Gun Laws Debate - Chambersburg, PA

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Chambersburg, PA.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Chambersburg thinks we need reform.
Yes
 
62
Not at all
 
45
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Chambersburg:

Comments (Page 25)

Showing posts 481 - 500 of2,366
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#554
Dec 17, 2012
 
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
There's nothing to respond to. Your point of view is to remove or restrict guns from lawful citizens, everyone knows that but for reasons no one will ever know because it certainly doesn't change or correct the problems of crime. The facts of gun are against you, so you cite a research paper done almost 15 years ago hoping that it will somehow prove you as being right but it doesn't, nor does it address the probelm.
You don't want to respond to objective, scientific research because it doesn't support your preferred belief - a belief that, given the statistical research and hard data, is not based on facts or truth.

Your preferred belief is based on your feelings - your emotional reaction and not the facts.

So of course you'll find any excuse possible to ignore the facts. That one you didn't like because it was too old - never mind that facts are facts and you can't point to anything since then that refutes it.

How about this. Will you respond to this?
Dan the Man wrote:
More relevant statistical facts...
----------
And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.

The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state. It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place - assault weapons' bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements.

Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation.
Or this?
Dan the Man wrote:
More relevant statistics...
----------
Let's start by looking at factors that are sometimes assumed to be associated with gun violence but statistically are not.

It is commonly assumed that mental illness or stress levels trigger gun violence. But that's not borne out at the state level. We found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness or stress levels. We also found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities.

Images of drug-crazed gunmen are a commonplace: Guns and drug abuse are presumed to go together. But, again, that was not the case in our state-level analysis. We found no association between illegal drug use and death from gun violence at the state level.
Your decision-making here isn't rational. It isn't based on the facts on the ground. It's based on an emotional reaction to a Constitutional Amendment that's become an article of faith to you.

Until you can look at hard facts, you obviously aren't equipped to have a rational debate on this subject. Come back if you decide to grow up.
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#555
Dec 17, 2012
 
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
There's nothing to respond to. Your point of view is to remove or restrict guns from lawful citizens, everyone knows that but for reasons no one will ever know because it certainly doesn't change or correct the problems of crime. The facts of gun are against you, so you cite a research paper done almost 15 years ago hoping that it will somehow prove you as being right but it doesn't, nor does it address the probelm.
BTW - could you please find where I said I wanted to remove guns from lawful citizens? Thanks.
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#556
Dec 17, 2012
 
Nerd Rage wrote:
Another solution would be to have armed faculty members that are trained to defend only in extreme cases like most recent one. I think it would act as a deterrent or it could help limit the causalities.
You believe we'd be safer and kids would be healthier if their teachers were carrying handguns in the classroom?

You think that we'd have FEWER gun deaths in schools if that happened? That there wouldn't be accidents or nobody would never get hold of those handguns who shouldn't?

“ONE LOVE...ONE HORSE”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#557
Dec 17, 2012
 
Nerd Rage wrote:
Another solution would be to have armed faculty members that are trained to defend only in extreme cases like most recent one. I think it would act as a deterrent or it could help limit the causalities.
It would certainly act as a deterrent to people considering teaching as a profession.

Again - the gun HAS to be the solution, right?

How about gun owners just keep their weapons secure? That would have helped a lot more than any armed teacher...in this situation.

I foresee much stiffer penalties and regulation on firearm transfers. And I don't mean retail sales (that process is pretty good)- really referring to access, loans and probably another look at gun shows. Be prepared to pay if you loan or allow access to a firearm that is used in crime. The onus of responsibility for the security and whereabouts of you weapons needs to weigh more with those that choose to own guns.

Since: Jul 12

Portland, Oregon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#558
Dec 17, 2012
 
The nerd boy can't do no such thing and never will, huh nerd boy? Freedom to kill at will is a god given right as well, huh nerd boy? Mental patients got to eat as well
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#559
Dec 17, 2012
 
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe we'd be safer and kids would be healthier if their teachers were carrying handguns in the classroom?
You think that we'd have FEWER gun deaths in schools if that happened? That there wouldn't be accidents or nobody would never get hold of those handguns who shouldn't?
Yes, properly trained. I don't have a problem with it. Guns can be properly secured in schools, gun are properly secured in military armourys every day and they don't get tampered with. Guns aren't anything to fear. I don't know if there would be fewer deaths but everywhere guns are introduced to areas with high crime; crime decreases so this step could work just as well.
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#560
Dec 17, 2012
 
A Talking Horse wrote:
<quoted text>
It would certainly act as a deterrent to people considering teaching as a profession.
Again - the gun HAS to be the solution, right?
How about gun owners just keep their weapons secure? That would have helped a lot more than any armed teacher...in this situation.
I foresee much stiffer penalties and regulation on firearm transfers. And I don't mean retail sales (that process is pretty good)- really referring to access, loans and probably another look at gun shows. Be prepared to pay if you loan or allow access to a firearm that is used in crime. The onus of responsibility for the security and whereabouts of you weapons needs to weigh more with those that choose to own guns.
Well most crimes with guns occur with illegal guns not lawful owners so that doesn't address the problem at all. You're creating a fix for something that doesn't seem to be the problem.

Again - the gun HAS to be the solution, right?
Seriously

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#561
Dec 17, 2012
 
A Talking Horse wrote:
You don't need a lot of statistics.
You just need to pay attention to what is happening right here - in the confines of Franklin Country, Pennsylvania.
Lets see - we've had:
3 recent shootings/murders on the West Side
The Quincy killings
Kristen Runyon
And many more that didn't get as much ink...and even more shootings and gun-related crime - and a few accidents.
Where are the companion examples of people using guns successfully for self-defense?
While this was a not Franklin Country - Adam Lanza's mother reminds me of the Meleanie Hain example. She was the Lebanon, PA soccer mom who open carried a glock at her kids games and made national headlines - only to be murdered by her husband shortly after in a murder-suicide.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/20...
Interesting, I didn't know Mrs. Hain had been murdered. Kinda brings to mind; Matthew 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place, for all those who take the sword will die by the sword".
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#562
Dec 17, 2012
 
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, properly trained. I don't have a problem with it. Guns can be properly secured in schools, gun are properly secured in military armourys every day and they don't get tampered with. Guns aren't anything to fear. I don't know if there would be fewer deaths but everywhere guns are introduced to areas with high crime; crime decreases so this step could work just as well.
Tell me about the success of men and women defending themselves at Fort Hood. There were countless properly trained people there and guns properly secured, yet it was civilian police who stopped him.

13 people dead and 29 wounded under the circumstances you are describing. Doesn't sound like your preferred solution worked. Why is that?
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#563
Dec 17, 2012
 
bobby6464 wrote:
The nerd boy can't do no such thing and never will, huh nerd boy? Freedom to kill at will is a god given right as well, huh nerd boy? Mental patients got to eat as well
How about the freedom to protect your family or property? Or are you just looking to call people "Boy".
Go be a racist somewhere else.
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#564
Dec 17, 2012
 
It goes back to the old saying.

"If guns don't solve anything, why do the cops have them?"

The people that commit these crimes don't care about gun laws. Nevertheless, it seems like many of these crimes are committed with legally owned guns, which begs the question about ease of access. It's a tough dilemma.

I could quote a bunch of analogies that make gun deaths seem like a smaller percentage than the others. Alcohol, drugs, texting while driving, poisoning etc...

Do you disarm the 99.9% of legal, law abiding gun owners because of these criminal activities?

If so, at what point does the federal government have limits on what they could ban to "protect" citizens from themselves? Should we raise the legal driving age to prevent teen deaths? Should we confiscate all drugs(including alcohol) to prevent deaths? Should we reduce food allocation to prevent diabetes and obesity related deaths?

I'm not advocating these things nor am I advocating greater gun ownership, it just seems like these things would be open for discussion after we pass a law to confiscate guns.
Nerd Rage

Chambersburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#565
Dec 17, 2012
 
You want to lay this at the feet of conservatives as if we are the only ones who own guns. This is not a left or right problem. Just be willing to look at solutions that WORK and not what you want to do politically. I think the solutions that work, you won't like because the facts show that guns have decreased crime when lawful citizens have them. How about you offer a solution that doesn't infringe upon peoples constitutional rights and that have been proven to work.
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#566
Dec 17, 2012
 
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
You believe we'd be safer and kids would be healthier if their teachers were carrying handguns in the classroom?
You think that we'd have FEWER gun deaths in schools if that happened? That there wouldn't be accidents or nobody would never get hold of those handguns who shouldn't?
Would they be safer with a cop in each school? If so, how about a law enforcement trained school administrator that carries a sidearm at each school? Fully background verified and fully police academy trained.

How about two to ensure one is there at all times?

How much would two slots in two classes per year at the Police Academy cost taxpayers? Would we pay it?

I would.
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#567
Dec 17, 2012
 
Nerd Rage wrote:
<quoted text>
Well most crimes with guns occur with illegal guns not lawful owners so that doesn't address the problem at all. You're creating a fix for something that doesn't seem to be the problem.
Again - the gun HAS to be the solution, right?
You're wrong.

----------

Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii.
...
Weapons: Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally.
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#568
Dec 17, 2012
 
Source above:

A Guide to Mass Shootings in America

There have been at least 62 in the last 30 years—and most of the killers got their guns legally.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/m...
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#569
Dec 17, 2012
 
Jimmy wrote:
It goes back to the old saying.
"If guns don't solve anything, why do the cops have them?"
The people that commit these crimes don't care about gun laws. Nevertheless, it seems like many of these crimes are committed with legally owned guns, which begs the question about ease of access. It's a tough dilemma.
I could quote a bunch of analogies that make gun deaths seem like a smaller percentage than the others. Alcohol, drugs, texting while driving, poisoning etc...
Do you disarm the 99.9% of legal, law abiding gun owners because of these criminal activities?
If so, at what point does the federal government have limits on what they could ban to "protect" citizens from themselves? Should we raise the legal driving age to prevent teen deaths? Should we confiscate all drugs(including alcohol) to prevent deaths? Should we reduce food allocation to prevent diabetes and obesity related deaths?
I'm not advocating these things nor am I advocating greater gun ownership, it just seems like these things would be open for discussion after we pass a law to confiscate guns.
Who is talking about a law to confiscate guns? I've never heard anybody suggest that.

Can you agree that some balance is possible? That we can have laws that restrict access to guns or ammo in a way that doesn't prevent gun owners from defending themselves? That every discussion of gun regulation doesn't mean people want to disarm the population?
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#571
Dec 17, 2012
 
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
You're wrong.
----------
Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii.
...
Weapons: Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally.
Alcohol related deaths. Mostly legally obtained. 80K deaths per year. 80,000 * 30 (back to 1982) is 2.4 Million. Chicago has 2.6 Million people.

http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcoho...

Trying to ban guns instead of alcohol would be like extinguishing the fire in your yard while the house is burning.
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#572
Dec 17, 2012
 
Jimmy wrote:
<quoted text>
Would they be safer with a cop in each school? If so, how about a law enforcement trained school administrator that carries a sidearm at each school? Fully background verified and fully police academy trained.
How about two to ensure one is there at all times?
How much would two slots in two classes per year at the Police Academy cost taxpayers? Would we pay it?
I would.
The school administrators I know with military/law enforcement backgrounds aren't particularly good at running schools. So I wouldn't necessarily want those in charge of educating our kids to have that mindset.

But we have security guards at malls, seems like it would be workable to have them in schools. It would have to be handled well, because the research I've seen shows that metal detectors and security guards in schools increases anxiety in children, which then prevents them from learning at their full potential. Being reminded day after day of the potential for danger isn't healthy for kids' emotional or intellectual development.

But it's worth a discussion. It could be a component of a comprehensive strategy.
Dan the Man

Shippensburg, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#574
Dec 17, 2012
 
Nerd Rage wrote:
You want to lay this at the feet of conservatives as if we are the only ones who own guns. This is not a left or right problem. Just be willing to look at solutions that WORK and not what you want to do politically. I think the solutions that work, you won't like because the facts show that guns have decreased crime when lawful citizens have them. How about you offer a solution that doesn't infringe upon peoples constitutional rights and that have been proven to work.
If you're talking to me - which isn't clear - I'm not sure what you mean, "lay this at the feet of conservatives." The arguments I hear against any regulation of guns/ammo come from conservatives. That's a fact.

Of course liberals own guns. I do. But I'm not hearing conservatives offer potential solutions like liberals are - only pointing out how every solution won't work.

Why don't you break the mold? Why don't you suggest some solutions to mass killings rather than simply parrot NRA talking points?
Jimmy

Charlotte, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#575
Dec 17, 2012
 
Dan the Man wrote:
<quoted text>
Who is talking about a law to confiscate guns? I've never heard anybody suggest that.
Can you agree that some balance is possible? That we can have laws that restrict access to guns or ammo in a way that doesn't prevent gun owners from defending themselves? That every discussion of gun regulation doesn't mean people want to disarm the population?
I completely agree that we have to have a balance. I just don't know how to do it. The only thing that is ever brought forward is a gun ban or an ammo ban either via price or a "green ammo" initiative.

The legislation seems to be punitive to what we could call "normal" gun owners. "Normal" meaning they don't commit crimes, they are recreational shooters etc...

We have to find a way to tell the sketchy people "no gun for you". We also have to find a way to get people to control access to their guns.

Finally, we have to realize that crazy people do crazy things. Therefore, we have to have a contingency plan to deal with these idiots.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 481 - 500 of2,366
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

7 Users are viewing the Chambersburg Forum right now

Search the Chambersburg Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Song Game (Jun '11) 4 hr Darth Vader 308
Words Within Words (Jun '11) Wed Darth Vader 277
Keep A Word Drop A Word (Jun '11) Wed Darth Vader 356
Word Game _ Change A Letter (Jun '11) Wed Darth Vader 312
Leader of Chambersburg's Friendship Engine & Ho... (Mar '10) Tue jrrobinson 8
Best Dining In Chambersburg, Part three (Jan '12) Mon Rock Hoover 1,061
More union pandering? Apr 8 bobby6464 13

Chambersburg Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]