Obama supports new bid to ban assault weapons.

[mrsleeve]

^

What has happened last week are VERY VERY rare instances. Yes we have had a couple more than the statistical down ward trend this year for large mass shootings. You know that more people are hit by lighting and die in the US alone than are killed in incidents like last Friday Lets ban lighting while we are banning things. Or knives that accouant for 5 times the amount homicides than rifles of all types in this country lets regulate and ban knives.

I like what are using as a definition for "MASS Shooting" Now. I learned this form the article above dub posted. According to the Bradys anytime 1 shot is fired in the direction of 3 or more people even if no one is actually hit, thats what we are defining a MASS shooting as now.


Armed security in schools,

this is from another forum and well spoken

Texas is actively pursuing this very strategy... as so are several other states and smaller individual locations. Honestly... we put armed guards in banks, are our children less important than our money? We put plainclothes air marshalls on our airplanes even after we are all essentially strip searched before we get on planes. We put armed guards at courthouses, and you can't fart near the White House without having an armed guard check you over repeatedly.

We know the solution... yet we act like it's some horrendous act that threatens our kids - we bristle at the idea, yet how many of us take our kids with us to the banks? How many of us take our kids with us to the court house to get our licenses renewed? How many of us take our kids with us on the airplanes? The examples are too many to share here.

Arming citizens - either ex-military, active law enforcement, or school staff - will solve this problem. Just look at the Aurora shootings last summer - that evil SOB had 4 or 5 movie theaters within 5 minutes he could choose. HE CHOSE THE ONLY ONE WITH A BAN ON GUN CARRY IN THE THEATER TO ATTACK. This coward chose the only one he knew would 99% - 100% be unarmed because law abiding citizens would not disregard the law and bring in something that could potentially take him out.

Refuse to put our kids in killing zones anymore. ARM OUR SCHOOLS.

There was a bill last week sitting on the Gov Of MI desk that was all but expected to be signed into law last Friday that would have allowed legal MI CCW holders to carry in MI schools and universities, it was promptly VETOED in knee jerk reaction to CT.

[iamsam]

I have read many many posts about the gun control issue. I say nothing, and just read. I see arguments about what the 2a means and who it applies to and blah blah blah, anyway I in no way believe in taking away guns but i do believe in coming up with a way to prevent things that have brought all this about. You cant prevent people from being crazy but what are some real solutions that would prevent things like what has happened lately?

make CWPs available on a national level, without discriminating by region.

[frankenbeemer]

I have read many many posts about the gun control issue. I say nothing, and just read. I see arguments about what the 2a means and who it applies to and blah blah blah, anyway I in no way believe in taking away guns but i do believe in coming up with a way to prevent things that have brought all this about. You cant prevent people from being crazy but what are some real solutions that would prevent things like what has happened lately?

Eliminate "gun free zones", which are more properly called "defenseless victim zones". I would not compel teachers or school administrators to arm thmselves, but I would allow them to carry at work if they had a typical CCW permit.

I'm not a teacher, any pedagogs care to comment?

[frankenbeemer]

Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You…



Between Two Worlds
It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It’s like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one



http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

Extraordinary analysis! This expresses many of the concerns and emotions I have pondered in the days since this tragedy. This is the first I have heard of the "logical fallacy of misleading vividness". Thank you vedubin01.

[Ginsterman98]

Do Armed Citizens Stop Mass Shootings?

The more difficult you make something, the less likely people are to do it. If a want-to-be murderer has to find some black market connection and pay 10x the $ for a rifle that he used to be able to walk in to Wal-Mart and buy off the shelf, do you think he/she will be just as likely to follow through? Of course not. The harder you make something to do, the less people will be willing to go through the arduous task to complete it. It's basic human nature: deterrence.

I'll save all your pointless bar graphs of the same shit that keeps getting spewed out by the Liberal gun grabbers.

That "study" does not include any incident where private citizens or off duty police foiled a mass shooting. Obvious crap is obvious jack, get your facts in order before you go regurgitating this garbage.

Here are some real facts. Say what you will about Ann, she hit the nail on the head. Funny how these did not make it into your one sided story aimed to make people afraid.


In the wake of a monstrous crime like a madman's mass murder of defenseless women and children at the Newtown, Conn., elementary school, the nation's attention is riveted on what could have been done to prevent such a massacre.

Luckily, some years ago, two famed economists, William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll.

Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings. (I note that they did not look at reforming our lax mental health laws, presumably because the ACLU is working to keep dangerous nuts on the street in all 50 states.)

Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws.

Their study controlled for age, sex, race, unemployment, retirement, poverty rates, state population, murder arrest rates, violent crime rates, and on and on.

The effect of concealed-carry laws in deterring mass public shootings was even greater than the impact of such laws on the murder rate generally.

Someone planning to commit a single murder in a concealed-carry state only has to weigh the odds of one person being armed. But a criminal planning to commit murder in a public place has to worry that anyone in the entire area might have a gun.

You will notice that most multiple-victim shootings occur in "gun-free zones" -- even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.


Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they're not stupid.

If the deterrent effect of concealed-carry laws seems surprising to you, that's because the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn't noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn't shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

In a nonsense "study" going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."

This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.

If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?

It would be like testing the effectiveness of weed killers, but refusing to consider any cases where the weeds died.

In addition to the Portland mall case, here are a few more examples excluded by the Mother Jones' methodology:

-- Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero.

-- Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I'm excluding the shooters' deaths in these examples.)

-- Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three.

-- Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates -- as well as the "trained campus supervisor"; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two.

-- Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman's head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two.

-- Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One.

By contrast, the shootings in gun-free zones invariably result in far higher casualty figures -- Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wis. (six dead); Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Va. (32 dead); Columbine High School, Columbine, Colo. (12 dead); Amish school, Lancaster County, Pa. (five little girls killed); public school, Craighead County, Ark. (five killed, including four little girls).

All these took place in gun-free zones, resulting in lots of people getting killed -- and thereby warranting inclusion in the Mother Jones study.

If what we care about is saving the lives of innocent human beings by reducing the number of mass public shootings and the deaths they cause, only one policy has ever been shown to work: concealed-carry laws. On the other hand, if what we care about is self-indulgent grandstanding, and to hell with dozens of innocent children being murdered in cold blood, try the other policies.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER

[RGCintha29073]

make CWPs available on a national level, without discriminating by region.

Agreed, im waiting on mine to get approved right now from NM. But even if we all begin to carry that wont prevent the crazy from obtaining the weapon and attempting to shoot, even if he is stopped by an armed citizen. Im thinking more of a way to keep these weapons out of their hands all together. Possible? Idk.

[iamsam]

Agreed, im waiting on mine to get approved right now from NM. But even if we all begin to carry that wont prevent the crazy from obtaining the weapon and attempting to shoot, even if he is stopped by an armed citizen. Im thinking more of a way to keep these weapons out of their hands all together. Possible? Idk.

I would love to remove guns from the hands of the crazy, the criminals, people who can't respect them, etc. I would feel a lot safer in inner city Baltimore in the blue light district if all of the people there were only carrying knives and I was the one with the (concealed) gun. Because you know for a FACT a lot of those dudes are packing, illegally of course (which doesn't seem to phase them), but honestly, I can't think of an easy way to disarm them. The much MUCH easier method would to begin with arming me and you first, then we worry about disarming them.

[future rs]

NM gun laws aren't bad. How long have you been waiting?

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

[frankenbeemer]

Keep fucking that chicken

Apologies for the derail on a serious subject, but everytime I read this I get a pleasant chuckle.

This seems like an appropriate time to discuss the issue of credibility of some of the posts here. I'm not talking about this one, though. It's a reasonable (IMHO) response to a blatantly biased assertion.

One part of the evaluation of the credibility of a source is determining bias.

Identify bias. If the source's author is known to be emotionally or financially connected with the subject, be aware that the source may not fairly represent all views. Sometimes research is necessary to determine relationships that indicate the possibility of bias.

• Be conscious of wording that indicates judgment. Conclusions that describe something as "bad or good" or "right or wrong" should be examined. It is more appropriate to compare something to an objective standard than to label it with words that represent abstract concepts. Take for example, "...these and other despicable acts..." vs. "...these and other illegal acts...". The latter describes the acts in terms of the law (an objective source, somewhat) whereas the first example judges the actions according to the author's own belief of what is a despicable act.

[bpmack16]

Good press release by the NRA on TV right now. f*** that little piece of s*** what that red sign I hope he gets shot outside.

[slammin.e28]

Watching it now

[bpmack16]

If you don't have a gun license GET ONE. If you have a gun buy another one. If you have 2 guns buy ammo and large cap mags. Do this ASAP. If you have a brain join the NRA support your rights and the NRA Project School Shield.


George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

[mar1t1me]

^What has happened last week are VERY VERY rare instances.

Instances of mass gun-confiscation in the US are even more rare, but it doesn't keep people from acting like it (not unlike Jesus' return) will happen any second now.....and just as illogical.

Meanwhile, about 500,000 people per year in the US alone die preventable deaths from tobacco and alcohol abuse. What do we do about it? Not very much. Every year car accidents kill more Americans than terrorism EVER has, but we spend billions upon billions on anti-terrorism, and very little on driver training and safety.

Basically, humans SUCK at risk assessment. "I have lots of guns to protect my family from (what-the-fuck-ever) but still regularly drive them around in cars where they actually have a far greater chance of being offed in a way no gun can ever prevent." The swimming pool they go to is more likely to kill them than any attack requiring defense by guns, yet we still send them to the pool.....

[mar1t1me]

If you don't have a gun license GET ONE. If you have a gun buy another one. If you have 2 guns buy ammo and large cap mags. Do this ASAP. If you have a brain join the NRA support your rights and the NRA Project School Shield.


George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

Let me know how that basement armory works against an Apache helicopter that can strike your little compound from 5 miles away with supersonic weapons. You wouldn't even hear the launch....

Ol' George Washington couldn't see the future. As far as he knew, citizenry and government would always be on relative firepower parity. But it hasn't existed for over a hundred years. It's time to find a different way. I don't care how much ammo you have, a 30MM cannon firing up to 5 rounds per second is going to ruin your day. Unless you are independently wealthy, you will NOT be buying, maintaining and supplying ammo for a few of those for anti-aircraft duty, or maintaining a supply of SAMs.

The small limited government of Washington's day is long gone having been replaced by one that is storing all of your communications, monitoring your banking transactions, and travel....they are not "skeered" of basement armories. They can quickly freeze your ability to communicate. And drone operators are not afraid of being fired upon.

[slammin.e28]

LaPierre 2016.