Gun Control Under Obama

[FKA Reader]

Paul wrote:

FKA Reader, thanks for the civility! I have lost people close to me by the gun.. It actually was an "off duty" highly trained policeman..who was drunk..The solutions are not easy to find....but I believe they are out there. Your response is the direction that will create meaningful dialogue.. not just attacks on people who may not be "enlightened". It seems that on this blog, people would rather attack versus inform others or give others meaningful insights. Actually, I worked in a highschool where we had only one entrance during the school day. The front door had to be unlocked once the visitor was identified. We had an office with a close circuit tv...manned by a staff member. It cut down tremendously on "outside" people.
Just an "idea".

So sorry for your personal experience.

It appears that the school in Connecticut had a secured entrance similar to what you describe and the gunman was able to shoot his way through it. Likewise, Columbine had armed security people who engaged with the gunman. And up in Cleveland a few years back, I believe that a student gunman was able to get his weapon through a metal detector.

There was some follow-up to the Cleveland shooting that pointed in the direction of making better use of mental health resources and reordering some processes to provide better linkages between students with a variety of symptoms and the mental health system. Apparently one of the findings is that Cleveland had the kind of attendance driven revolving door of disenrolling/re-enrolling students that meant that they were frequently starting over in new schools and records were often waylaid. They also still used a system of "discipline transfers" (sort of a geographic cure for repeat offenders) that compounded the problem.

Long-term I don't see much value in the proliferation of weapons. The more there are in circulation, the more likely they are to end up in the hands of angry alcoholics, children, and kids on the street emulating their elders.

[FKA Reader]

TonyD2 wrote:

<quoted text>
All you think about is the receiving end. How much help can you be to your family and your community if you're not well yourself? What happens when there is nobody to come to your rescue because they're all in the same sinking boat? You'd rather all of us go down than some of us survive.

First off, I don't assume that we are all on a sinking ship.

Certainly individuals need to take care of themselves. However, reliance exclusively on one's self is a fool's errand.

As an example, I grew up on the public library. It was a regular stop after school one day a week. While I am certain that had it not been there, my parents could have kept me supplied with books, and most of my friend's parents could have done the same. But, that is not a particularly efficient system. Lending libraries, initially by subscription and eventually tax-supported, have contributed a great deal to the literacy and education of communities across America. Even the literacy and education of many whose parents could not have kept them supplied with books.

Likewise, early settlers would have been foolish not to make use of the communal protective features of living within proximity of one another, perhaps even fencing off their shared territory. They may have grown crops together, and they almost certainly relied on their neighbors for such things as building houses and barns.

Conflicts within communities could be as deadly as those with outsiders when it came to such things as warding off starvation, braving the elements or negotiating trade with others.

[VADoc]

Paul wrote:

FKA Reader, thanks for the civility! I have lost people close to me by the gun.. It actually was an "off duty" highly trained policeman..who was drunk..The solutions are not easy to find....but I believe they are out there. Your response is the direction that will create meaningful dialogue.. not just attacks on people who may not be "enlightened". It seems that on this blog, people would rather attack versus inform others or give others meaningful insights. Actually, I worked in a highschool where we had only one entrance during the school day. The front door had to be unlocked once the visitor was identified. We had an office with a close circuit tv...manned by a staff member. It cut down tremendously on "outside" people.
Just an "idea".

I have lost loved ones to gun violence too. It was at the hands of criminals who stole their guns and my loved ones couldn't defend themselves. I did have one uncle who shot back at the guy who killed him. They caught the man who shot him only because he went to the ER for treatment following the armed robbery. If my uncle had been unarmed the guy most likely would have gotten away with the murder.

People tend to try and use one example as a representation of the entire population. That's the wrong way to do things. As someone else has said before that hundreds of thousands of us all own firearms and we all got up this morning and will go to bed tonight without shooting or killing anybody.

You have a better chance of winning the lotto than being in a situation like the Colorado or CT shooting, yet everyone wants to outlaw a gun.

[FKA Reader]

VADoc wrote:

<quoted text>
I have lost loved ones to gun violence too. It was at the hands of criminals who stole their guns and my loved ones couldn't defend themselves. I did have one uncle who shot back at the guy who killed him. They caught the man who shot him only because he went to the ER for treatment following the armed robbery. If my uncle had been unarmed the guy most likely would have gotten away with the murder.
People tend to try and use one example as a representation of the entire population. That's the wrong way to do things. As someone else has said before that hundreds of thousands of us all own firearms and we all got up this morning and will go to bed tonight without shooting or killing anybody.
You have a better chance of winning the lotto than being in a situation like the Colorado or CT shooting, yet everyone wants to outlaw a gun.

Or you could try it this way:

You have a better chance of winning the lotto than being in a situation like the Colorado or CT shooting, yet everyone wants to own a gun.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Or you could try it this way:
You have a better chance of winning the lotto than being in a situation like the Colorado or CT shooting, yet everyone wants to own a gun.

People with common sense don't stand in the middle of a golf course in a thunderstorm.

[TonyD2]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
First off, I don't assume that we are all on a sinking ship.
Certainly individuals need to take care of themselves. However, reliance exclusively on one's self is a fool's errand.
As an example, I grew up on the public library. It was a regular stop after school one day a week. While I am certain that had it not been there, my parents could have kept me supplied with books, and most of my friend's parents could have done the same. But, that is not a particularly efficient system. Lending libraries, initially by subscription and eventually tax-supported, have contributed a great deal to the literacy and education of communities across America. Even the literacy and education of many whose parents could not have kept them supplied with books.
Likewise, early settlers would have been foolish not to make use of the communal protective features of living within proximity of one another, perhaps even fencing off their shared territory. They may have grown crops together, and they almost certainly relied on their neighbors for such things as building houses and barns.
Conflicts within communities could be as deadly as those with outsiders when it came to such things as warding off starvation, braving the elements or negotiating trade with others.

Yep. That's why it behooves one to get to know one's neighbors during good times... It usually becomes apparent if and who one needs to be wary toward.

[Pale Rider]

Gun Rights -

Total Contributions $22,467,579
Of that total Democrats -$3,231,405 --------14%

Of that total Republicans -$19,195,400 ---- 85%

Gun Control -
Total Contributions $1,888,886

Of that total Democrats $1,776,310 --------- 94%

Of that total Republicans $112,326 ---------- 6%

Look at those gun rights under Republicans, no wonder, we have no
gun control passed. The Republicans are getting paid by the NRA, Gun manufactures, Right Wing nuts like Ted Nugent, that shell out big bucks to stop gun control.

[Spookishere F trolls]

Pale Rider wrote:

Gun Rights -
Total Contributions $22,467,579
Of that total Democrats -$3,231,405 --------14%
Of that total Republicans -$19,195,400 ---- 85%
Gun Control -
Total Contributions $1,888,886
Of that total Democrats $1,776,310 --------- 94%
Of that total Republicans $112,326 ---------- 6%
Look at those gun rights under Republicans, no wonder, we have no
gun control passed. The Republicans are getting paid by the NRA, Gun manufactures, Right Wing nuts like Ted Nugent, that shell out big bucks to stop gun control.

Your headings are wrong they should be switched as follows
Democrats should be communists
gun control should be anti constituion lunatics who fear inanimate objects.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Pale Rider wrote:

Gun Rights -
Total Contributions $22,467,579
Of that total Democrats -$3,231,405 --------14%
Of that total Republicans -$19,195,400 ---- 85%
Gun Control -
Total Contributions $1,888,886
Of that total Democrats $1,776,310 --------- 94%
Of that total Republicans $112,326 ---------- 6%
Look at those gun rights under Republicans, no wonder, we have no
gun control passed. The Republicans are getting paid by the NRA, Gun manufactures, Right Wing nuts like Ted Nugent, that shell out big bucks to stop gun control.

Thanks for pointing out that the Democrat Party has no respect for the Constitution, kid.

[Robert]

You could add 100 new gun laws and you would not stop the violence. Why can't you morons comprehend this? Criminals don't register their guns. They buy them in back allies or steal them. Law abiding citizens don't kill other law abiding citizens. If someone comes in my house uninvited they are leaving in a body bag and full of buckshot! 523 murders in Chicago. Illinois has the strictest gun laws and 95 % of those were gun crimes. See! Criminals don't care about gun laws!

[VADoc]

FKA Reader wrote:

<quoted text>
Or you could try it this way:
You have a better chance of winning the lotto than being in a situation like the Colorado or CT shooting, yet everyone wants to own a gun.

Eagle Scout here. I would rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. That's why I carry a lot of insurance. Nothing is more expensive than regret.

[VADoc]

Pale Rider wrote:

Gun Rights -
Total Contributions $22,467,579
Of that total Democrats -$3,231,405 --------14%
Of that total Republicans -$19,195,400 ---- 85%
Gun Control -
Total Contributions $1,888,886
Of that total Democrats $1,776,310 --------- 94%
Of that total Republicans $112,326 ---------- 6%
Look at those gun rights under Republicans, no wonder, we have no
gun control passed. The Republicans are getting paid by the NRA, Gun manufactures, Right Wing nuts like Ted Nugent, that shell out big bucks to stop gun control.

You're forgetting all of us who send money to the NRA every year because we want to make sure our 2nd amendment rights are protected.

Now if you want to talk about politicians being bought and paid for would you please look up the contributions made by unions to democrats?

[Che Reagan Christ]

VADoc wrote:

<quoted text>
You're forgetting all of us who send money to the NRA every year because we want to make sure our 2nd amendment rights are protected.
Now if you want to talk about politicians being bought and paid for would you please look up the contributions made by unions to democrats?

Because people in unions don't have rights, just you do, right?

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Because people in unions don't have rights, just you do, right?

I don't see NRA members receiving taxpayer dollars. I do see public sector leeches and UAW thugs swimming in our tax dollars.

[VADoc]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Because people in unions don't have rights, just you do, right?

Nice try at twisting my words, but sorry it won't work.

If unions want to buy favors, good for them. Just like if I want the NRA to protect my interests I will continue to fund them.

The issue I have with your example with unions are:
1. The members should have a choice whether they wish to be members and it should not be mandatory.
2. Unions are not a guaranteed right by the constitution

I simply used unions as an example to show the hypocrisy of pale's example.

[Spookishere F trolls]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>I don't see NRA members receiving taxpayer dollars. I do see public sector leeches and UAW thugs swimming in our tax dollars.

Swimming hell more like feeding at a trough like hogs

[TonyD2]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
Because people in unions don't have rights, just you do, right?

Republicans who are forced into paying union dues don't.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>I don't see NRA members receiving taxpayer dollars. I do see public sector leeches and UAW thugs swimming in our tax dollars.

You don't think any NRA members work for the government?

[Pale Rider]

Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:

<quoted text>I don't see NRA members receiving taxpayer dollars. I do see public sector leeches and UAW thugs swimming in our tax dollars.

The problem with you. You only see what you want to see. When are you going to contribute something on here that is true? You are a goathead.

[Che Reagan Christ]

VADoc wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try at twisting my words, but sorry it won't work.
If unions want to buy favors, good for them. Just like if I want the NRA to protect my interests I will continue to fund them.
The issue I have with your example with unions are:
1. The members should have a choice whether they wish to be members and it should not be mandatory.
2. Unions are not a guaranteed right by the constitution
I simply used unions as an example to show the hypocrisy of pale's example.

I simply pointed out that your reply demonstrated that "hupocrisy" is a two way street.