Gun enthusiasts and the rush to buy guns after a mass shooting: Please don't shift the blame.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Please don't say, "Well, people are just scared they might outlaw guns, so they had to stock up."

Bull to the shit.

You own this shit.

You own that sadistic, stomach wrenching, anti-social, insular, ass-backwards excuse for a thought process.

All those people going to the gun stores, chances are they already have guns. Probably more than one. And more likely than not, they don't actually need them. Not all of them are hunters, and they likely don't need all those guns for such purposes anyways. Most of them don't live in high-crime neighborhoods.

They're buying guns for the excuse of buying guns, as if guns were baseball cards.

It's sick, sick, sick behavior.

And you own it people.

So cut it with your excuses.

[LAGC]

1. You know why this happens each and every time, don't you?

Every time we have one of these tragedies, any sort of sane voice for "reasonable restrictions" and "sensible" gun controls gets immediately drowned out by the shrill emotional knee-jerk cries of those wanting to "BAN THEM ALL!"

Then Wayne LaPierre dutifully gets on his soapbox: "See? They want to TAKE your guns! Send us lots of money NOW and buy a bunch more GUNZ before its too late!!!"

End result? TONS of paranoid calls flooding Congresscritters switchboards threatening them if they dare "vote for any of Obama's gun-grabbing bills" even if it's just universal background checks which even most of them tacitly support ... and, of course, record gun sales.

Rinse and repeat. It's become so predictable, I'm not sure why anyone is that surprised any more.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

2. Except there's never, ever, ever, ever been any sort of legislative proposal to ban all guns.

Never.

So even if there are people out there who would support a blanket prohibition on all gun ownership, it's never gone anywhere and I doubt it ever will.

The hysterics are still the ones who run off to the gun store for no rational reason.

Sorry, you can't shift the blame.

[LAGC]

4. I'm not in disagreement, my friend.

I agree, no one is coming to grab anyone's guns. It is impractical and unfeasible.

But that's the reality of the perception out there these days. So long as there are shrill voices on the gun control side giving credence to the NRA's claims, they are going to keep finding traction, and scaring people into buying more guns and paralyzing their Congresscritters with inaction.

I'm not sure what the solution is at this point, because the pattern seems to be getting worse each cycle.

[flamin lib]

6. So what you're saying is that gun buyers are too stupid to act reasonably?

Yeah, and sadly you're right. Buying a gun under these circumstances proves you're not fit to own one.

[LAGC]

7. Pretty much.

At least some of them.

But what are you going to do? Outlaw stupidity?

[-none]

20. If we could do that, there would be few left in Congress.

[LAGC]

24. Agreed.

[sarisataka]

9. Do you have insight, as an FFL holder?

does your business increase after a shooting?

[Eleanors38]

57. Possibility: The huge sales may be a collective middle finger to the Prohibitionists.

[Hangingon]

73. In some jurisdictions,

hunting season is coming soon or has started.

[LiberalArkie]

152. It is the free market at work. They are buying the guns to resale them when they are banned.

Thus violating one of their core beliefs that gun owners do not resale them in areas where they are illegal. Like buying in the south and reselling them in New York City.

[LonePirate]

101. Gun nuts are motivated by irrational fear, including the fear of legislation that is not imminent.

Hopefully we can give the nutters something legitimate to fear once we reclaim Congress, hopefully no later than 2022.

[branford]

109. Statements like the one below don't help "moderate" fun control efforts.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

111. Freudian slip much?

"Fun control".


/revision/latest?cb=20121017120603

[branford]

113. You indeed have identified a typo. I guess the debate over firearms in the country is now over...

Would you care to actually comment on Feinstein's statement and the admitted desire by many in our party (including multitudes here on DU), that if given the slightest opportunity, they would institute draconian gun control, if not outright bans?

Gun rights proponents fight the slippery slope of "reasonable regulation" on firearms in the exact same manner and reasons that most Democrats, including myself, fight Republican efforts to institute "reasonable" regulations on abortion, usually for "women's safety." People are not stupid, and everyone recognizes the political strategy of incrementalism.

[jmg257]

129. I'll comment - she was talking specifically about assault weapons,

not all firearms.

The transcripts make it quite clear they were discussing AWBs.
Assault Weapons as defined in the AWB under Clinton.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

130. There's reality and there's idealized action.

I couldn't care less whether Feinstein wanted a complete ban on all assault weapons or all weapons in general. Ideally I'd be fine with that happening. I don't care. I'd take my chances. I've survived over three decades without owning or even firing a single gun and I'd probably survive my remaining decades without doing so as well.

Guess what? It ain't going to happen, no matter how much me or Diane Feinstein wanted it to happen, and Feinstein's saying as much in that clip. There's never been any real effort to enact a blanket prohibition on all gun ownership and there probably never will be.

The best we can do is restrict it and make common sense hurdles to slow the proliferation of guns out there and minimize gun violence as much as we can.

That's not a total ban, but it's not as though the gun enthusiasts out there want anything close to that, either.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

146. I don't fear anything

If the shit hit the fan and I need to defend myself - I have a gun to sort things out.

The only time I even think about my gun is when I read things like this. I don't love it, I don't hump it and it's not a substitute penis.

Very few gun owners are nuts. Heck, I'm a Brit and pepper spray and all means of self-defense, except old fashioned fisticuffs, is illegal there. Old folks like my mum and dad, now in their late 80's, can't even set up something to trip a burglar up - because it's against the law to hurt the fucking criminals. Your told to sit still and let them violate you. Fuck that.

I'll do my best not to let what has happened in the UK happen here.

[LonePirate]

147. If you weren't fearful about something, then you would not need a gun, especially to sort out things

It might be due to a lack of power or control but you certainly fear something. If you didn't own a gun, then I might believe your grandiose statements about having no fear.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

149. You got it arse backwards.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

148. Yeah, it's pretty awful in the UK.

With their significantly lower murder rate and their virtually non-existent gun crime and the what have you all.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

150. I suppose you have lived there.

My old folks live in a once peaceful village, next to a public bridle-path. They have been robbed, had their greenhouse vandalized, things stolen. Even their tall brick wall was pushed over by gang of yobbos. Everyone in the village are in the same boat.

Old people are beaten to a pulp by yobbos wanting to know where the safe is etc. A dying man on oxygen was dragged out of his bed and beaten to death because he couldn't tell them where the safe was. A woman my mum knew was walking her old dog along the bridle-path and she was stabbed because she wouldn't hand of the handbag she never had on her.

People are sitting ducks and the criminals know they are defenseless. I told my mum I'd get some pepper spray when went for a walk in the woods and then I found out mace/pepper spray is considered an offensive weapon in the UK and illegal. Pointy sticks are also considered offensive weapons.

My parents - who lived through the bombings of WW2, have no peace of mind. I tried to set up a booby trap for them to warn them of people on their place and then I found out even that is even illegal. You are told to sit still and take it.

I'm sure you'd be fine with that but I am not. Someone breaks in my house they will get shot. Oh and by the way, because of people like me, you are safer by proxy.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

151. And yet the murder rate there is still significantly lower.

But you know, since there is crime in the UK, that the UK is not a completely magical crimeless society, apparently that fact can be completely ignored for your purposes.

Don't you have George Zimmerman to defend or something like that?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

154. I saw this today and thought of you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3268329/Help-monsters-did-father-Daughter-s-emotional-appeal-pensioner-80-face-sewn-ear-ear-beaten-burglars-home.html

My very elderly parents, living in the UK, have lost their peace of mind, not because they fear death by murder or otherwise, but they fear someone coming into their home and beating them to a pulp. Yobbos have nothing to fear when they smashing their way into a home in England. It's like stealing candy from a baby and here in the US you are safer by proxy.

I love the fact that here in the US I have the right to defend myself.

I would have done what George Zimmerman did if my head was being smashed into the edge of the sidewalk. The jury thought so as well.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

158. WOW!!!!! YOU'RE KIDDING ME!!!!! THEY HAVE CRIME IN THE UK?!?!?!!?

I always figured anyone did in the UK was drink tea and eat crumpets while charmingly exclaiming "Bob's your uncle!" and "Cheerio!".



Well, now that I know that there is in fact instances of crime in the UK, it's a good thing that things like that don't happen over here in the US. At a higher rate.

By the way, as it relates to George Zimmerman, you do know that the whole "head bashed into concrete" thing was total BS, right? That his head was nowhere near the concrete when he shot Trayvon and the minor scratches he had on his head were not compatible with having one's head bashed into concrete 20-30 times as he claimed.

You'd also want to know that Zimmerman's gone full racist recently and enjoys bragging online about killing Trayvon. But hey, if he's the guy you want to prop up as an example of the great things guns can be used for in the US, go knock yourself out over here.

[Nevernose]

155. It's illegal everywhere to set booby traps, for the record

Although based on English common law, the relevant ruling (iirc) comes from Iowa in the 1840s. Short version: you can't set booby traps, and if you do, you have to warn people that there are booby traps -- and even then you're liable if a kid or a senile person or a mentally challenged person should stumble into your trap.

[Gormy Cuss]

141. That emotional knee-jerk response though is "THEY'LL BAN ALL GUNS!!"

IOW, it's shouted more often and louder from the NRA side of the aisle than the Brady side.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

144. You hit the nail on the head.

[soryang]

3. Repeal the 2005 Arms Act

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/one-quick-answer-to-sandy-hook-repeal-the-2005-arms-act/266371/

The Bush-era legislation immunizes gun manufacturers and gun dealers from civil liability for crimes committed with their weapons. It gives the gun industry a powerful legal defense that most other industries do not enjoy, and it creates disincentives about gun safety at the point of sale. The law strips the American people -- in this case jurors -- of the ability to render justice: to decide in court whether there are sufficient facts in negligence cases to hold gun makers and sellers financially responsible for the loss of life or limb caused by their goods.

[GGJohn]

13. Sorry, but you can't sue the firearm man. for the criminal or negligent misuse of their legal

product.
That would be like suing Ford because a drunk got behind the wheel of one of the their cars and mowed down a bunch of people.

This law came about because of urban city mayors and the Brady org attempting to do an end run around the 2A by suing the firearms man. for the criminal misuse of their legal products, their aim was to bankrupt the industry, well, guess what? It backfired badly and the law has been found by the SCOTUS on at least 3 occasions, to be constitutional.

[Nevernose]

156. The particular problem isn't the manufacturers, IMO

The law also covers gun dealers, people who come into direct contact with the people they're selling to. In some cases they would be legally negligent if they sold literally any other product, but because of the 2005 law, they're protected.

But suing the gun manufacturers? I think this might be one of the rare points that I have agreed with you on.

[GGJohn]

157. Thank you.

The dealers can be sued if they knowingly or should have known that the person they're selling to is either a straw purchase or a prohibited person.
I would like to see the ATF more vigorously prosecute those that fail a background check, lie on the Form 4473, as it stands now, very few cases are prosecuted by the ATF for reasons unknown to me.

[Nevernose]

159. Follow the money

It's for the same reason "they" go after illegal immigrants instead of employers, and why they want to round up 13 million undocumented immigrants instead of making e-verify mandatory. It's about getting corporate money and pandering to voters.

[GGJohn]

160. You have a good point there. eom.

[riderinthestorm]

163. E-verify is a joke. Every Hispanic employee I've hired has a valid SS #

They're stolen.

I can check all I want and they always come up valid. Years later the IRS will come around asking about a person and yup, the 16 yr old male I employed for a summer 10 yrs ago to help me on the farm doesn't match the 70 yr old man retiring....but nothing can be done at that point.

I couldn't locate the young man if my life depended on it. He's long gone.

E-verify is a joke and every employer knows it.

[Nevernose]

166. Illegal immigration is extremely low on my list of priorities

However, the principle remains the same: it's usually about the money.

Illegal immigration is one of those issues. Republicans politicians like to use it as a wedge issue (which is brilliant, because they can't vote), but don't actually care about it, because most large campaign donors don't want them to. So even if e-verify itself is a joke (I don't know, because I've been out of the small business sector for quite awhile and thus do no hiring), if the powers that be actually wanted to do something, they would. They could fix electronic verification -- or at least tighten up on it -- and drastically increase the penalties for businesses that knowingly or negligently hire illegals.

That's where I think the similarity to gun control and failed background checks come in. I think politicians want the laws on the books so they can satisfy voters -- even the most conservative voters don't want felons and the mentally ill carrying -- but the ATF and federal prosecutors don't enforce existing laws as stingingly as they could because that would upset the industry groups that control the money.

[TeddyR]

52. Yeah

Why should Smith & Wesson be liable because they sold a legal product through legal means that some purchaser then used in an illegal manner to cause harm? No other manufacturer would be held liable in those circumstances.

[Waldorf]

92. The act is fine and was needed because groups were filing frivilous lawsuits trying to bankrupt

businesses making and selling a legal product. Its like trying to sue the Chevy dealership and GM for people killed by a Silverado.

The manufacturers can still be sued for a defective product and gun sellers can be sued if they didn't follow the law in selling a firearm.

[Orrex]

135. If a car model were found to launch projectiles at the speed of sound

The manufacturer would be sued into nonexistence, on the grounds that the model is lethally defective.

But firearms do exactly that on purpose, and it's just fine and dandy?


Hmm...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

137. I never heard of a tank manufacturer being sued because tanks launch projectiles.

[LittleBlue]

145. But that is its purpose

Performing a legal task correctly is no grounds to sue a manufacturer.

That act is necessary to stop the de facto ban of guns, which would violate the 2A anyway.

[pintobean]

5. What blame? Guns are a legal product.

Law abiding citizens have have a right to buy them. Those who choose to, do "own it".

[Tommy_Carcetti]

8. I recall post Sandy Hook and the lines at gun stores and the heavy ads for guns and gun shows.

That was not "business as usual".

That was ghoulish.

But if you want to brush that type of behavior off, be my guest.

[pintobean]

15. The parking lot of the gun store up the street

has been much more crowded the last few days. I think it's understandable
since the gun control people start screaming about taking guns away before there are even any details about these shootings.
Many find the immediate political exploitation of the dead students to be ghoulish.

You'll never get anything done by demonizing law abiding citizens.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

18. This, and countless mass shootings before, represents a clear policy failure.

So why exactly shouldn't politics be brought into the conversation?

[pintobean]

22. Good luck with that, Tommy

The results of that strategy have been amazing.

[Lee-Lee]

10. Actually, the panic buyers are almost always new gun owners

I see it in the CCW courses I teach- after each panic buy rush I see an increase in requests for classes, CCW and just general firearms safety.

The range I do my classes through sees the same thing- new owners who rushed to buy with a "I didn't want it much until someone said I couldn't have it" mentality. They come to the range to shoot the first time or for the first time in a long time for many of them.

Every time you see a panic and rush to buy prices start going up- your gun owners who have been in it a while know better than to buy when prices go crazy.

But keep making posts about confiscation and band here, in newspaper comments, and it articles and letters to the editors. You are just creating more new gun owners.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

11. Either way, it's ghoulish. nt

[BeyondGeography]

32. Then the # of gun owners in this country must be going up

Except it isn't: http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

Not that your observation isn't scientific or anything.

[beevul]

44. See FOID issuance in Illinois.

It basically busts the myth that ownership is going down, since FOID is like a license to purchase and own. They are only issued to people that don't yet have one, and are required to buy and own a gun.

That or Illinois is the only place in America where there are new people buying guns.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172117145

[ileus]

12. Only it's not happening....

Of the 4 shops I've visited since the shooting all had plenty of stock and really no one was buying.



Lot's of AR's plenty of 5.56 and 223 on the shelves...folks have grown weary of the fear I suppose. Prices weren't even out of skew, you could still find M&P sports for 650.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

14. There clearly was a rush after Sandy Hook.

Care to explain that one away?

[ileus]

23. I was talking about last weeks, SH I know was crazy...

I'd just started an AR build a month prior, and it took me almost a year to get all the parts to complete the build on the budget I'd set.


Odd thing is I'd just bought a stripped lower two weeks ago and want to build a hunting AR (300blk) maybe I should stop building AR's.

Actually this should be the last build for a while, I have (or will have) most of the bases covered now.

[Kotya]

40. The rush after Sandy Hook...

...Also explains the (real or perceived) absence of a buying rush today.

Sandy Hook and the mass murder of small children was such a horrific crime that it was reasonable to expect the enacting of multiple gun laws following it, specifically an assault weapons ban and particularly with a Democratic-held Senate and Presidency. Even pro-gun people saw the writing on the wall. There was no way this crime would go unanswered. There would undoubtedly be a juggernaut of outrage demanding this. That's why they went and bought everything off the shelves, often at highly-inflated prices.

The failure to enact gun control following Sandy Hook was breathtaking.

This leads us to the complacency we are at now. If gun control didn't happen after the massacre of a bunch of first graders, it's not going to happen today, tomorrow or after the next mass shooting. There's no reason to rush out and buy the latest "tacticool" assault rifle. They aren't going anywhere.

[Eleanors38]

63. Interesting post. I would only add that there was little sentiment for a ban...

after Sandy Hook since the Democratic Party had gotten the message about candidate survival sometime earlier. But the loudest controllers persistently called for bans until the lines began to form and the shelves were emptied. It wasn't so much the shooting, it was the bellowing of the paper tigers which brought out the pro-2A forces.

[Eleanors38]

61. My explanation: MSM and anti-gun spokespersons backed off in a hurry...

They have seen the effect when elitists persistently call for bans (Holder, Pelosi, and Obama ALL called for an AWB while in their respective offices). That would give a neutral observer the impression a ban was in the offing, no? Note also that one head of an anti-gun group called for confiscation of some weapons on NPR, post Sandy Hook.

There are real problems associated with murders, but the controller/banner can't see their huge responsibility in forging a lockstep to prevent discussion. The banners are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't freeze-up.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

64. In terms of the political process, you could argue that.

Clearly there was push back from the gun sellers and the gun lobby, regardless of whether you'd think the fears were real or perceived.

However, in terms of the actual problem, blame flows only one way, and that would be the side actively encouraging more firearms out in public. And the folks pushing that would be supportive of that regardless of what the situation might be.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. Thanks, Doctor Carcetti...

...for that "brilliant" piece of tele-psychoanalysis. Worth every penny paid...

[aikoaiko]

17. They do it for the same reason as people who bought/hoarded incandescent light bulbs.

The so called Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 was very broad when you included all the variations of rifles, shotguns, and handguns that were affected.

They are not buying them to go shoot people or because a similar type was used in a crime.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

19. "They are not buying them.....because a similar type was used in a crime."

So what then was the reason for the spike in AR-15 sales after Sandy Hook?

[aikoaiko]

21. The massive attempt to ban them from future sales I.e. AWB 2013

Did you not hear about it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

25. It was introduced on January 24, 2013.

More than a month after the shooting.

There was considerable traffic at gun stores before that point for these guns.

But even if I were to concede your point, other than a potential prohibition on certain styled weapons, what exact need was there for people to purchase these types of guns?

Was there suddenly a skyrocketing in criminal activity after Sandy Hook that necessitated people to buy these types of guns wherein people thought they would be necessary?

Or were people going to buy these guns just for the sake of buying them?

You can't argue away ghoulishness like that.

[aikoaiko]

29. There was a slight increase prior to the massacre as the President campaigned on renewing the AWB

But sales exploded for 12 months after Sandy Hook. There also a fairly substantial surge in sales when Obama campaigned the first time because of his position on the AWB and a Democratic Congress.

Take this data for example that tracked the price of a popular AR15 (the Colt 6920) from just before the Sandy Hook massacre and after. Colt 6920s are back down to just under $1000 now, but they had spiked to $3500.




To people who like to shoot guns, the AR 15 is not really associated with mass shootings the way they are with no gun folk or anti-gun folk. they are just really well designed and useful rifles that shoot an intermediate rifle round.

[Snobblevitch]

30. I think people bought them because there was

a lot if talk of bringing back the AWB. As you said, there was a bill introduced.

[Baitball Blogger]

26. These nimrods keep pushing the meme that we're after everyone's guns.

It only helps create that bunker down mentality. If only someone in authority could lay it down simple enough to be Fox proof.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

27. No matter what way to cut it though, they can't excuse themselves.

I'm still left scratching my head trying to understand why exactly all those people needed to rush to gun shops after Sandy Hook to buy a fricken AR-15 other than, "Well maybe I won't be allowed to buy it in the future."

It's a semi-automatic assault weapon, not a limited edition Waterford Crystal.

[Baitball Blogger]

28. Brain-washed. No other explanation.

They keep to their own tight circles where people will just nod in agreement if they recite their mantras, and no one on our side has made our objectives abundantly clear.

[Snobblevitch]

33. How do you know they are all hunters?

[Baitball Blogger]

36. I have no idea where you're going with that question.

Not all gun owners are hunters, at all. They collect guns for different reasons. My best guess is that many have bought into this American Frontierland Pioneer image that is as solid as apple pie in their groups.

Let's face it. As members of the human species we are all seeking control over our lives. And this particular American character thinks they can attain that by collecting guns. That's a symptom of a bigger problem that we face. The problem is all the political chaos we're all trying to wade through. It can make anyone feel like they're under siege. Some people deal with it through prayer, others through family and a few are whack jobs that should never have had guns in the first place.

So, let's make an effort to make our objectives very clear so we don't add fuel to the fire. While we're on the subject, can anyone provide a list of the objectives that we seek with gun regulation? Because, if we can't spit it out in an elevator pitch, why should we be surprised to find that the right-wingers are thinking the worst?

They are framing this response in the absence of a clear plan.

[Snobblevitch]

38. Nimrod is from the Old Testament,

I think he was Nosh's grandson. He is characterized as being a 'great hunter'. It was the sarcasm of Bugs Bunny that changed the meanIng.

I think there are a lot of gun collectors out there that are not part of the problem. They just like to collect guns.

The only way to get any sort of new gun control laws is to make them reasonable and not just feel good legislation. The 1994 - 2004 AWB did more harm than good. Those semi-auto guns were still being sold without a few cosmetic features. The ban created a huge demand for them because many gun owners wanted the real thing, not the rifles manufactured during the ban.

I think a UBC bill could be passed. We would need to negotiate with republicans to get it passed.

[Baitball Blogger]

41. I got lucky with that "Nimrod" remark.

Must be a super-power.

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. Read many of the latest post-shooting threads?

No shortage of examples of people who really do want a complete ban (and in many cases, confiscation) in those threads. Sure, that's actually going to happen sometime around the 34th of Nevervember...but calls for such actions (generally accompanied by no shortage of nasty invective) will create a bunker down mentality, at least in people who don't spend some time thinking about how unlikely it is that ban advocates will get their way..

[Tommy_Carcetti]

43. Then it's still those idiots who deserve the criticism.

But again, even if you put that aside, there's nothing that justified the sudden need for people to purchase AR-15s other than "I need one now because I might not get one later."

It's Brawndo-esqe circular logic.

[Lizzie Poppet]

46. Sure: it's a silly overreaction.

Personally, I don't fall subject to that "forbidden fruit" syndrome: "I didn't want that thing until someone told me I couldn't have it." Not how my mind works... Thus I have no interest in, say, an AR-15. I have no use for one.

[beevul]

47. If you focus on the guns, theres no hiding it...

If you focus on the guns, theres no hiding it. I've said this before and nobody listens.

You can call it 'gun safety', or you can call it 'gun control', or you can call it a can of sardines. If your methodology doesn't change, people will not see it any differently no matter what you call it.

When your wish list contains the same things that the incrementalist anti-gunners have been pushing for decades, how do you expect people to react?

[Rex]

31. You know, until these school shootings I had no idea we had people here that

were scared of Obama coming for their guns! The only people I knew like that, are really ignorant and watch foxnews with a passion.

Surprise! DU has their own group of anti-government, paranoid gun horders! Such a healthy hobby.

[KG]

37. word.

[Initech]

35. This is why I utterly despise Infowars and Alex Jones.

Every school shooting, paranoid conspiracy theory peddling jerks like him play the "they're going to take our guns away" card to their equally paranoid lunatic fan base. He's the asshole behind those Sandy Hook Truthers. I'm quite frankly surprised that he hasn't come out and said that he this shooting in Oregon was staged. Did I mention that this guy is a massive piece of shit?

[rockfordfile]

39. No such thing as a "gun enthusiasts"

No such thing as a "gun enthusiasts". I consider them to be just gun nuts. Losers who are scared of everything. They're the kind of people who watches a crappy clint eastwood movie and thinks it's a documentary.

It's the nra and the gun culture they push.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. It's a euphemism.

I'll try to err on the side of kindness and diplomacy as much as I can possibly stomach.

[Skittles]

96. SCHEUDLING TOMMY_CARCETTI FOR ASS KICKING

I WILL BREAK THAT HABIT; yes INDEED

[Tommy_Carcetti]

100. You might very well.

[GGJohn]

45. Sure there is.

I'm an enthusiastic firearm owner, but I'm no nut, nor a loser.

[Kang Colby]

48. Many of us consider high sales volume a success.

More owners, more sales, more money in the pro-2A coffers, better lobbying efforts at the state and national level....more constitutional carry states.

The proof is in the pudding.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

49. Who here is talking about monetary success?

What I'm talking about here is basic human dignity.

[Kang Colby]

50. Many of us consider the right of self defense a prerequisite for basic human dignity. N/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. And rushing out to buy a semi-automatic rifle after a school shooting relates to that how?

Also, I'm curious as to who exactly is the "us" which you keep referring?

[Kang Colby]

58. The rush to buy is directly related to the potential risk of an

AWB. In 2013, a few states enacted senseless AWBs, and legislation was pushed at the federal level. So let's not act like its an illogical response. Gun control activism is the cause of the buying.

The "us" would be many 2A advocates, like myself.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

60. But there's no actual "risk" involved.

Worst case scenario would be that you would be prohibited in the future from purchasing certain types of weapons. I would assume a unabashed gun enthusiast such as yourself already has yourself one or more guns to your arsenal.

So you worry about an AWB and therefore your response is to buy more guns on top of those that you already have?

That's completely illogical behavior. Not to mention disgusting in light of the events that just took place.

[Kang Colby]

62. You are oversimplifying the issue.

As a fan of The Wire myself, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't understand how this plays out in the mind of someone new to gun ownership or an avid collector.

Gun owners or potential gun owners reason that they may not be able to purchase a particular firearm in the future as a result of potential knee jerk legislation. Therefore they go out and make the purchase, even if it's something they didn't plan to buy. "If I ever want one of these in the future, I need to buy one now." That is a powerful human reaction and we see it used in marketing all the time, "for a limited time only", "Sale ends soon!", etc. Is it always illogical? No.

AWBs could potentially impact the sale of 100s of firearms.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

66. Except the need to have a gun just to have it isn't logical.

And sure, at times we all want things just for the purpose of having them, even if we don't need them or plan to use them.

But it's one thing if you're talking about a collectable plate series to hang up on your wall. It's a completely different thing when it's for something that is specifically designed to kill or injure.

The public's not going to be placed at any greater harm if there's a rush on beanie babies. The same can't be said as it pertains to guns. The more guns there are out there floating around, the more risk there is to the American public. Spin it all you want, but you can't really escape that fact.

The lack of common sense and personal introspection amongst people who are obsessed with gun ownership is astounding. Sadly, many of them are completely unwilling to stop and think whether one really needs the gun that he or she desperately pines for.

[Kang Colby]

68. That's simply your opinion. n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

70. It's essentially Brawndo-esqe logic.

There's a horrific mass shooting committed using a certain type of firearm.

Amongst the gun enthusiast community, there are fears expressed that future sales of that type of firearm may be restricted.

So there's a rush to buy it.

But why do they want to buy it?

So they can have it.

But why do they want to have it?

That's the part that's never really been answered. At least it hasn't been answered here.

I suspect, from places on the internet not named Democratic Underground, a large amount of the push to stock up on certain types of firearms under fear that they might not be able to do so later has certain dark, anti-government undertones to it. You know, Second American Revolution and such.

But you're not going to cop to that here, aren't you, Kang Colby?

[Kang Colby]

71. A: Rifles are fun to shoot.

That's your answer. If you don't believe me, you should try it yourself.

If you live in Maryland, I will happily meet you at a public range, pay for all range fees, ammo, targets, provide safety gear and instruction, and let you shoot an "assault weapon" of your choice. If you still think it's a horrible endeavor afterwards, at least you will have a truly informed opinion.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

74. I'm sure blast fishing might be considered fun for some people as well.

At a certain point, however, what's considered fun for some people has to take a backseat to the general public welfare.

Nancy Lanza thought owning an AR-15 and going to the range with it was nothing but fun activity for her and her son. We all know how that ended up. While that's undoubtedly an extreme case and I'm not at all saying that's the typical end game, it nonetheless goes to show a horrific example where innocent "fun" with something designed to be a deadly weapon could go tragically awry.

I no longer live in Maryland, but even if I did, I must confess I'd have no interest in your offer. There are plenty of other leisure activities out there that don't necessitate use of a deadly weapon that I'd much rather be interested in undertaking. I just have no absolutely no interest. Sorry.

[Kang Colby]

75. Bicycles are far more dangerous to the general public

than all types of rifles combined. Should we ban bicycles? No of course not.

If you ever change your mind on the offer, feel free to send me a message. I've taken several folks to the range who dislike firearms, and they always end up having a good time.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

76. Yes, but a bicycle's primary purpose is for transportation.

Same can be said for cars.

We've been down this road before.

[Kang Colby]

77. Purpose is irrelevant and subjective. n/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

78. Not really.

It's not a coincidence that a gun is the most frequent tool these days used to kill another person.

Something with an intended purpose is usually going to be the most efficient at that purpose.

[Kang Colby]

79. That's irrelevant if you are discussing the overall magnitude of harm.

Despite what controllers think the purpose is for rifles, bicycles do more harm.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

80. More people are murdered per year via bicycle than via guns?

Oh, I'd love to see that stat.

[Kang Colby]

82. We are specifically talking about rifles...

which are often the primary target of AWBs. See? It makes no sense.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

83. Okay. More people are murdered per year via bicycle than via rifles?

Oh, I'd love to see that stat.

[Kang Colby]

84. I didn't say murdered. There are more bicycle deaths than all rifle deaths combined. N/t

[Tommy_Carcetti]

85. Except you're not considering incidential to vs. because of use from intended purpose.

Even when a gun or a rifle kills someone accidentally, it's still going to be because of what that gun was designed to do: to shoot someone or something. In that case, it just so happens that the person being shot wasn't the intended target, but that person was still shot after the gun did what it was supposed to do.

Whereas if someone dies on a bicycle, it was because they veered into traffic or a car veered into the bike lane or maybe because it blows a flat and throws the rider to the ground.

And I'm not personally aware of a single incident where a person was intentionally murdered by a bicycle. If it happened at all, it would be off the charts in terms of its rarity. However, there are quite a few instances of people being intentionally murdered by rifles.

There are so many more factors with the latter than with the former that it's not even close to an apt comparison.

[Kang Colby]

86. That's just philosophical babble.

Tell that to the families who lost loved ones via bicycle.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

87. Wha?

Bicycles are not designed or intended to be weapons. Guns are designed and intended to be weapons.

Your comparison dies there, before it ever gets off the ground.

[Kang Colby]

88. What difference does that make?

Last edited Mon Oct 5, 2015, 11:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Bicycles were never meant to be weapons, yet they are more lethal to our society than rifles. That's a true statement no matter what kind of spin someone puts on it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

89. No, they are not more lethal to society.

Factor out car driver error, bicycling error, the actual death rate attributed to the use of the bicycle itself (something along the lines of a malfunction within the bicycle itself) and it's certain to be quite small, smaller than that of rifles.

For example, in 2013 there were 734 bicycling deaths.

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm

Now, in 2013, "rifles" were expressly listed as the weapon in a homicide 285 times:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

Now you might think that number supports your argument, but think about those numbers for a second. 734 total bike deaths (I'm assuming all accidental, but if anyone was intentionally run down and killed by a rogue biker in some crazy off the wall incident, I'm guessing that's in there as well) vs. 285 homicides from rifles. To die from a rifle, all it takes is a bullet fired from that very rifle. To die from a bicycle, it usually involves a collision with a car or train or other object moving with much more force and speed than the bicycle. Or perhaps bicycling too close to a cliff and falling off the side, in which case the fall would kill you and not the bicycle.

So no, again, a bicycle itself is not deadlier than a gun. Sorry. You are sounding absurd.

[beevul]

90. "Factor out" as you use it = ignore some deaths.

Don't say its not, because that's exactly what it is.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

99. The amount of people who are actually killed *because of* bicycles is virtually nil.

Most people who die on bicycles are not killed by the bicycles themselves but as the result of collisions with cars. The cars kill them, not the bicycle. It just so happens that the person was riding a bike.

An actual death as the result of the bicycle would be if there was some sort of defect in the bike, the cyclist can't stop and it careens off a cliff. Or maybe if some frail 90 year old woman were crossing the street and gets slammed by an oncoming bike and her body can't take the impact. Those are freak occurrences though, far, far less than deaths because of guns, or even specifically because of rifles.

The poster was being deliberately obtuse.

Furthermore, any intentional killing (which the majority of gun related deaths are) is going to be far more straight forward than any accidental death (i.e. deaths from cars, bikes, swimming pools, etc.). There are going to be a lot more factors as to how an accidental death happens versus how an intentional killing happens.

So all you need to know how (not why, but how) an intentional shooting happens, is that the person takes out the gun, its either loaded or he loads it, aims and points the guns, pulls the trigger, the bullet shoots out and strikes and fatally wounds the victim. That's it in terms of how; there's no real variables involved, other than perhaps how well the person aimed.

On the other hand, with an accidental death--say, from a car--you have to consider the speed in which the car was going, whether the driver was under the influence of any alcohol or drugs, whether the driver was distracted by anything (such as a cellphone or radio), what were the road conditions, what was the visibility, any negligence coming on the own part of the person hit, and various other factors.

You know why that is? Because guns were designed for a specific purpose of striking and potentially killing a person. Cars weren't. You can't make a fair comparison between the two.

[Kang Colby]

106. So your argument is that

Bicycles by themselves don't kill anyone, other factors are usually involved somewhere. That argument sounds familiar doesn't it?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

107. Figured you'd go there. You're still wrong.

In theory, both bicycles and guns have been the primary tool resulting in a person's death. The thing about bikes though, is that it is extremely, extremely, extremely freakishly rare that someone will actually die because of a bike. I did a Google search, and I found one example in New York of a woman going into a coma after being hit by a bike. Not sure if she died. There was also an incident in Canada where someone died after being hit by a bike. And that's all I could find in terms of those bike-induced deaths. All other deaths I found pertaining to bicycle riders were as a result of bikers being hit by cars.

Guns, on the other hand, kill people all the time.

I haven't come across a single instance of a bike being used as a weapon. Maybe you can direct me to any such incident, but for the life of me I can't find anything.

On the other hand, guns are used as weapons all the time.

Do you know why?

Because that's what they're designed to do.

They're not toys. They're weapons.

The problem with a lot of gun enthusiasts is that they've forgotten that fact, and think guns are cool to collect and that they can buy them just because they want them, not because they need them.

[Kang Colby]

108. Freakishly rare,

yet bikes are still more dangerous than all types of rifles combined. I'm sure that after his economics class, even Stringer Bell could understand this concept.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

110. No, I'll repeat. Bikes are not more dangerous than rifles.

Even if you claim deaths specifically from rifle shootings are rare compared to other type of guns, it still dwarfs any type of deaths (accidental or intentional) that happened *because* of a bicycle.

According to the FBI, there were 323 homicides last year where the type of gun was listed as being a rifle (notably, not all police reports specifically list the type of gun used). That doesn't include accidents or suicides, but let's just leave it at that number to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Do you have anything at all support your claim that the number of people who were killed *because of* bicycles last year was anything even remotely close to 323? I'm talking about instances where someone was hit and killed by a bicycle, or where a malfunction in the bicycle cause the individual to crash and die.

Where are you getting your numbers to support your claim?

[Kang Colby]

112. I know you are trying to exclude certain bicycle deaths

to make your point. My point is that rifles are relatively harmless, especially when compared to bicycles. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=0

[Tommy_Carcetti]

114. Please tell me how many people you believe were killed *because of* bicycles last year.

You keep avoiding that question.

[Kang Colby]

115. How many people do you believe were killed *because of* rifles?

Each year, there are approximately 600 fatal unintentional firearm deaths (that includes rifles, pistols, revolvers, fully auto, shotguns, etc.). Since rifles are a smaller subset of all guns, it's reasonable to conclude that rifle accidents are a fraction of the 600 or so unintentional deaths. Meanwhile, 700+ people are killed each year where a bicycle was a factor. CDC WISQARS is your friend. Even if we include rifle accidents and murder by rifle, we still are well under the toll caused by bicycles.

I don't believe in anthropomorphism at all. That's my answer. Do you think Wee-Bey would understand this?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

116. So you are only counting accidential rifle deaths, not total deaths?

Yet you count over 700 total deaths where a bicycle was involved (accidents, and I'm assuming if there was any such thing as bicycle related homicide, that too).

Okay, so let's look at this which reports that in 2013, as per the NHTSA, there were 743 bicycle deaths:

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm

It would seem the most bicycle deaths were caused not by the bicycle itself (as in someone being hit by a bicycle or a defect within the bicycle that causes it to crash) but rather by collisions with motor vehicles. So therefore, what causes the person to die was not the bicycle but instead the car.

Do you understand now?

So in that same year, 2013, the FBI said there were 285 homicides where it was specifically found that a rifle was used for the homicide.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

And yes, you're right, in terms of the specific type of gun, that's a fairly small percentage of total firearm deaths.

Notably, those figures don't include accidents or reported shootings that did not specifically list the type of gun used but where a rifle was in fact used. So the number of deaths attributed to rifles is actually likely slightly higher, but whatever.

Bottom line is, you can't tell me there were roughly 300 instances of people getting killed as a result of a bicycle accident--not a bicycle on car accident where the bicyclist is killed due to the impact of the car, but a simple bicycle accident.

Therefore, your claim that bikes are more dangerous tools than rifles is ridiculous.

And that's putting aside the greater point that rifles are designed as weapons and bikes aren't.

[Kang Colby]

117. Go ahead and include both homicides with rifles and unintentional deaths with rifles...

there are still fewer deaths than where bicycles were a factor.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

119. Okay. Again. If a person on a bike is hit by a car.....

....what killed him or her?

Was it the bike he or she was sitting on?

Or was it the multi-ton steel framed car traveling at a higher speed and careening into him or her that killed him or her?

Also, when someone buys a bike, do they ever have to contemplate potentially having to kill someone with said bike, whether it be in a fit of anger or justifiable self-defense? Could the same ever be said about guns?

This is absurd and you know it.

[Kang Colby]

120. Let's agree to disagree.

I enjoyed the debate Tommy.

Best wishes,
-KC

[Tommy_Carcetti]

121. Well at least I know where you got your talking points from.

http://wonkette.com/581921/hero-tennessee-legislator-explains-how-guns-are-like-bicycles-only-safer

[Kang Colby]

122. He got his bill passed didn't he?

Good work, Tommy_Carcetti.

[Bettie]

162. I wonder also

what the usage frequency of bicycles versus guns.

How many people ride bicycles daily, weekly, monthly, versus how many people use rifles at the same rate.

How many bicycles are on the roads? I'm betting it is significantly larger than the number of rifles being used on a daily basis.

More users, more frequent usage will end with a higher incident rate because there are more humans involved. Once that can be controlled for, I'm pretty sure that the death rate for bicycles will be much, much less than that for rifles.

But, can't expect gun people to see this. All they see is 700 is bigger!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

164. The whole argument is mind boggling stupid.

I can't believe I actually saw that posted on here.

[Bettie]

165. They look for anything

they can to distract from facts.

My gun-nut brother loves to point out that you can kill someone with a shoelace, so guns are no more dangerous than shoes.

I don't talk to him much anymore, because he's an idiot.

[Kang Colby]

69. Also - there are more guns in the U.S. than

ever before. Yet, crime is at near 50 year lows. Perhaps these rushes actually promote lower crime rates?

Checkmate.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

72. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Violent crime, while down from numbers 20 years prior, is still very much a problem in this country.

One might just as well argue that the moderate decrease in gun related crimes could just as likewise be attributed to those gun control measures that did manage to make it from bill to law.

Without greater scientific data to support either argument, it would be an exercise in futility to claim who is right and who is wrong.

Two things are for certain, however. There is still a massive amount of gun related crime in this country compared to other developed nations. And there are a massive amount of guns in this country compared to other developed nations.

[Skittles]

94. LOLOLOL

YOU ARE NOT FOOLING ANYONE

here, read what is REALLY going on:

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/05/this_is_why_the_gun_nuts_win_an_oregon_sheriffs_nutty_conspiracy_theories_explains_the_gops_impotence/

[Logical]

95. Oh FFS. That is funny. So food, water, guns? you scare me. Nt

[valerief]

54. Frightening map. nt

[Kang Colby]

59. Why?

Have you ever had the pleasure of visiting Maine or Vermont?

[Eleanors38]

65. Vermont: Hot bed of Right Wing activism. Huge crime rate.

[Kang Colby]

67. LOL..

Burlington is worse than Baltimore in terms of violent crime, don't ya know?

[valerief]

53. I can see a movie where suggestible people are hypnotized to perform mass shootings, JUST

for the purpose of boosting gun sales. When the perpetrators are caught (hypnotizers, not shooters), they'll say they were just trying to protect the American economy. You know, like what our pols say about their WARS.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

55. Ex: Post 48 above.

Hey, it makes people money, so therefore it's moral and ethical behavior, right?

[valerief]

56. Right! Capitalism's golden rule: Make money by any means or perish. nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

81. Gun, Ammo, Weapons collecting is an ADDICTION! A deadly addiction!

[Hoyt]

91. Yahoos in long line in Georgia to grab ARs after Sandy Hook.

[beevul]

97. Thats a stretch.

You made that up.

[Hoyt]

98. Nope, here's a link. I know you don't think your gun buddies are like that, but they are.

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cobb-gun-show-attracts-scores-looking-for-semi-aut/nTdMm/


I'll await your apology, and hopefully some introspection on your hobby.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

102. From the article:

Austin, who stocks assault-style weapons and owns one himself, said he does not see the need for such a weapon, but that’s not the point.

“We don’t need the government telling us we don’t need them,” he said. “This is America. You buy what you want.”

And that there is the problem. Too many people view guns as "toys" that they want, not that they need.

[beevul]

123. Your link doesn't support your statement.

You said "Yahoos in long line in Georgia to grab ARs after Sandy Hook."

You have no way of knowing that the people depicted in your photo were there for that.

I'll await your apology, and hopefully some introspection on your hobby.

No apology necessary apparently.


Oh, and what 'hobby' is this that you speak of?

[Hoyt]

124. That's the very reason. Read the article, read about Sand Hook, look at those yahoos

faces as they wait to grab gunz. Admit it, gun fanciers are despicable people who choose gunz over society.

[beevul]

126. Your claim was specific.

You claimed multiple people depicted in your photo were there to buy ARs.

You have no way of knowing that.

I can't give much weight to the opinion on whos "despicable" or who chooses what over society, of a self admitted former robber.

[Skittles]

93. it's what paranoid cowards do

[Person 2713]

105. + 1. Sad but true in U.S.

[libodem]

103. Yep

You don't see them suddenly running to the psychiatrist.

It's the guns. It's not the mental health issues.

[Person 2713]

104. Just heard on the news gun stock are surging

Wtf Sick

[Paladin]

118. Big-time bullseye, T_C. Perfectly stated. Thanks. (nt)

[Kingofalldems]

125. Does a massacre get them even more excited about guns?

Extremely sick if true.

"Gimme my guns!" ----The gungeon.

[villager]

127. it's part of the sneering, snarking pathology they all harbor

Like the "joking around" on this board by the True Believers, in the wake of each new massacre. Only writ larger.

They love rubbing everyone else's faces in their particular fetish. It's part of the "power rush."

[orpupilofnature57]

128. They rushed after president Obama was elected, they rushed after Sandy Hook, and ISIS, the border,

tomorrow it will be another reason . Some people just can't have enough reasons to buy a gun, but people feel they need a gun are the danger .

[LittleBlue]

131. Nobody needs to make excuses. It's their right to buy guns legally whenever they want

Buying a gun doesn't harm anyone.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

132. So a mass rush to buy guns, especially AR-15 rifles, in the wake of a horrific school shooting....

...where 20 first graders were killed by said AR-15 rifle, represents rational, normal, innocent, excusable thinking?

[LittleBlue]

133. I don't really care what people buy after a shooting

They hear or read calls for gun control and buy guns. They aren't buying guns to celebrate a massacre (if that's what your implying) so it really doesn't concern me.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

140. Anti-social, reactionary behavior doesn't concern you?

They were faced with a situation that ought to have been a call for introspection, and instead they immediately decided they just wanted more guns because...they wanted them.

Fine if it doesn't concern you. That's your own little problem you'll have to deal with.

[LittleBlue]

142. Not really

That's your own little problem you'll have to deal with.

The only one of us bothered here, or even thinking about this, is you.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

143. Glad you're willing to admit that about yourself. nt

[branford]

134. Has there been any spike in shootings with "assault weapons"

after the buying spree after Sandy Hook?

I'm sure you and other gun control advocates in the media would be shouting if there was any increase.

Simply, all rifles, not just the dreaded "assault rifles" represent a tiny fraction (both as an absolute number and percentage) of all firearm crime and accidents, and the focus on them is stunningly myopic and disingenuous.

Why do care if people want to spend their money on a legal product, for which to buy new they must pass a background check, when those guns and people present no statistical threat to anyone? An anecdote, no matter how tragic like Sandy Hook, does not justify restricting the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

139. By all indications, Sandy Hook ought to have been a wake up call.

You would think an incident of that magnitude and pure horror might have caused legal, so-called "responsible" gun owners to rethink their situation.

I mean, you had Nancy Lanza, a seemingly upstanding mother of two living in a quiet, safe upscale suburban community, who legally bought semi-automatic rifles only for the apparently reason because she wanted to and she could. She thought nothing of taking her son to the range to shoot them for no reason other than apparently it was a "fun" activity to do. It was all harmless, legal fun, right?

I don't know if there was an increase in homicides involving rifles following Sandy Hook and the buying spree. That doesn't even matter.

The fact that there wasn't a huge decrease in gun related homicides following Sandy Hook speaks volumes about the state of mind of the gun loving community. The fact that there are still thousands of gun related homicides annually and hundreds involving rifles (which contrary to what you claim is not a nominal figure and no, bicycles don't kill more people contrary to what some people want you to believe) should speak volumes about the state of mind.

The fact that we saw a mother-and-son, "harmless shooting fun" situation play out almost identical to Sandy Hook last week speaks volumes.

There was a test in late 2012 and the gun enthusiast community failed. They failed miserably. They failed almost immediately by rushing to the gun stores to buy more AR-15s for no reason other than they might not be able to buy more of them in the future. As if they were some limited edition Beanie Baby.

No. Fuck them, fuck their fake-persecution complex, and fuck their crocodile tears. They own this shit.

[mmonk]

136. I own guns. Haven't purchased anymore since sometime in the 80's.

Beware broad brush strokes.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

138. That's nice. nt

[HockeyMom]

153. I was in 2 real lock downs in Florida Elementary schools

with gunmen on campus. One was right before Sandy Hook. We took 18 preschoolers and hid in bathroom, as happened at Sandy Hook.

This discussion went around the school after Sandy Hook, and especially hit home with our Pre-K class; one Teacher, and 2 Paras who were from Flint, Chicago, and NYC. The majority of school staff said they did not want to be armed, including those of us in that Pre-K classroom. All of us had experienced firsthand gun violence in our past. Do YOU want to be the one with a gun in this classroom? NO. School staff did not want the added responsibility of being Annie Oakley or Wyatt Earp in addition to academic responsibilities. "If I wanted to shoot down bad guys, I would have become a LEO" was the general sentiment. Florida tried to pass a law ending Gun Free Zones after Sandy Hook, but both School Administrators and PARENTS said No to that.

So let me get this straight, if Teacher A has a gun in their classroom that is going to protect Teacher B who doesn't want a gun in their classroom? Do you expect these gun toting teachers to run down the hallways, leaving their own classrooms vulnerable, to protect the rest of the student body? Not going to work unless there is a gun in EVERY CLASSROOM with every Teacher. Does the 2nd Amendment MANDATE every citizen own a gun?

It is very similar to college campuses. You ASSUME that every college student will want to own and carry a gun on campus. So if there is a shooting, these gun toting students are supposed to play Cop and run around campus trying to shoot an active shooter? Never mind that they would put their own lives in danger lacking SWAT training, how many innocent students would be shot dead in their own crossfire?

Perhaps, one on one with an shooter in a home, but highly unlikely in any public situation.

[Logical]

161. Gun nuts are really paranoid. Talk about gun control and they go wacko and buy ammo and guns. If....

I had a gun company I would have trolls post rumors on boards. They jump on that shit.