“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#77459 Dec 20, 2012
Dammit, PE!
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#77460 Dec 20, 2012
Ferrerman wrote:
<quoted text>Heavily armed punmen- and punwomen- are a danger to society.
However,if puns were outlawed, would only outlaws have puns?
Something to punder...
If puns were outlawed only inlaws would have puns.

/s/ Danger to Society

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77461 Dec 20, 2012
People who believe the only way of halting gun violence is to equip every American adult with a weapon may be well meaning. But they envision a United States populated by Jack Reachers. I think we'd get a United States populated by Barney Fifes.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77462 Dec 20, 2012
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
If puns were outlawed only inlaws would have puns.
/s/ Danger to Society
HA!

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77463 Dec 20, 2012
In all seriousness, as I was listening/reading discussions on this with all the “We should are the teacher” whargarble. I was wondering, what are school policies on pepper spray? Wouldn’t that be ALMOST as effective and a whole helluvalot safer?

I mean, lanyards for ID badges are breakaway so teachers can’t be strangled by them. And people are advocating GUNS in the classroom?

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#77464 Dec 20, 2012
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
It's our concern now, after what happened last Friday.
The only reason someone would want an assault weapon is to assult people. It's not used for hunting, it's used for killing people, and unless you are in the armed forces, NO ONE has any business owning one.
Call me as many names as you like, but I believe with all my being that a civilian should not be able to have access to a gun (or ammo clips) that have the capability of firing hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes.
OK, so basically you want to ban ownership of all guns? I don't own a single gun that I wouldn't be able to fire hundreds of times in a matter of minutes - including two revolvers, which are hand-loaded, removing the debate on clips. Even a fairly inexperienced shooter would be able to get off 20 or more rounds in a minute, with plenty of time to aim each shot - and that's if he had just one gun. I would never waste ammo shooting that way, but I know I would be able to do it. Sure, adults would be able to tackle the shooter while reloading, but on Friday, those most likely to do that were the first ones shot. In this type of situation, that isn't a factor.
That was one of the problems with the last ban we had...it banned the scariest looking guns, but didn't really have any impact on dirtbags killing people. Sure, in a theater or a mall scenario with lots of adults around, someone may be able to tackle the shooter while reloading, but that wouldn't have happened in Friday's scenario.
I think the "ban assault weapons" idea is appealing to those who aren't very familiar with guns, but does not actually do much of anything to keep us safer.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#77465 Dec 20, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
People who believe the only way of halting gun violence is to equip every American adult with a weapon may be well meaning. But they envision a United States populated by Jack Reachers. I think we'd get a United States populated by Barney Fifes.
Oh no!!!!!! Don't count me among the fans of that idea! I have no problem (obviously) with allowing conceal carry for those willing to go to the expense and effort of getting permits, and passing a background check, but not everyone across the board..

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#77466 Dec 20, 2012
squishymama wrote:
but I believe with all my being that a civilian should not be able to have access to a gun (or ammo clips) that have the capability of firing hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes.
If the people did not have access to the same guns and ammo that the government has, we may still be under British rule. While I am not advocating a revolution today, keeping all the big guns out of the hands of the people just gives the government that much more power over the people. Power to the People.

Additionally, from what I've read, the guns he used were NOT automatic. They were single fire. One trigger pull, one bullet. No faster than using a hand gun. As for 30 rounds in the clip...how much different would things have been if the dude had 2 hand guns and a satchel of 10 round clips in his bag.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#77467 Dec 20, 2012

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77468 Dec 20, 2012
Sgt__Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, so basically you want to ban ownership of all guns? I don't own a single gun that I wouldn't be able to fire hundreds of times in a matter of minutes - including two revolvers, which are hand-loaded, removing the debate on clips. Even a fairly inexperienced shooter would be able to get off 20 or more rounds in a minute, with plenty of time to aim each shot - and that's if he had just one gun. I would never waste ammo shooting that way, but I know I would be able to do it. Sure, adults would be able to tackle the shooter while reloading, but on Friday, those most likely to do that were the first ones shot. In this type of situation, that isn't a factor.
That was one of the problems with the last ban we had...it banned the scariest looking guns, but didn't really have any impact on dirtbags killing people. Sure, in a theater or a mall scenario with lots of adults around, someone may be able to tackle the shooter while reloading, but that wouldn't have happened in Friday's scenario.
I think the "ban assault weapons" idea is appealing to those who aren't very familiar with guns, but does not actually do much of anything to keep us safer.
Nope, I didn't say that I'd like to ban all guns. It's not even feasible in this country, so I won't tilt at that windmill.

You're right, I know very little about guns. I've shot at some watermelons on a farm with a rifle (?) and fired an M-16 at a firing range in college. That brief experience scared me; that thing was so powerful. The girl next to me couldn't even keep it level once she pulled the trigger; could see the bullets making a hugh arc over her target.(The range was built into the side of dam, so it was all outdoors.) The ROTC guy came and took it away from her. But I do remember that on semi-auto, 3 bullets came out with one pull on the trigger; they wouldn't let us put it on fully automatic. And that seemed quite enough to seriously wound or kill anyone.

So as a soldier, do you really believe that someone like me, who knows next to nothing about guns should be able to buy an M-16 or something similar with just a few hours of training and a laminated card? Doesn't a weapon like that really belong in the hands of people who have trained for hours, even days, on how to use it?

All I can think of is that some of those children might have been just wounded if the gun used hadn't been able to cut them in half with one pull of the trigger.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77469 Dec 20, 2012
VoiceOfReezon wrote:
<quoted text>
If the people did not have access to the same guns and ammo that the government has, we may still be under British rule. While I am not advocating a revolution today, keeping all the big guns out of the hands of the people just gives the government that much more power over the people. Power to the People.
Additionally, from what I've read, the guns he used were NOT automatic. They were single fire. One trigger pull, one bullet. No faster than using a hand gun. As for 30 rounds in the clip...how much different would things have been if the dude had 2 hand guns and a satchel of 10 round clips in his bag.
I've thought about that. But we're no longer living in 1776, where you had to load your gun with a musket ball, gunpower and a long stick. I don't really have an answer except to know there has to be a better way.

And I'll have to take your word on what types of guns were used. I have stopped reading most stuff about this; it hits way too close to home for me since I have a 1st grader.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#77470 Dec 20, 2012
Sgt__Smith wrote:
I think the "ban assault weapons" idea is appealing to those who aren't very familiar with guns, but does not actually do much of anything to keep us safer.
Exactly. A majority of people calling for the ban of guns (whatever the type) know nothing about guns. People continue to ignore the fact that gun control does nothing to curb gun violence, and is actually the opposite.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#77471 Dec 20, 2012
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
In all seriousness, as I was listening/reading discussions on this with all the “We should are the teacher” whargarble. I was wondering, what are school policies on pepper spray? Wouldn’t that be ALMOST as effective and a whole helluvalot safer?
I mean, lanyards for ID badges are breakaway so teachers can’t be strangled by them. And people are advocating GUNS in the classroom?
I don't think I'd be willing to confront an armed gunman with a bottle of pepper spray.

I don't think arming every teacher is necessary, it really only takes one. Maybe if someone had a gun in the office, this could have been prevented.

Lastly, I don't believe we should arm every adult in the country, as obviously there are many dangerous and disturbed individuals out there, but I don't think that's a reason to deny gun ownership to responsible and mentally stable people.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#77472 Dec 20, 2012
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, I didn't say that I'd like to ban all guns.
Gun Control: Myths and Realities
By
David Lampo
Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge.
1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents.
False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows
2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals.
False. Contrary to claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks.
3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws.
False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons. so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal.
(take notice of this)
4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t.
True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.
5. Waiting periods lower crime rates.
False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.”
6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works.
False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime.
Connecticut shooting:
The Mother of that man was more to blame than anyone else, she purchased the guns after her son was turned down.
An intelligent answer would be to ban the sale of guns to anyone that has a person n their home that is on medication for mental health problems.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77473 Dec 20, 2012
squishymama wrote:
<quoted text>
I've thought about that. But we're no longer living in 1776, where you had to load your gun with a musket ball, gunpower and a long stick. I don't really have an answer except to know there has to be a better way.
And I'll have to take your word on what types of guns were used. I have stopped reading most stuff about this; it hits way too close to home for me since I have a 1st grader.
The government who may oppress you also is no longer using a musket ball, gunpowder, and a long stick. That's the whole point of his argument. If you understand why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution, you would know it was included to prevent tyranny and level the playing field at least somewhat.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#77474 Dec 20, 2012
I honestly can understand folks who think we should all be wards of the state from not appreciating the second amendment.

They keep saying, but our government could never be tyrannical, meanwhile they constantly urge more and more government and never ending expansion of entitlement programs and handouts, more and more transfer of wealth from those who have earned it to those who haven't, and perversion of the constitution in such a way that the states would have never agreed to join the union had they known how it would have been distorted over time.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#77475 Dec 20, 2012
squishymama wrote:
It's our concern now, after what happened last Friday.
I still don't think that it is. Just because one nutball got his hands on an assault weapon, doesn't mean that all who own assault weapons are nutballs.
squishymama wrote:
The only reason someone would want an assault weapon is to assult people.
That's not true. Maybe someone enjoys shooting up watermelons or squirrels. And if society ends, I might have to ward off a hoard of people trying to steel my food. Or I might have to fight back against the government when it turns into a dictatorship.
squishymama wrote:
Call me as many names as you like, but I believe with all my being that a civilian should not be able to have access to a gun (or ammo clips) that have the capability of firing hundreds of bullets in a matter of minutes.
There are many people who disagree with you. And I still see no difference between one clip that holds 30 rounds or three clips that hold ten. It only takes a second or two to swap out a clip.

Should people be mandated to owning only one gun with one clip capable of holding only one round?

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#77476 Dec 20, 2012
I read online a post that said something like, "When we're talking about new gun laws/restrictions, a good litmus test should be,'would this law have prevented what happened at that school?'"

Interesting way to think about it.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77477 Dec 20, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The government who may oppress you also is no longer using a musket ball, gunpowder, and a long stick. That's the whole point of his argument. If you understand why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution, you would know it was included to prevent tyranny and level the playing field at least somewhat.
I understand perfectly. What I'm not seeing is any tyranny by the government. I know, I know, you have to be prepared just in case...

What I am seeing is a whole country becoming scared of their neighbors because one never knows when your neighbor is going to start shooting. I'm seeing our schools becoming jails. I'm seeing people afraid to confront a stranger on the street for bad behavior because they might have a gun.(This, btw, did really happen to a friend of mine. He told some guy to put his cheetos wrapper in the garbage instead of the street; dude put a gun in his face and said "Make me.")

I'm just a mom that wants her kids to be safe from this kind of BS.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#77478 Dec 20, 2012
edogxxx wrote:
That's not true. Maybe someone enjoys shooting up watermelons or squirrels. And if society ends, I might have to ward off a hoard of people trying to steel my food. Or I might have to fight back against the government when it turns into a dictatorship.
If the government turns into a dictorship, your one little gun, no matter how many bullets it shoots at one time, ain't gonna help much. They will have more.
edogxxx wrote:
There are many people who disagree with you. And I still see no difference between one clip that holds 30 rounds or three clips that hold ten. It only takes a second or two to swap out a clip.
Should people be mandated to owning only one gun with one clip capable of holding only one round?
I'm sorry, I just feel like if you're going to kill someone, it shouldn't be so f*cking easy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min harmonious 1,115,573
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 15 min harmonious 47,066
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 54 min Top of the Heap 4,054
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMerde 50,063
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 2 hr WelbyMD 178,617
Group of thieves hit Bentley Gold Coast store 2 hr Go Blue Forever 4
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 hr HughBe 69,541
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]