Can we please just admit that maybe gun control is a good idea finally?

This unfortunately ignores the point that this issue doesn't have an entirely partisan divide. While it's true that pro-gun advocates (and certainly the pro-gun lobbyists) tend to be conservative, there are plenty of Democrats who are also on that side of the issue. Harry Reid being probably the most high-profile D against gun control. You don't just have to pass new laws without the Republicans, you also have to do it without a big chunk of your own party even if you get every gun-control advocate to vote their conscience instead of their career.

As I said, we'd have to advocate for new candidates. The Democratic party isn't perfect on this issue, but the Republicans are unanimously against it.

When did Rush Limbaugh started caring about gun violence in Chicago?

I'm still an advocate for a well trained and responsible security guard armed with a firearm (I'm only imagining a semi-auto pistol here) in the schools. Most likely an actual police officer and not just some hired security guard or anything.

I simply don't like the idea of teachers being armed. I mean, who gets to be armed? Who decides which teachers get to be armed? Is there a test to see if they are reliable and level headed enough to have a firearm in their desk? What happens if one teacher wants to have a gun in his desk but he is denied by the powers that be, is there a lawsuit waiting there?

What happens if his secured firearm gets in the hand of a student? Kids are crafty, especially high school kids, I could see a high school kid waiting till the teacher left the room, then cracking whatever cheap gun safe he might have in his desk or break whatever lock is on his desk.

What happens if there is a shooter in the school, and the teacher fails to react? Is he going to be sued by all of the parents of the kids that get shot by this shooter?

It's a heck of alot of responsibility and trust, and with our lawsuit driven legal system......

I dunno, I think I am a responsible enough shooter, but if I was a teacher in a public school system and was offered to keep a secured gun in my desk, would I? I think the liability factor would scare me off too much, not to mention the fact that I could shoot the wrong kid. At the same time I would forever hate myself if there was a shooter and I hadn't taken the opportunity to be armed. I think it's a lose-lose situation for teachers to be armed, and to be honest I wouldn't have high hopes for any system that would be in place to make sure those armed teachers are good choices.

Parents telling their *any age* kid to bring a gun to school for safety is nuts, I don't even know how to comment on that.

The whole god thing is rather sad. While I do hate some aspects of the governments strong stance against religion these days (like this story), that whole "you took god out of schools and now look what happened" is really petty and I'd argue not very christian or catholic or whatever.

Oh ffs, this too?

Taken to thier logical conclusions, don't these arguments support no private citizen being armed? Can we really trust our fellow citizens' capacity and judgment? Have you seen them drive? What if children get their hands on the weapons? Etc.

I hope that he does successfully reframe the discussion that way. He'll find that while stopping spree shooters is a whole can of worms, there's far less of a debate to be had over gun violence generally and the reason that no-one's talking about it isn't because they don't care but that they don't think that anyone else cares. If Rush makes the 27% suddenly care very much about the background radiation of daily violence then he might not like the place where that conversation ends up.

lol, having a gun in ones own home is MUCH different than having one in a freaking school with hundreds if not thousands of students around, and then entrusting that person with the safety of those hundreds or thousands of students. Get real.

Defending yourself in your own home is also MUCH different than engaging in a school shooter with hundreds of panicked children running around.

And for extarbags, I think the article I linked is a good example of what I don't approve of, don't turn this into some religious zealot nonsense.

So you're not in favor of either concealed or open carry in public?

Keep creating those strawmen there.

I'm in favor of both, where are you pulling this crap out of? lol

I do think that open carry can have a sense of unnecessary intimidation. I don't need to be walking around the mall and know you have a shiny cowboy revolver on you because it's attached at your hip.

Not at all. Paco made arguments -- that I agree with -- that we can't trust just any old teacher with a handgun. He said that those arguments don't apply to home defense. Okay. I want to know if he thinks they apply to citizens being able to walk around in public armed. Because I sure do.

Edit -- And he gave me his answer, which makes no sense if he believes what he said about weapons in school. we can either trust the public to carry guns around or we can't. Obviously, he's wrong, because we can't.

The vast vast overwhelming majority of gun owners never harm anyone, so yes we can trust the public in general with guns.

Oh my! George Take's editorial on not necessarily more gun control but rather more gun regulations.

Common sense, but the Constitution doesn't lay out individual rights to be a manicurist, a pilot, or a doctor. I'd argue it doesn't really lay out individual rights to own a gun, but that ship sailed with the Supremes a while back.

True, but it only sailed 4 years ago, by a 5-4 vote, where the majority included 2 justices nominated by a man who lost the popular vote for president. It's a weak precedent that a new majority (in a few years, fingers crossed) can feel comfortable reversing as soon as they get a chance. Scalia is just plain wrong on this issue; the words A well-regulated militia are critical to any non-wingnut, reality-based understanding of the amendment.

No, not treating the constitution as holy scripture in direct contravention of the evidence available for what is good for society at large is critical to being reality based. Regardless, calling it a "weak precedent" on the mostly ridiculous criteria you've listed here seems to overtly ignore the history of precedents, both bad and good, as well as demonstrating the kind of cognitive dissonance that makes reformers so vulnerable.You can't try to play the "Scalia is wrong" question using his tools; you'll lose. Moreover, "A man who lost the popular vote"? Come on.

Again, it comes back to the NRA and others depriving the country of the evidence it needs to make informed decisions about policies and rules. Framing it as a matter of principle is going to lead to another 20 years of misery while enough of the irrational pro-gun vote dies of old age, and it's completely unnecessary.

You think that article, which was about the management of an elementary school deciding to leave the word "God" out of one of their assemblies, is a good example of "the governments [sic] strong stance against religion these days?" Really?

That's another good criteria.

He got his Supreme Court-appointed job, and he got to veto stuff and take us to war, and he'll get his government pension. But he'll always be the president with the asterisk by his name.

We're in complete agreement on your first sentence. But there's no reason we can't approach it both as a matter of principle (the well-regulated militia clause matters), while also pushing for incremental, technocratic policy changes that have some chance of making it through the legislative process. You can fight on more than one level at a time.

I don't think that Obama himself flew down there on Air Force One and went in and tore the poem up in front of the girl and spit in her eye, no. But the stigma the gov't has created for separation of church and state and separation of church and schools has created extreme fear in the school administrators so they nix anything even remotely related to religion out of fear they will get punished for allowing it. It's the same as the lawsuit-happy culture the U.S. now has that has scared people into doing alot of ridiculous things out of fear of getting in trouble or being sued.

You can batter your way through a sheet of drywall, even double thickness, pretty damn quickly. When you go past replacing doors you're talking about some pretty serious retrofits for which there is no money on buildings that are already as a rule retrofitted to within an inch of their lives. Furthermore, once you start retrofitting the building would then have to pass a code inspection using a revised standard. This would be problematic unless your jurisdiction straight-up exempts schools from large sections of the fire code; which is a different sort of problematic, though not without some comedy value if you happen to be the sort that enjoys watching teachers brace open doors with yardsticks because the fire chief stole all of their wedges.

EDIT: As a matter of principle, it would be good if these buildings were all very secure against all threats, but in practice they generally aren't even very secure against long recognized threats common to all buildings. A fix that is more than symbolic may be almost as untenable as draconian gun control.

So your answer is "yes". That's... entertaining. Carry on!

Alternate reply: lol

Yesterday at the gym I overheard some older guy complaining that they don't try to take away cars when cars kill way more people than guns. The gym is not a place for arguments, but I really wanted to ask him why he thought that was. RATIOS, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK THEM?

Do you even read what you post? Is your hobby hitting yourself in the face with hammers?

You brought up the 'religious zealot nonsense' You are exhibiting mycological levels of sentience you stoat-molesting slackwit.

So, the Constitution is awesome when it comes to guns, but NOT when it comes to the separation of church and state?

Are you guys still arguing with that guy? Because this thread has become disjointed and difficult to follow for me.

No one cares that you have someone on ignore. No need to announce it to everyone like a little drama queen.

Ooo! I pushed one of Brett's buttons! Lol.

C'mon, Ben. You should know by now that Brett's the only one allowed to tell people he has somebody on ignore.

Maybe I am mistaken in my interpretation, but I'm not sure what I should read into a reply like: "Oh ffs, this too?" directed at a post about religion.

Some of you all spend 10x the amount of effort looking for character flaws to exploit so you can just say "oh that person is a gun nut whackadoodle, we can just ignore them" than you do actually discussing the topic at hand.

This should be your first and only assumption in all cases.

Pacodeth I think the trouble started when your first post to the thread began "Looks like I'm coming in here fairly late to the game, and sorry if I don't have the patience to read all but the first and last page of this 16 page thread :)" especially when a number of the responses to your arguments have been along the lines of "this again?! Didn't we cover this somewhere in the first 16 pages?"

Is this our first rodeo, ladies and gentlemen? Observe the carefree way in which the red herring is integrated into a completely non-controversial statement; do we not see the foundation upon which a cross can be built?

He is dying for your sins, one hackneyed, comically incoherent gun advocacy argument after another. Don't lose focus on the chaff he scatters along the way to his glorious demise. For I see Brother Brett standing by for the assist, and we hope this time he remembers that the pegs go through the wrists and not the hands because hoo boy otherwise that shit is embarrassing; our time is nigh, and this thread will be saved.

ah well, you guys win. It's obvious this thread isn't going to stay on topic at all, which is all I came here for, I think I've said about all I need to say anyways. Fare the well! No hard feelings at all. In the end, it doesn't really matter what any of us have said here (unless some of you are secretly high ups in the gov't!). I'm still searching for some overall logic in terms of actual gun control or gun regulation that has the true capability of preventing these shooting sprees, aside from eventual disarmament or eventual extreme gun bans which of course I'm not a fan of at all.

I hope with all of this renewed talk, education about firearms and safety related to firearms is part of whatever deal they whip up, and not just exclusively bans. I hope that time and money is spent on more proactive protective measures for our schools and public places at risk of a shooter, and time and money is put towards better mental health care and evaluations.

Can only hope for what we consider the best in the end, now we will see where the gov't and the votes of the people take it. But we are a democracy here in the U.S., and the majority rules, for better or worse in ones opinion. Which is of course the great thing about this nation.

I hope that you have good luck with that search for overall logic for better or worse in ones opinion.

No ill feeling, Paco. Just make sure to take Brett with you when you go.

Please.

You know, it's a shame. I was hoping to have a few of my questions answered, man. I'm just scratching my head here. I feel like there's an apparent contradiction in the claims that you need a gun for hunting and self-defense, which both seem fairly limited in application and need for overwhelming firepower, and the assumption that gun-owners will need to as much high-caliber heat as possible when the revolution comes.

I mean, isn't that kind of...unpatriotic? They are essentially gambling on the United States falling apart, no?