Arapahoe High School shooting victim Claire Davis dies

a5pj

unsung said:

a5pj said:

unsung said:

If the shop owner is selling to people that pass what they need to and he is following the rules I'd say he's clear. If he is violating the law then obviously he has to pay for his crimes.

If he is selling and following all laws and every gun is used in crime I can't say I see how that's his fault.

We punish teachers who have to teach in lower socioeconomic areas where the students low test scores are tied to teachers evaluations and pay. Why not punish gun stores who sell guns in areas where higher gun crime exists (like Chicago), have them pay more fines and taxes to be able to sell guns in areas where more crimes are committed?
This could also help reduce the deficit I think.

What about if you buy a gun you also have to buy a safe for it, mandatory. I think that would hinder kids getting all the guns, which is what I'm most concerned about.

If the shop owner follows all laws and the firearm is legally transferred then he is no long liable. Your suggestion actually exists, and shops have decided to move. What goes up is then local unemployment, and tax revenue ends up going down. People have breaking points on the amount of extortion that they can handle.


I don't have kids. All of my guns are in the safe except one, it sort of defeats the purpose to not have one handy.

So at least that's getting gun shops out of high gun crime areas I guess.

I've wrestled with the idea of getting a gun myself. Thing is I do have a kid. Do I risk leaving it out somewhere easily accessible where's there's a risk of them getting into it. Or do I keep it locked in a safe hidden away and hope I'm near it when someone breaks in? Obviously lots of people do the first and there are tons of kid on kid deaths like the other link I posted today, or kids bring the guns into schools/ grocery stores/ etc.

So my brain is going to knowledge, I know you mentioned mandatory training before, I think that's a good idea. Why won't R's support it? Too much money? It will create jobs!

Cosmo

a5pj said:

I've wrestled with the idea of getting a gun myself. Thing is I do have a kid. Do I risk leaving it out somewhere easily accessible where's there's a risk of them getting into it. Or do I keep it locked in a safe hidden away and hope I'm near it when someone breaks in? Obviously lots of people do the first and there are tons of kid on kid deaths like the other link I posted today, or kids bring the guns into schools/ grocery stores/ etc.

So my brain is going to knowledge, I know you mentioned mandatory training before, I think that's a good idea. Why won't R's support it? Too much money? It will create jobs!

...
That's a tough call... kids in the same house as a loaded weapon.
But, it's your call... not mine or the government or anyone else. There are a lot of variables in the equation that you need to consider... not just you, your wife and your kid... but, anyone you, your wife and your kid brings into your home. And you have to consider what you are going to do overnight, keep the weapon stowed and secured or have it armed and ready while you sleep.
There are ways you can do it, keep a gun safely secured when you are not around and having it at hand when you are... but, it requires a religious-like ritual regiment that you cannot stray from. I even read about a couple that maintain nightwatch shifts... which sounds a bit extreme, but they claim it works for them.
...
But, basically, you play the odds. What is the liklihood of having to fire your weapon in defense versus an accidental discharge.
...
Good luck with that, sir.

unsung

There are safes that offer quick access, those finger key safes. I can't recall the brand name but I know a couple of parents that have them.

unsung

a5pj said:

So my brain is going to knowledge, I know you mentioned mandatory training before, I think that's a good idea. Why won't R's support it? Too much money? It will create jobs!

I don't know where they've said that.

Before I answer let me ask this; do you believe one should have to show photo identification in order to vote?

a5pj

I guess I thought you said something about a range where ppl have to shoot 1800 rounds min or something, might have been someone else.

Photo id to vote: I think the current push by R states to get id's to vote is nothing but a way to stop black / poor / and college ppl from voting, and R's have even said that themselves. I think it's very wrong and there's nothing wrong with the way it's currently being done. Voter fraud has rarely happened and never changed the results of any election, and if someone did it they can handle the couple times by punishing those ppl rather than changing the whole system.

If everyone had free access to id and transportation to vote I think more ppl would vote. I work in a school and poor parents can't even make it there for their kids IEP's or evaluation results.

That being said voting can't kill someone, even if you aren't trained or educated.

unsung

a5pj said:

I guess I thought you said something about a range where ppl have to shoot 1800 rounds min or something, might have been someone else.

Photo id to vote: I think the current push by R states to get id's to vote is nothing but a way to stop black / poor / and college ppl from voting, and R's have even said that themselves. I think it's very wrong and there's nothing wrong with the way it's currently being done. Voter fraud has rarely happened and never changed the results of any election, and if someone did it they can handle the couple times by punishing those ppl rather than changing the whole system.

If everyone had free access to id and transportation to vote I think more ppl would vote. I work in a school and poor parents can't even make it there for their kids IEP's or evaluation results.

That being said voting can't kill someone, even if you aren't trained or educated.

I'll address when I can get to a computer but killing someone by voting is irrelevant even though I highly disagree that a vote doesn't decide who lives/dies.

a5pj

In a broader sense, and in dealing with abortion and women's rights you could argue voting does determine who lives and dies.

I'm talking about the consequences of someone knowing nothing voting compared to someone buying and using a gun without knowledge or training. Immediate consequences.

I'll also throw out there I feel we are a reactionary people and need immediate fixes to problems in this country. If it doesn't work right away throw it out! I think the gun debate and problem is something that will need to take a long time to "fix". Can't be done right away. If we could move to a more precaution / prevention model we could be much safer. Same goes for education / health care / etc...

Btw, I am enjoying this conversation very much with you, hopefully you are too and don't consider me some newb to the conversation.

unsung

The newb comment was the result of someone accusing me of something that I am not, nothing more.


Sorry for the delay, real life sometimes takes priority.

So the thought from the liberal side of the coin is that requiring a government issued ID is burdensome and too costly for those that are either poor, have little mobility, don't have the resources, or lack whatever means they require to obtain such identification. I disagree but that isn't the point of this.

Voting is a secured and declared right via Amendments to the US Constitution. Blacks and women have gained their rights that were unjustly denied for reasons that have no bearing here. Such is that they are now full participants if they so desire, they don't even need identification to fill out a ballot that determines the fate of local and national issues. The argument is generally that the ID requirement is racist, unfair to the poor, and favors the well enough to do. I think we can all agree that those arguments have been made.

Now let's back up to the 2nd Amendment that declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The argument over the meaning can be saved for another thread, again not the point here. We can agree that due to the 2nd Amendment most Americans are free to own firearms under certain conditions depending on the state that they reside. Again, as voting, it is a declared civil and natural right.

I've made mention to voluntarily attending advanced training to hone my skills at my own expense. We've agreed that everyone should be trained, and many would agree with me that the more training the better. Yes?

So the expenses in Illinois to obtain a concealed carry permit and have your right to defend yourself are generally this: $150 for a five year permit, $200-350 for the class required by the state (the number differs based on required hours as previous documented training gives some credit hours), transportation, time off work and lost wages, buying a firearm, buying the ammo. So right now one could easily eclipse $1000 for their right to defend themselves. Now the advanced class that I want to attend is three days in a western state. Airfare isn't cheap right now, neither are hotels, so figure $800 for both, the class is $750, ammo would be about $500, then add car rental, fuel, food and everything else and one could spend $2500 or more.

So let me ask, why are the high expenses that deal with one civil right acceptable but the low expenses that deal with another a burden?

Cosmo

I'm going to say that it is probably because in america, we choose our leader with a ballot... not with a bullet.
....
Also, you DON'T need a permit to own a gun... you need a permit so you can carry your gun in public. You can easily keep your gun at home, and save you all of the costs listed above.

a5pj

unsung said:

The newb comment was the result of someone accusing me of something that I am not, nothing more.


Sorry for the delay, real life sometimes takes priority.

So the thought from the liberal side of the coin is that requiring a government issued ID is burdensome and too costly for those that are either poor, have little mobility, don't have the resources, or lack whatever means they require to obtain such identification. I disagree but that isn't the point of this.

Voting is a secured and declared right via Amendments to the US Constitution. Blacks and women have gained their rights that were unjustly denied for reasons that have no bearing here. Such is that they are now full participants if they so desire, they don't even need identification to fill out a ballot that determines the fate of local and national issues. The argument is generally that the ID requirement is racist, unfair to the poor, and favors the well enough to do. I think we can all agree that those arguments have been made.

Now let's back up to the 2nd Amendment that declares that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The argument over the meaning can be saved for another thread, again not the point here. We can agree that due to the 2nd Amendment most Americans are free to own firearms under certain conditions depending on the state that they reside. Again, as voting, it is a declared civil and natural right.

I've made mention to voluntarily attending advanced training to hone my skills at my own expense. We've agreed that everyone should be trained, and many would agree with me that the more training the better. Yes?

So the expenses in Illinois to obtain a concealed carry permit and have your right to defend yourself are generally this: $150 for a five year permit, $200-350 for the class required by the state (the number differs based on required hours as previous documented training gives some credit hours), transportation, time off work and lost wages, buying a firearm, buying the ammo. So right now one could easily eclipse $1000 for their right to defend themselves. Now the advanced class that I want to attend is three days in a western state. Airfare isn't cheap right now, neither are hotels, so figure $800 for both, the class is $750, ammo would be about $500, then add car rental, fuel, food and everything else and one could spend $2500 or more.

So let me ask, why are the high expenses that deal with one civil right acceptable but the low expenses that deal with another a burden?

Good points.

I do agree that everyone who owns a gun should have more training and knowledge about their power. Owning a gun is a right and it shouldn't be taken away.

I see all your expenses and I wish everyone with a gun was as trained as you are, I bet 98% of people with guns don't have your level of training, and it shows, you paid for it and gathered the knowledge. I'll compare my motorcycle license, I paid to take a 3 day class, learn skills, then get the license. I would not feel comfortable just paying for the license and riding knowing the power and danger behind riding. Thing is, I can go down to the pawn shop, buy a shotgun for $129 and some ammo, and be good to go, and hopefully not kill anyone. No training required. If more people could pay for the class you took I bet there would be a lot less needless gun deaths.

I think that the government should provide the mandatory training when you buy a gun, some 2 day class or something, no cost, well, taxpayer cost. (I would be all for my taxes going toward people who get guns knowing how to use them.) After you do that and whatever background check you can get the gun. At least people would know the history of the 2nd and the power of the gun, some baseline knowledge. (Hell, take 1% of the money the NSA gets to spy on us and it's paid for.)

To answer your question about acceptance. I think it's acceptable because of the power associated with them. Guns are powerful and kill people every day. People in the US think that voting holds no power and 1 vote is unimportant, placing more restrictions on voting (when no one votes anyway) and specifically targeting the poor is the burden. I think more people should vote, it might make a difference. That's one thing gun owners know how to do, vote for their rights, I'll give them that. A lot of people who want more common sense safe guards in place don't.

The costs also can't be compared evenly, Guns are a business, manufactures make guns and charge prices, voting does not.

For fun - African American/poor college kid - $15 and a day off work/class is huge when you're making min wage / have kids to feed / are paying for school. They target the poor knowing they can't afford it.
Let's say you make $50K a year, and you paid $2500 for your gun and training, what if they raised the prices to say, $9,000. The rich target the poorer gun owners. Would that be acceptable to you?

Cosmo

a5pj said:

Good points.

I do agree that everyone who owns a gun should have more training and knowledge about their power. Owning a gun is a right and it shouldn't be taken away.

I see all your expenses and I wish everyone with a gun was as trained as you are, I bet 98% of people with guns don't have your level of training, and it shows, you paid for it and gathered the knowledge. I'll compare my motorcycle license, I paid to take a 3 day class, learn skills, then get the license. I would not feel comfortable just paying for the license and riding knowing the power and danger behind riding. Thing is, I can go down to the pawn shop, buy a shotgun for $129 and some ammo, and be good to go, and hopefully not kill anyone. No training required. If more people could pay for the class you took I bet there would be a lot less needless gun deaths.

I think that the government should provide the mandatory training when you buy a gun, some 2 day class or something, no cost, well, taxpayer cost. (I would be all for my taxes going toward people who get guns knowing how to use them.) After you do that and whatever background check you can get the gun. At least people would know the history of the 2nd and the power of the gun, some baseline knowledge. (Hell, take 1% of the money the NSA gets to spy on us and it's paid for.)

To answer your question about acceptance. I think it's acceptable because of the power associated with them. Guns are powerful and kill people every day. People in the US think that voting holds no power and 1 vote is unimportant, placing more restrictions on voting (when no one votes anyway) and specifically targeting the poor is the burden. I think more people should vote, it might make a difference. That's one thing gun owners know how to do, vote for their rights, I'll give them that. A lot of people who want more common sense safe guards in place don't.

The costs also can't be compared evenly, Guns are a business, manufactures make guns and charge prices, voting does not.

For fun - African American/poor college kid - $15 and a day off work/class is huge when you're making min wage / have kids to feed / are paying for school. They target the poor knowing they can't afford it.
Let's say you make $50K a year, and you paid $2500 for your gun and training, what if they raised the prices to say, $9,000. The rich target the poorer gun owners. Would that be acceptable to you?

...
I believe that placing training requirements on gun ownership would not fly with gun control opponents, even though the Second Amendment prefaces it by stating the need for a well regulated militia. The Second Amendment only states that our citizens can rightfully own guns. You need a carry a concealed weapon permit if you choose to bring your gun into public. States can issue permits to carry a cocealed weapons based upon their criteria until there is a ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue.
Until then, it is the gun owner's decision to seek out and purchase training. I do not believe taxpayers should foot the bill for a trip to out of state training businesses... just as I don't believe tax payers should pay for transportation to the ballot booths on election day. If you want basic to advanced gun training, check out your local police, sheriffs or state police. I went to a gun safety course at the Long Beach Police Academy years ago... and it was free. The advanced classes had training fees because it provided more time on the firing range.

a5pj

right, exactly, I didn't mean an out of state trip or anything. Just like you said local police or something like that. I think when I was young I had the training at a rod and gun club or something. A few hours to learn how to handle it safely and learn it isn't a toy.

Cosmo

a5pj said:

right, exactly, I didn't mean an out of state trip or anything. Just like you said local police or something like that. I think when I was young I had the training at a rod and gun club or something. A few hours to learn how to handle it safely and learn it isn't a toy.

...
I think that most people believe the sentiment that with the decision a person makes to become a gun owner, you should take on all of the responsibilities that come along with it. The gun ownership inherently comes with great responsibility... including the responsibility to prove to us that you are not going to pose a threat to the rest of us, because you've had a bad day. I don't know who is emotionally stable and who is not... and just saying, "I am mentally and emotionally stable' is not proof.

That is why many Americans are calling for greater restrictions on who can walk into a licensed gun shop and buy a gun. I think that avenue is pretty much regulated with background checks and waiting periods. It is the sale of weapons in the secondary market... from private gun owners looking to sell a legally obtained weapon to anyone in the general public. Those responsible gun owners should be held responsible for the transfer of their weapons. Some psycho will know that if he gets a gun from a seller on Craigslist or a gun show, he can lay down the cash and get it right now... no background check, no waiting period. That is something we might want to look at... shutting down that massive hole in the system.
But, the NRA stance is that it is not the sellers's responsibility... whereas other will disagree.

unsung

a5pj,

There used to be training provided, and free of charge, it was in high school shooting classes. Guess who got rid of it? The same people today screaming for more restrictions and better training.

jmuscatello

unsung said:

a5pj,

There used to be training provided, and free of charge, it was in high school shooting classes. Guess who got rid of it? The same people today screaming for more restrictions and better training.

what a coincidence.... driver's ed, classical languages, and many music and fine arts programs have also been cut from high schools .... do you blame that on the screaming liberals too?

Cosmo

jmuscatello said:

unsung said:

a5pj,

There used to be training provided, and free of charge, it was in high school shooting classes. Guess who got rid of it? The same people today screaming for more restrictions and better training.

what a coincidence.... driver's ed, classical languages, and many music and fine arts programs have also been cut from high schools .... do you blame that on the screaming liberals too?

...
I don't remember gun shooting classes in high school. In my high school, metal shop was dangerous enough when kids were making throwing stars.
And metal shop is gone now... so is wood shop, industrial arts, drafting/arcitecture and home economics. Those are gone because of money... and we all know, Liberals are the only one concerned with money.

a5pj

Unsung
I wish they could bring them back, I never had em. A high school shooting class isn't really feasible nowadays though is it. One slip up and there's a lawsuit and you have to get rid of the class and fire the teacher.
And don't get me started with education, I work there and see a lot. It's always one of the first things to get cut and never ever given money, by either D or R. And the way things are now there's barely time for students to get enough credits to graduate, let alone take electives of ANY kind. All the money in education is with the lobbyists in Washington, who push for new national tests every year. Wasn't the point of a test to find out what kids know and don't know so you can teach them better? Oh yeah you don't get the results of the test until next year? Awesome.

Cosmo I agree, way to easy for anyone to get a gun. In addition to sales anywhere, most kids I ask in school know where guns are kept in their house, uncles house, grandparents house, and friends house. And teenagers are much more likely to be undiagnosed and emotional, bullied, etc... leading to, you guessed it, school shootings...

Cosmo

a5pj said:

Cosmo I agree, way to easy for anyone to get a gun. In addition to sales anywhere, most kids I ask in school know where guns are kept in their house, uncles house, grandparents house, and friends house. And teenagers are much more likely to be undiagnosed and emotional, bullied, etc... leading to, you guessed it, school shootings...

...
I think the people who think more guns at schools will make schools safer... maybe they just don't remember what high school was like... or don't know how high scools ARE these days. Putting guns into the hands of high school kids... yeah, i don't see how anything can possibly go wrong with that because we know how responsible kids can be.
When i was in High School, we had an open campus and it still felt like a prison to us. The school in the bedroom community I live in now has a closed campus. They had metal detectors at the gates for a while, but community pressure got rid of them. The kids are still subject to 'random stop/searches' on campus and they never replaced the lockers they removed in the 90s when everyone was freaking out.
So, even today... at schools WITH metal detectors at the doors... there are shootings. The most common ones occur outside the campus... or more likely, at parties. Arming the principle isn't going to do shit except turn our schools into moderate security outposts to keep our kids safe from the rest us us. And if you are going to arm teachers and administrators and train them a security personel... you need to pay them a lot more than you are paying them today.

rgambs

in my region of ohio, when these terrible incidents occur, there are ALWAYS several comments in the newsaper that say
"This is because we took prayer out of our schools. Bring prayer back and this will end."
what i'm getting at is that it is very nice to have not read that comment anywhere here!!!

handguns kill the vast majority how about we ban any guns shorter than 30 inches??? lol just a joke i don't want to join the gun debate!

polaris_x

what's going on in colorado?

columbine, aurora, this and now some kid lit himself on fire in a school cafeteria