Guns

[Bo Diddley]

Embedded Tweet

Yes, can someone please explain this logic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can't take guns away from the police until you take them away from everyone else.

[wuapinmon]

Embedded Tweet

Yes, can someone please explain this logic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[frank ryan]

Embedded Tweet

Yes, can someone please explain this logic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't remember the last time a cop perpetrated a spree killing. It's after something like this that assault rifles, magazine sizes and enhancements get brought up.

[Uncle Ted]

Columbine survivor introduces bill to expand concealed-carry in schools

Some students are calling for tougher gun-control laws after escaping last week’s horrific massacre in Parkland, Florida, but another school-shooting survivor is going in a different direction.


Colorado House Minority Leader Patrick Neville, who attended Columbine High School at the time of the 1999 mass shooting, has again introduced legislation to remove limitations on concealed carry in K-12 schools.


Under state law, concealed-carry permit holders may bring firearms onto school property, but must keep them locked inside their vehicles.

Mr. Neville, who has introduced the bill annually since he was elected in 2014, said the current law “creates a so-called gun free zone in every K-12 public school.”


“This act would allow every law-abiding citizens who holds a concealed carry permit, issued from their chief law-enforcement officer, the right to carry concealed in order to defend themselves and most importantly our children from the worst-case scenarios,” Mr. Neville said in a statement.


The Republican lawmaker has argued that more of his classmates would have survived the attack if some faculty had been armed. Twelve students and one teacher were killed by two teen gunmen at the high school in Littleton, Colorado.

“As a former Columbine student who was a sophomore during the shootings on April 20, 1999, I will do everything in my power to prevent Colorado families from enduring the hardships my classmates and I faced that day,” Mr. Neville said. “Time and time again we point to the one common theme with mass shootings, they occur in gun-free zones.”


A hearing on the bill, which stands little chance of passage in the Democrat-controlled House, is slated for Tuesday.
[...]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...carry-schools/


LOL... Given that it's the guns that kill people this has no chance of happening.

[All-American]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...carry-schools/


LOL... Given that it's the guns that kill people this has no chance of happening.

Too bad.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Why don't we just require licenses for guns, like we do for pharmacists who dispense drugs, and for car owners, and for owners of other potentially dangerous items. Then we can build a national database of ballistics fingerprints--the unique markings left on bullets by barrels. Then we can know who's guns were used at crime scenes, and if a certain gun owner's guns keep winding up on the streets of Chicago, for example, we can prosecute and the person can be open to civil liability.

Then people can own what guns they desire--within reason--responsible gun owners won't be hassled, and we'll actually have laws that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and the criminal.

[Uncle Ted]

Why don't we just require licenses for guns, like we do for pharmacists who dispense drugs, and for car owners, and for owners of other potentially dangerous items. Then we can build a national database of ballistics fingerprints--the unique markings left on bullets by barrels. Then we can know who's guns were used at crime scenes, and if a certain gun owner's guns keep winding up on the streets of Chicago, for example, we can prosecute and the person can be open to civil liability.

Then people can own what guns they desire--within reason--responsible gun owners won't be hassled, and we'll actually have laws that are designed to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and the criminal.

That is like requiring a photo ID for someone to vote... it would be infringing too much on a basic constitutional right, man. The good folks of this great country can be bothered with such an inconvenience to exercise their rights!

[cowboy]

Why don't we just require licenses for guns, like we do for pharmacists who dispense drugs, and for car owners, and for owners of other potentially dangerous items. Then we can build a national database of ballistics fingerprints--the unique markings left on bullets by barrels...

I think that's a good idea, but I don't know how practical it is. Unlike cars, guns are used in places where law enforcement usually isn't, and there are so many guns in circulation that trying to get them all brought in for ballistics would be unenforceable. Like confiscation, I think we'd only see law-abiding people who are unlikely to commit gun crimes anyway voluntarily participate.

The school district next to ours ran a public poll, and 85% approve of allowing teachers who participate in self-defense training and periodic CE carry in their schools. There are a myriad of guidelines with it, including training with local law enforcement, but it might be a deterrent. It may be the only realistic way to bring safety to schools again, as it would effectively multiply available SRO's for shooting events (which would be the only time they would be authorized to draw a weapon.)

[Uncle Ted]

I think that's a good idea, but I don't know how practical it is. Unlike cars, guns are used in places where law enforcement usually isn't, and there are so many guns in circulation that trying to get them all brought in for ballistics would be unenforceable. Like confiscation, I think we'd only see law-abiding people who are unlikely to commit gun crimes anyway voluntarily participate.

The school district next to ours ran a public poll, and 85% approve of allowing teachers who participate in self-defense training and periodic CE carry in their schools. There are a myriad of guidelines with it, including training with local law enforcement, but it might be a deterrent. It may be the only realistic way to bring safety to schools again, as it would effectively multiply available SRO's for shooting events (which would be the only time they would be authorized to draw a weapon.)

God bless Wyo.

I think just the idea that a teacher may be packing heat is a great deterrent... crazies will most likely stick with just shooting up churches. At least in Texas given guns are not allowed in places like churches.

[cowboy]

God bless Wyo.

I think just the idea that a teacher may be packing heat is a great deterrent... crazies will most likely stick with just shooting up churches. At least in Texas given guns are not allowed in places like churches.

I have several friends who started carrying after the movie theater shooting. Talking with them, they carry more to protect themselves and their families than to go after any potential shooter. Their intent in a shooting event is still to get away rather than stand and fight. I would guess that 40% of the people who carry would try to go after the shooter, and 60% would run. I think the probability of a public shooting is still so low that I don't have any plans to attend a self-defense course and carry (my carrying friends have all attended several courses.) Still, I like the idea that there are guns at pretty much any public gathering and would rather take my chances with a stray bullet than be a sitting duck.

[Jeff Lebowski]

If we get to the point where we are arguing that everyone should be armed in public to be safe, then it is time to rethink the entire premise. Geez.

[cowboy]

If we get to the point where we are arguing that everyone should be armed in public to be safe, then it is time to rethink the entire premise. Geez.

I think we're a long way from that point. Having a more than one weapon in a school, though, should be a decent deterrent, especially if shooters don't know who is armed and who isn't. As far as carrying in public, I don't think it's necessary for everyone to carry, but the same principle applies - shooters are less likely to kill en masse if there is more than one one firearm in the area.

[Sleeping in EQ]

I think that's a good idea, but I don't know how practical it is. Unlike cars, guns are used in places where law enforcement usually isn't, and there are so many guns in circulation that trying to get them all brought in for ballistics would be unenforceable. Like confiscation, I think we'd only see law-abiding people who are unlikely to commit gun crimes anyway voluntarily participate.

Still, with all those law abiding folks getting their licenses you'd seriously reduce the flow of guns from the hands of good people to the hands of bad people, and you'd take significant power away from the NRA and the gun lobby. Then the problem would be the flow of guns between bad people, which while still a problem, would be much better than what we have now. Law abiding owners would no longer run interference for the gun lobby, and they would no longer be the targets of intense ideological opposition.

I think it's a step in the right direction.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think we're a long way from that point. Having a more than one weapon in a school, though, should be a decent deterrent, especially if shooters don't know who is armed and who isn't. As far as carrying in public, I don't think it's necessary for everyone to carry, but the same principle applies - shooters are less likely to kill en masse if there is more than one one firearm in the area.

More guns don't make us safer. There is overwhelming evidence that the opposite is true.

[Walter Sobchak]

Dallas City council member to NRA: Take your convention somewhere else