Cocks not Glocks - An open carry protest

Smellyman

There are a lot of these on youtube, feel free to peruse them.

Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8

Godfather.

Smellyman said:

Godfather. said:

hefty fines and jail time for those stupid yahoos that leave their car key's laying around, fail to lock up their liquor cabinet when they leave, fail to hide their spoons and forks from over weight family members, smoke weed because most growers own and use guns to protect their harvest, T.V promotes violence, fish feel pain too ! and ........it's all Obama's fault, I think I got it now.

Godfather.

look at my thumb

remove it first.......

Godfather.

Cliffy6745

Smellyman said:

There are a lot of these on youtube, feel free to peruse them.

Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8

Oh.My.Goodness.

dudeman

Halifax2TheMax said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Oh yeah. Campus carry is being sought in Florida, too. It passed the first measure in the House last week.

Sorry about your loss dudeman.

I am generally against carry. Period. As a Canadian, I think the fewer people walking around with guns the better.

As someone who works at a university, and therefore as someone who has a somewhat realistic concern about a mass shooting happening where I work, I am also against arming school security for a couple of reasons. For one thing, we just don't need that kind of atmosphere at an institution for higher learning. It would just be harmful to the culture of the campus. Secondly, I wouldn't want to arm the people who work security at universities specifically. I know who these people are, what they're like. While they do their best, I definitely cannot say I'd be comfortable knowing that they have been given the power to shoot people. They are NOT cops, and they aren't paid to carry that level of responsibility. Training them to the extent that I think they'd need (not just some intro courses - I think they'd need extensive training for gun use and for gun use during various crises and non-crises (i.e. we don't want this people shooting a student because they read a situation wrong or went all Rambo on pub night). Basically the kind of training actual police officers get) and then paying them for the expectations that we'd consequently have for them would completely break the university's security budget. Yes, the alternative would be to train them THAT well and pay them much more.... but do you think schools would actually do that?? I absolutely do not. They'd provide the minimum level of training they thought they could get away with and keep paying shitty wages for their security guards, and you're left with a school with a damaged culture of learning and a bunch of armed incompetents who are rendered a danger in and of themselves.

From where I sit, the current situation for campus safety sucks. The campus police, administrators and unarmed security guards have so far, failed to keep their students safe. I can't imagine why anyone would want to willingly deny the right of self preservation from others.

If arming and training security guards wouldn't work because of the caliber of people who become guards and because of funding concerns, we have failed more spectacularly than I thought.

In order to have a healthy "culture of learning" I think the students need to be alive.

First and foremost, I'm sorry for your losses. No one should experience those and I'm sorry you did. Now I have a better understanding if where you're coming from and why you have the opinions that you do.

Your post that I have quoted is a false narrative. Colleges around the country, day in and day out, teach and protect their students without incident. Mass shootings while rare, particularly for college campuses are on the rise, the number of incidences, as a percentage, are infinitesimal when taken as a % of the whole, say by number of teaching hours or students taught times number of days without incident. Still, horrific and tragic but not one where allowing concealed carry on campus is the solution, IMHO.

Most mass shootings, defined as 4 or more victims, are domestic in nature or where the victims knew the shooter. Your previous post to this one posits that there is nothing that can be done by others to enhance gun safety and if all just spoke to those around us, killings would stop. That's another false narrative that denies the true nature of the problem and suggests there are no reasonable solutions to the problem at hand. First and foremost, that article starts out by claiming you can't ban guns. True, no one wants to ban guns. It's a scare tactic that diverts attention away from what can be done: universal federal mandatory stringent background checks for all gun purchases, private and gun show included; mandatory federal 30 day cooling off period for all gun purchases; federal training, licensing and insurance requirements for all gun purchases (I'd grandfather current gun ownership); increased federal and state funding for ATF and local law enforcement to reduce straw purchases and arms trafficking as well as auditing of gun dealers records of sale and stiff fines and punishment for violaters. We have to start somewhere and if we start now, it won't change overnight but it might be different 20 years from now, much like drunk driving deaths and motor vehicle accidents have been reduced.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms but it shouldn't allow you to be irresponsible with said arms. Minimum punishments, hefty fines and jail time for those stupid yahoos that leave their guns laying around so a toddler can shoot someone. Sorry your kid shot your other kid, now go spend some time in jail, idiot.

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate that.

You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.

And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.

We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.

As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.

In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.

Deal?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Smellyman said:

There are a lot of these on youtube, feel free to peruse them.

Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8

Many of these champions were steadfast opponents against gun legislation on the internet.

dudeman

This is turning into the America's Gun Violence thread, isn't it?

callen

Dude man sorry to hear about you losses and experiences and very much admire your cool thought out responses.

brianlux

dudeman said:

This is turning into the America's Gun Violence thread, isn't it?

It seems this has turned into another "should American's be allowed to keep/carry their guns" thread. No, it's a thread about one school that wants to adopt a carry-on-campus policy and about a group of people who believe (rightfully so, in my opinion) that this idea is both dangerous and insane.

mcgruff10

Smellyman said:

There are a lot of these on youtube, feel free to peruse them.

Look at all of these responsible law abiding citizens. I'd feel safer knowing more people were packing. first dude couldn't even shoot a fake paper target terrorist. He'd do well under live fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzTGlSp0oB8

To me some of these seem very staged. Especially the second and last one.

dudeman

callen said:

Dude man sorry to hear about you losses and experiences and very much admire your cool thought out responses.

Thanks, callen.

dudeman

brianlux said:

dudeman said:

This is turning into the America's Gun Violence thread, isn't it?

It seems this has turned into another "should American's be allowed to keep/carry their guns" thread. No, it's a thread about one school that wants to adopt a carry-on-campus policy and about a group of people who believe (rightfully so, in my opinion) that this idea is both dangerous and insane.

Without trying to be the thread police, I think we should try to keep this one on topic out of respect for the OP.

HughFreakingDillon

Smellyman said:

Gun debates is like the climate change debate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the US has a gun problem people don't care. They like their guns too much and their SUV's.

More guns are the answer though. Incredibly idiotic

You have guns because you like guns! That's why you go to gun conventions; that's why you read gun magazines! None of you give a shit about home security. None of you go to home security conventions. None of you read Padlock Monthly. None of you have a Facebook picture of you behind a secure door..going 'fuckin yeah!' Jim Jefferies

I fucking love Jim Jefferies. "padlock monthly".

Halifax2TheMax

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate that.

You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.

And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.

We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.

As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.

In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.

Deal?

Dudeman,

Before I'd agree to your offer, I would need to understand the criteria for obtaining a CCW permit in Texas and I'd like there to be a minimum federal standard with states being able to be more stringent. In exchange for a robust federal standard, I'd consider allowing CCW permits to be applicable across state lines. Is the process of obtaining a CCW permit solely based on passing a background check? Is there a minimum level of proficiency in how one handles a firearm? Ability to shoot straight, knowledge of safety protocols, how to conduct oneself when confronting an armed bad guy, re-licensing standards, minimum classroom/gun range hours, , limits on who is awarded a CCW permit, etc.? However, the evidence continues to mount that more guns do not reduce the incidents of gun related deaths:

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

Additionally, a number of states have passed laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence. Some states bar firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; others restrict people with domestic-violence restraining orders. A 2006 study by Duke University’s Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor and James A. Mercy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at data from 1982 through 2002 covering 46 states and found that policies that prohibited people with a domestic-violence restraining order from owning a gun are associated with a 7 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides. Another study, by Webster and Michigan State’s April M. Zeoli, analyzed a similar set of policies but used more fine-grain city-level data and a more robust set of controls. It concluded that such policies were associated with a 19 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides.

In a recent TED talk, Webster prepared a list of such reforms that stopped well short of gun confiscation and suggested the evidence shows that they offer a path to reducing gun murders in the United States by 30 to 50 percent and to dramatically curtail gun suicides.

But let’s assume that this is overestimation and that the combined influence of these policies could prevent only 10 percent of our nation’s more than 33,000 annual gun deaths. That would still be the equivalent of preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every single year. We don’t need gun confiscation to save lives. We can do that through common-sense gun reform.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/three-common-sense-gun-policies-that-would-save-lives/2015/10/15/3fd8cb80-735f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html

I don't have a problem with "law abiding" citizens owning firearms. However, they're typically law abiding until they're not, for a whole host of reasons, more often than not, due to domestic (abuse or work place) issues.

Halifax2TheMax

dudeman said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Oh yeah. Campus carry is being sought in Florida, too. It passed the first measure in the House last week.

Sorry about your loss dudeman.

I am generally against carry. Period. As a Canadian, I think the fewer people walking around with guns the better.

As someone who works at a university, and therefore as someone who has a somewhat realistic concern about a mass shooting happening where I work, I am also against arming school security for a couple of reasons. For one thing, we just don't need that kind of atmosphere at an institution for higher learning. It would just be harmful to the culture of the campus. Secondly, I wouldn't want to arm the people who work security at universities specifically. I know who these people are, what they're like. While they do their best, I definitely cannot say I'd be comfortable knowing that they have been given the power to shoot people. They are NOT cops, and they aren't paid to carry that level of responsibility. Training them to the extent that I think they'd need (not just some intro courses - I think they'd need extensive training for gun use and for gun use during various crises and non-crises (i.e. we don't want this people shooting a student because they read a situation wrong or went all Rambo on pub night). Basically the kind of training actual police officers get) and then paying them for the expectations that we'd consequently have for them would completely break the university's security budget. Yes, the alternative would be to train them THAT well and pay them much more.... but do you think schools would actually do that?? I absolutely do not. They'd provide the minimum level of training they thought they could get away with and keep paying shitty wages for their security guards, and you're left with a school with a damaged culture of learning and a bunch of armed incompetents who are rendered a danger in and of themselves.

From where I sit, the current situation for campus safety sucks. The campus police, administrators and unarmed security guards have so far, failed to keep their students safe. I can't imagine why anyone would want to willingly deny the right of self preservation from others.

If arming and training security guards wouldn't work because of the caliber of people who become guards and because of funding concerns, we have failed more spectacularly than I thought.

In order to have a healthy "culture of learning" I think the students need to be alive.

First and foremost, I'm sorry for your losses. No one should experience those and I'm sorry you did. Now I have a better understanding if where you're coming from and why you have the opinions that you do.

Your post that I have quoted is a false narrative. Colleges around the country, day in and day out, teach and protect their students without incident. Mass shootings while rare, particularly for college campuses are on the rise, the number of incidences, as a percentage, are infinitesimal when taken as a % of the whole, say by number of teaching hours or students taught times number of days without incident. Still, horrific and tragic but not one where allowing concealed carry on campus is the solution, IMHO.

Most mass shootings, defined as 4 or more victims, are domestic in nature or where the victims knew the shooter. Your previous post to this one posits that there is nothing that can be done by others to enhance gun safety and if all just spoke to those around us, killings would stop. That's another false narrative that denies the true nature of the problem and suggests there are no reasonable solutions to the problem at hand. First and foremost, that article starts out by claiming you can't ban guns. True, no one wants to ban guns. It's a scare tactic that diverts attention away from what can be done: universal federal mandatory stringent background checks for all gun purchases, private and gun show included; mandatory federal 30 day cooling off period for all gun purchases; federal training, licensing and insurance requirements for all gun purchases (I'd grandfather current gun ownership); increased federal and state funding for ATF and local law enforcement to reduce straw purchases and arms trafficking as well as auditing of gun dealers records of sale and stiff fines and punishment for violaters. We have to start somewhere and if we start now, it won't change overnight but it might be different 20 years from now, much like drunk driving deaths and motor vehicle accidents have been reduced.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms but it shouldn't allow you to be irresponsible with said arms. Minimum punishments, hefty fines and jail time for those stupid yahoos that leave their guns laying around so a toddler can shoot someone. Sorry your kid shot your other kid, now go spend some time in jail, idiot.

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate that.

You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.

And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.

We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.

As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.

In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.

Deal?

Would that include state houses and the halls of Congress? Airports? Stadiums? Convention centers, particularly NRA conventions and headquarters? Hospitals? Military bases? CIA headquarters? NSA facilities? If not, why not?

dudeman

Halifax2TheMax said:

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate that.

You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.

And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.

We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.

As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.

In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.

Deal?

Dudeman,

Before I'd agree to your offer, I would need to understand the criteria for obtaining a CCW permit in Texas and I'd like there to be a minimum federal standard with states being able to be more stringent. In exchange for a robust federal standard, I'd consider allowing CCW permits to be applicable across state lines. Is the process of obtaining a CCW permit solely based on passing a background check? Is there a minimum level of proficiency in how one handles a firearm? Ability to shoot straight, knowledge of safety protocols, how to conduct oneself when confronting an armed bad guy, re-licensing standards, minimum classroom/gun range hours, , limits on who is awarded a CCW permit, etc.? However, the evidence continues to mount that more guns do not reduce the incidents of gun related deaths:

The requirements vary from state to state. Actually in Maine, I believe no permit is necessary to carry a concealed handgun if you're a resident of Maine. There may be a couple other states where this is the case, too. As for most that require a permit, yes, you need to pass a firearms safety course both in a classroom and on the range. Background check, fingerprinting......the works.

Also, I'm sure you're aware but you just openly admitted to entering into a discussion in which you don't fully understand what you're arguing against. Tsk tsk. LOL!

In Missouri, the 2007 repeal of a PTP law was associated with a 14 percent increase in the murder rate and an increase of 16 percent in the firearm-related suicide rate. Studies that examined Connecticut’s 1995 PTP law found that it was associated with a 40 percent reduction in the state’s firearm homicide rate and a 15 percent reduction in firearm suicides. Further, no “substitution effect” was observed in either Missouri or Connecticut, meaning criminals didn’t switch to other weapons when they failed to obtain firearms.

Permit to purchase is entirely different than CCW. PTP laws apply to everyone who is interested in legally obtaining a gun, not so much for the criminals who mostly get their weapons from friends, family members and criminal, black-market activity. (The last part of that statement came from interviews with incarcerated criminals in Illinois. Google it if you want actual numbers.)

Additionally, a number of states have passed laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence. Some states bar firearms from those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence; others restrict people with domestic-violence restraining orders. A 2006 study by Duke University’s Elizabeth Richardson Vigdor and James A. Mercy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at data from 1982 through 2002 covering 46 states and found that policies that prohibited people with a domestic-violence restraining order from owning a gun are associated with a 7 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides. Another study, by Webster and Michigan State’s April M. Zeoli, analyzed a similar set of policies but used more fine-grain city-level data and a more robust set of controls. It concluded that such policies were associated with a 19 percent reduction in intimate-partner homicides.

Yes, a lot of states have their own guidelines and the federal form 4473 specifies that felons, people committed for mental issues, illegal aliens, people who have restraining orders against them, domestic abusers, drug addicts (including Marijuana), people dishonorably discharged from military service and those who have renounced their US citizenship are barred from legally owning firearms. I don't have any issue with this because all of the people in those categories have made choices that ended in a loss of rights. (With the exception of the mental illness group, of course.)
Most proposed additional gun control legislation will impact those who have done nothing wrong and it is akin to being punished for crimes committed by others. I would much rather see more enforcement of the laws we already have. Every year thousands of people fail the NICS background check imposed at FFL dealers. Do you know how often there is an inquiry as to why they were denied or there is an investigation into why they were attempting to buy a gun? Somewhere between 20 and 70 times.......out of thousands. (You can Google that one, too.)

In a recent TED talk, Webster prepared a list of such reforms that stopped well short of gun confiscation and suggested the evidence shows that they offer a path to reducing gun murders in the United States by 30 to 50 percent and to dramatically curtail gun suicides.

But let’s assume that this is overestimation and that the combined influence of these policies could prevent only 10 percent of our nation’s more than 33,000 annual gun deaths. That would still be the equivalent of preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks, every single year. We don’t need gun confiscation to save lives. We can do that through common-sense gun reform.

You know that those gun death figures contain suicides and justifiable self defense shootings by civilians and police. Accidents are in there, too. While I agree that the total number is way too high, do you really think that insurance requirements on firearms is going to have any influence on the over 20,000 people that commit suicide with guns annually? No. Are any of those regulations going to miraculously disappear the black market for guns? No. Trafficking guns is already highly illegal, do you think making it more illegal is going to reduce that practice? No. Is the guy buying black market Glocks out of the back of a van going to be subject to your mandatory 30-day cooling off period?

It comes down to this: People have to want to stop killing themselves and each other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/three-common-sense-gun-policies-that-would-save-lives/2015/10/15/3fd8cb80-735f-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html

I don't have a problem with "law abiding" citizens owning firearms. However, they're typically law abiding until they're not, for a whole host of reasons, more often than not, due to domestic (abuse or work place) issues.

So, as a gun owner, are you saying that I'm domestic violence waiting to happen? Typically? This is why I grow wary of these discussions. Many of you see fit to apply the label of "criminal in waiting" to people who have done nothing to deserve that label. How about I just be responsible for my own actions and not be judged for the criminal and negligent acts of others?

dudeman

Halifax2TheMax said:

dudeman said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

dudeman said:

PJ_Soul said:

dudeman said:

Oh yeah. Campus carry is being sought in Florida, too. It passed the first measure in the House last week.

Sorry about your loss dudeman.

I am generally against carry. Period. As a Canadian, I think the fewer people walking around with guns the better.

As someone who works at a university, and therefore as someone who has a somewhat realistic concern about a mass shooting happening where I work, I am also against arming school security for a couple of reasons. For one thing, we just don't need that kind of atmosphere at an institution for higher learning. It would just be harmful to the culture of the campus. Secondly, I wouldn't want to arm the people who work security at universities specifically. I know who these people are, what they're like. While they do their best, I definitely cannot say I'd be comfortable knowing that they have been given the power to shoot people. They are NOT cops, and they aren't paid to carry that level of responsibility. Training them to the extent that I think they'd need (not just some intro courses - I think they'd need extensive training for gun use and for gun use during various crises and non-crises (i.e. we don't want this people shooting a student because they read a situation wrong or went all Rambo on pub night). Basically the kind of training actual police officers get) and then paying them for the expectations that we'd consequently have for them would completely break the university's security budget. Yes, the alternative would be to train them THAT well and pay them much more.... but do you think schools would actually do that?? I absolutely do not. They'd provide the minimum level of training they thought they could get away with and keep paying shitty wages for their security guards, and you're left with a school with a damaged culture of learning and a bunch of armed incompetents who are rendered a danger in and of themselves.

From where I sit, the current situation for campus safety sucks. The campus police, administrators and unarmed security guards have so far, failed to keep their students safe. I can't imagine why anyone would want to willingly deny the right of self preservation from others.

If arming and training security guards wouldn't work because of the caliber of people who become guards and because of funding concerns, we have failed more spectacularly than I thought.

In order to have a healthy "culture of learning" I think the students need to be alive.

First and foremost, I'm sorry for your losses. No one should experience those and I'm sorry you did. Now I have a better understanding if where you're coming from and why you have the opinions that you do.

Your post that I have quoted is a false narrative. Colleges around the country, day in and day out, teach and protect their students without incident. Mass shootings while rare, particularly for college campuses are on the rise, the number of incidences, as a percentage, are infinitesimal when taken as a % of the whole, say by number of teaching hours or students taught times number of days without incident. Still, horrific and tragic but not one where allowing concealed carry on campus is the solution, IMHO.

Most mass shootings, defined as 4 or more victims, are domestic in nature or where the victims knew the shooter. Your previous post to this one posits that there is nothing that can be done by others to enhance gun safety and if all just spoke to those around us, killings would stop. That's another false narrative that denies the true nature of the problem and suggests there are no reasonable solutions to the problem at hand. First and foremost, that article starts out by claiming you can't ban guns. True, no one wants to ban guns. It's a scare tactic that diverts attention away from what can be done: universal federal mandatory stringent background checks for all gun purchases, private and gun show included; mandatory federal 30 day cooling off period for all gun purchases; federal training, licensing and insurance requirements for all gun purchases (I'd grandfather current gun ownership); increased federal and state funding for ATF and local law enforcement to reduce straw purchases and arms trafficking as well as auditing of gun dealers records of sale and stiff fines and punishment for violaters. We have to start somewhere and if we start now, it won't change overnight but it might be different 20 years from now, much like drunk driving deaths and motor vehicle accidents have been reduced.

The 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms but it shouldn't allow you to be irresponsible with said arms. Minimum punishments, hefty fines and jail time for those stupid yahoos that leave their guns laying around so a toddler can shoot someone. Sorry your kid shot your other kid, now go spend some time in jail, idiot.

Thanks for your kind words. I appreciate that.

You're right. I think I overstated the impact that the approach to merely talk to each other would end gun violence in this country. It's only part of the solution, IMO.

And you are also right in saying that schools are largely safe from mass shootings. They are. But, when they happen, I think those with CCW permits should be able to defend themselves and others, if appropriate and necessary. Feel free to disagree.

We aren't talking about your average American dip-shit gun owner, we are talking about law-abiding, responsible permit holders who have proven that they are not criminals and have demonstrated a level of proficiency with a firearm.

As for your proposals for gun legislation, they sound pretty good except for one thing: criminals don't give a shit about the laws. The only people those measures are likely to impact are those who actually care about the law.

In an attempt to compromise on gun reform, how about this?: You can have background checks for all gun sales, including at shows and private sales if I can have the removal of Gun Free Zones for CCW permit holders.

Deal?

Would that include state houses and the halls of Congress? Airports? Stadiums? Convention centers, particularly NRA conventions and headquarters? Hospitals? Military bases? CIA headquarters? NSA facilities? If not, why not?

Sure, unless they already have armed security personnel on premises so civilian CCW is less necessary.

dudeman

brianlux said:

dudeman said:

This is turning into the America's Gun Violence thread, isn't it?

It seems this has turned into another "should American's be allowed to keep/carry their guns" thread. No, it's a thread about one school that wants to adopt a carry-on-campus policy and about a group of people who believe (rightfully so, in my opinion) that this idea is both dangerous and insane.

To be fair, the "Carry on Campus" policy is a state law in Texas. However, they are only allowing those with Concealed Handgun Licenses to carry, not just anyone who feels like it. Those with CHL's are over 21 years old, don't have a criminal background and are statistically among the most law-abiding and responsible members of society.

I understand the opposition to the law, I really do. More guns = more gun deaths. That said, with such a high percentage of students, faculty and administrators against campus carry, we are really talking about a very small number of people that would be likely to carry a concealed handgun on campus.

rr165892

Here in FL no range tests are associated with a CCP permit.You have to fire into a bucket.1 shot.then background and fingerprinting is done .The course takes 4 hrs.ATF checks you out and the 4weeks later your permit arrives.
I've been a CCP holder for years.I rarely carry on me but I do keep a firearm locked in my vehicle.Andwhen not on plane usually travel with it.
I heard a great start to this problem the other day.Let me see if I can find and post a link.As A gun owner,I want change,We need reform.Something has to be done.And it starts with hitting the gun lobby.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/defy-gun-lobby/?iid=ob_article_topstories_pool&iref=obinsite

dudeman

I had to place 30 rounds into 8 inches at a distance of 21 feet. Classroom instruction was eight hours.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I was thinking about the concealed carry people.

There have been times when I have gotten myself into 'dust ups'. These times are marked by intense emotion and adrenaline: fight versus flight and survival instincts at their peak.

During these times... I was never thinking about consequences. I was thinking about... well... beating the crap out of my opponent before he beats the crap out of me.

If I or my opponent had a gun under our hoodies... would one have resorted to it? As it stands, me and my opponents both emerged from our disputes relatively fine; but I can imagine alternate scenarios where a simple 'dust up' turns into tragedy because one participant has a gun and opts to use it when they really didn't need to.

Having a gun increases the chances of a death by a gun. Why people think more guns is cool numbs the mind. It truly does. But, as has been demonstrated, people believe all sorts of shit- it really makes one pessimistic.