to those owned by the citizenry. They could have given the government a superiority in arms by prohibiting citizens from owning guns. But the chose instead to make it an individual right that shall not be infringed. The preamble gives us the duty to preserve these rights unto our posterity not to be more Field and Stream or even less violent.


Merry Christmas to you and your family.

[Byng]

I guess I come at the issue from a different angle. Incidents like Newton are tragic but they also tend to be the exception rather than the rule. America's rates of gun death compared to other first world countries doesn't arise from mass shootings with automatic weapons. Most gun crimes are committed with small caliber, unregistered revolvers in impoverished urban areas and are related to the drug trade. I'm not sure that restrictions on ownership of automatic weapons does a whole lot to address that.

Of course what goes unremarked upon in the conversations about these tragedies is the value statement we're making as a society about whose lives matter. We go into moral panic mode in each infinitesimally rare occasion of cute white children being gunned down but couldn't care less when its black males offing each other over turf wars, even though that's the much more accurate illustration of gun violence today. Even if we were able to stop Newton or Columbine or VA Tech type incidents (something I don't really think is possible) we'd still have way more gun deaths than any other first world country and yet that's never really what we're talking about when we discuss gun control.

On a totally unrelated note, merry Christmas to you and yours!

And to you and yours my friend, one of the truly reasoned and rational posters on our board and always one of the first posts I look for on any thread and subject!

[bmorepunk]

I guess I come at the issue from a different angle. Incidents like Newton are tragic but they also tend to be the exception rather than the rule. America's rates of gun death compared to other first world countries doesn't arise from mass shootings with automatic weapons. Most gun crimes are committed with small caliber, unregistered revolvers in impoverished urban areas and are related to the drug trade. I'm not sure that restrictions on ownership of automatic weapons does a whole lot to address that.

Of course what goes unremarked upon in the conversations about these tragedies is the value statement we're making as a society about whose lives matter. We go into moral panic mode in each infinitesimally rare occasion of cute white children being gunned down but couldn't care less when its black males offing each other over turf wars, even though that's the much more accurate illustration of gun violence today. Even if we were able to stop Newton or Columbine or VA Tech type incidents (something I don't really think is possible) we'd still have way more gun deaths than any other first world country and yet that's never really what we're talking about when we discuss gun control.

On a totally unrelated note, merry Christmas to you and yours!

I agree with and support everything that is written here.

[Byng]

Ah, the old Our Poor Stupid Forefathers Argument. Let me make short work of as I always do. What these great visionaries addressed in the Constitution were constants. Things that will always exist for as long as there are humans. They addressed speech, communications, religion, privacy, movement, justice, private property and weapons to protect that private property as well as the nation. Yes, they had single shot muskets. But the muskets owned by citizens were the same guns used by the army. What our forefathers never ratified was the concept that the government must have arms that are superior to those owned by the citizenry. They could have given the government a superiority in arms by prohibiting citizens from owning guns. But the chose instead to make it an individual right that shall not be infringed. The preamble gives us the duty to preserve these rights unto our posterity not to be more Field and Stream or even less violent.


Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Now there has got to be at least one subject that we disagree on Wizard!

Merry Christmas to you and yours, my very good and wise friend.

[songfourone]

I guess I come at the issue from a different angle. Incidents like Newton are tragic but they also tend to be the exception rather than the rule. America's rates of gun death compared to other first world countries doesn't arise from mass shootings with automatic weapons. Most gun crimes are committed with small caliber, unregistered revolvers in impoverished urban areas and are related to the drug trade. I'm not sure that restrictions on ownership of automatic weapons does a whole lot to address that.

Of course what goes unremarked upon in the conversations about these tragedies is the value statement we're making as a society about whose lives matter. We go into moral panic mode in each infinitesimally rare occasion of cute white children being gunned down but couldn't care less when its black males offing each other over turf wars, even though that's the much more accurate illustration of gun violence today. Even if we were able to stop Newton or Columbine or VA Tech type incidents (something I don't really think is possible) we'd still have way more gun deaths than any other first world country and yet that's never really what we're talking about when we discuss gun control.

On a totally unrelated note, merry Christmas to you and yours!

Spot on!! Merry Happy to you and yours.

[Wizard777]

With the left rejecting school security infavor of an assault weapons ban. Should they be able to get that assault weapons ban through Congress. The day before President Obama signs that into law. I want him to sit down with the Secret Service and tell them. I have rejected the notion of placing armed guards in schools to protect America's children. I am instead going to sign an assault weapons ban into law to protect America's children. So tomorrow when Sasha and Malia's protective detail takes them to school. Those Agents are not to have machine guns under their jackets, no sidearms or back ups strapped to their leg. My no guns in schools policy will include Sasha and Malia's school. They will only be protected by this assault weapons ban just like every other child in America.

[Wizard777]

Now there has got to be at least one subject that we disagree on Wizard!

Merry Christmas to you and yours, my very good and wise friend.

If I though for a second that a ban would be effective or offer any kind of real protection. I would back it all the way. But it is the least effective and least protective thing that could be done.

The worst part is that the left has gone psychotic on this. They've locked themselves in their echo chambers and turned up the volume to full blast. When they emerge from that insulated and issolated echo chamber they will be every bit as bat chit crazy as the tea party if not more so. They were poised to destroy the republican party and right now they are giving the right all the rope they need to hang them with.

[kudzu]

In Japan, you cannot buy a handgun, much less an assault rifle. In fact, even off-duty police officers are banned from carrying guns.

That's what happens when you get your arse ahnded to you in a World War.

Germany has some severe arms control too, eh ?

Even some of the victors (Churchill "Help us, PLEASE !") want to disarm their own population...

[Contumacious]

If I though for a second that a ban would be effective or offer any kind of real protection..

A ban would only protect the Adam Lanzas of this world.

Then the fascists will be demanding that our fingers be amputated - we don't need them.

.

[steve_o_2]

I guess I come at the issue from a different angle. Incidents like Newton are tragic but they also tend to be the exception rather than the rule. America's rates of gun death compared to other first world countries doesn't arise from mass shootings with automatic weapons. Most gun crimes are committed with small caliber, unregistered revolvers in impoverished urban areas and are related to the drug trade. I'm not sure that restrictions on ownership of automatic weapons does a whole lot to address that.

Of course what goes unremarked upon in the conversations about these tragedies is the value statement we're making as a society about whose lives matter. We go into moral panic mode in each infinitesimally rare occasion of cute white children being gunned down but couldn't care less when its black males offing each other over turf wars, even though that's the much more accurate illustration of gun violence today. Even if we were able to stop Newton or Columbine or VA Tech type incidents (something I don't really think is possible) we'd still have way more gun deaths than any other first world country and yet that's never really what we're talking about when we discuss gun control.

On a totally unrelated note, merry Christmas to you and yours!

Very spot on, thanks, I agree.