Have at me....

[Larry S.]

“When someone persuades me that I’m wrong, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Variously attributed.

As an honest answer, I’ve been persuaded and have changed my mind on something.

I own more than a few firearms and I’ve often written, positively, regarding responsible firearm use and ownership, and will continue to do so in the future.

However, I’m also the grandfather of a 7-year-old angel named Lori and, before she moved to Texas, I was a volunteer in her second-grade classroom. Because of that, and since the shootings in Newtown, there hasn’t been a waking hour wherein I haven’t thought, “There, but for the grace of God...”

I’ve been thinking about other things too. More so since hearing the speech given by Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the NRA.

I’d waited for that speech - hoping it would include an offer to throw the weight, resources, and expertise of the NRA into an all-out effort to find solutions to the mass killings that’ve occurred in this nation.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed. Disappointed that there wasn’t some acknowledgment that the right to “Keep and Bear Arms" must be balanced by a child’s right to live. Disappointed at the tone. Disappointed at the narrowness of the proposed plan. As one proposal in an “all fronts” effort to end these tragedies, certainly worthwhile, but as the sole solution? Hardly.

There isn’t a “one idea will fix everything” solution to what we’re facing and anything we do will, likely, not have provable effects in the short term. Society cooked this elephant and it’ll have to be eaten one bite at a time. Still, that’s not an excuse for us to avoid considering as many roadblocks to carnage as can be found to put in the paths of the killers amongst us.

If we want to consider possible steps, here’s one. We could stop caring about how a firearm looks. Looks are cosmetic. Where we need to focus is on “what” and, more importantly, “how many” come out of the muzzle. Simply put, we need to decrease the volume of fire.

In the area of military look-alike rifles, limiting the capacity of existing magazines or even banning “large capacity” magazines won't be effective as long as electrical tape exists. Limit any magazine to “X” (5, 10, 15, etc.) rounds and anyone can tape three together and we're back to square one in less time than it takes to read this sentence.

Think, instead, of requiring civilian versions of such rifles to be designed with fixed, non-detachable magazines holding fewer rounds (I’m now for low, single digits) that have to be hand-loaded through the ejection port. This would slow things down by an order of magnitude.

Further, every other idea must be on the table and given equal consideration. Better guidelines for identifying and getting the mentally disturbed into (funded) treatment. Denial of sales to those with serious and ongoing mental problems. Swift and harsh punishment for crimes involving the use of firearms. Legal accountability for incidents involving firearms not adequately secured. Ensuring that background checks occur with every purchase - no matter where made.

Consider a direct, federal tax credit equal to the current retail price of the firearm for anyone wishing to turn one in. Consider safety education in schools and required training when a firearm is purchased. Consider where media violence, games, movies, and a declining respect for authority and personal accountability have led us.

Neither side will get everything (See: Compromise, n.) they wish. The hard-over, anti-gun faction will shout that anything short of banning everything including (dull) butter knives isn’t enough and the pro-gun hardliners will swear that Dillon M134D Gatling Guns (chambered in 7.62mm Nato and capable of 3000 rounds per minute) should be available to everyone - “just in case.”

I’ve changed my mind about round capacity in these firearms because I believe that it’s one, small “roadblock to carnage” that’s needed. Too, I keep imagining those kids facing a literal fusillade of bullets in their last moments and, in my own worst moments, I can put my granddaughter’s face into that picture.

And, if that image wouldn’t change a person’s mind, I’m not sure what would.
Finally, if such thinking makes someone the face of the “enemy” - to either side - then things are nowhere near as bad as we think.

They are, in fact, far worse. And headed downhill from there.

[Hawgdawg]

 

[boneaddict]

THough I would consider your speach very longwinded and thus hard to find the point of it all, a tactic I think most lawyers and politicians use these days, I'd like to keep it simple.   Its not the device that is the problem it is the user.   Bare in mind, I do not own an AR or black rifle,  and I do most of my killing with a longbow.   

[Larry S.]

It's good, funny, pithy...and I believed pretty much the same up until I read about one child soaking up 11 rounds at close range. Then, I found myself staying awake at night wondering what in the heck we- responsible firearm owners - could do to drive the conversation.

I have no basic problem with large capacity firearms or their magazines. But, we need to find ways to keep them out of the hands of the crazies. Remember that we put extremely harsh restrictions on the ownership of full-auto firearms that, at one time, could be ordered through the mail. That was back in the 1930's. We did that for a reason.

If we (you, me, other firearm owners) do not come up with good, rational, thoughtful proposals and solutions that will work, we're going to see more and more demands that congress (whose members, in general, wouldn't know a forearm from a foreskin) do something. And we know how that usually works out.

- Larry Simoneaux

[Huntbear]

Unfortunately, people who commit mass murder like the vile mentally ill person in CT, will not stop just because we take large magazines away.

I know of several tube fed .22 LR semi autos that shoot more than 10 or more rounds.  They kill just as well.  The capacity of the magazine, the look of the rifle means nothing.   You can get a .22 LR that looks just like the big bad AR15.. do we ban those too? 

It does not matter what you say law abiding citizens can or can not have...  Criminals and the insane will use it anyway....

[jaymark6655]

If we (you, me, other firearm owners) do not come up with good, rational, thoughtful proposals and solutions that will work, we're going to see more and more demands that congress (whose members, in general, wouldn't know a forearm from a foreskin) do something. And we know how that usually works out.

- Larry Simoneaux

Everytime we compromise, the next time around they scream for even more.  "The original ban didn't work, so that's why we need a more inclusive ban."  I am tired of retreating and giving up rights.

Why do I need high cap mags and a rifle that shoots as fast as I can---- 1st because I can.  2nd because of the second admendment.
I like to shoot and I hate reloading and I would rather be a member of society than a subject of the United States, its happened in the past and our "balance of powers" only does so much to stop it.

There are tons of regulation on the books that should have stopped this.
1.Guy stole firearms---illegal.
2.Guy took firearms to school---illegal.
3.Guy shot people---illegal.

Too me it seems that the law makers have failed us and these children, not the gun makers in owners.  Why should we continue to fall back and give up our rights in order to protect the lives of others when the laws they want do everything to enslave us and nothing to protect future generations.
There have been several mass shootings that have been halted by gun owners, the statistics are there except they aren't mass shootings because the guy was stopped at two or none.  Recent theathre shooting is on good example.  Columbine, they waited for the armed guard to leave for lunch....wonder why?
I have a brand new baby girl and I fear the world she may grow up in if we as gun owners continue to retreat or "compromise".

As you said we got rid of the full autos, they compromised and now they want the semi autos.  Next it will be the pump and lever actions because those can fire just as quick, where do you think they will stop?

[pianoman9701]

There are so many different points in the OP that it's hard to categorize and address them all.

Fear for our Children - I have two grandsons 4 and 9 in TX. This occurred to me, as well and it's damned scary. Only by the grace of luck are they untouched. Sorry, we probably have different beliefs in Providence, but we're on the same page when it comes to our childrens' safety.

High capacity magazines - You touched on a point that is being touted by the left as a safety measure to avoid this kind of mass killing; limiting the capacity of magazines. I think this to be a feel good measure and, as you pointed out, people can stack magazines or carry extras. It takes 2 seconds to change a mag.

Fixed magazines - This isn't going to protect our children from someone intent on hurting a whole bunch of them. We've seen in the '20s that people will bomb schools (already illegal), they'll carry extra weapons, they'll use anything at their disposal to do their deed. It's not about the capacity of a firearm. It's about the mental capacity for someone to be able to kill children.

Mental Health - This is one of the severely lacking sides of healthcare in our country. We give free medical to everyone with their hand out, but the mentally ill are left on the streets with no attention. This should absolutely be addressed. In the past two months, almost all of the highly publicized shootings have been committed by crazy people. After all, who but a completely insane person could look a 6-year old in the face and shoot them?

Your post was certainly thought out, but we get back to the same problem that we'll get back to every time something like this happens, regardless of how the gun laws are changed. Crazy people don't care what the law is. Criminals don't care what the law says. If they want to kill large numbers of people, they will. Ask Timothy McVeigh, Jeffrey Dalmer, Islamic terrorists who fly planes into buildings.

A mini 14 with a large capacity clip is a superb home defense firearm and, in the event of civil unrest due to natural or economic disaster, a weapon that can keep our grandchildren (and the rest of our families) safer, especially with high capacity magazines. I think that it would be a huge mistake to use the actions of insane people to restrict the ability of sane people to protect themselves, and their families, and their property.

If you disagree with me, you should absolutely think about telling your US Congressmen and women how you feel. If you agree with me, don't think about it. Do it now. Our rights, our families, and our safety is risked by what is being proposed.

[bearpaw]

It is illegal to drive drunk, but people do it and kill other people, are we going to outlaw cars? No, instead our police patrol for drunks.

The problem is not the tool or the law abing tool user, the problem is the criminal. The NRA suggested putting an officer in every school, I think that is a great idea. I know an officer in Utah who does school duty a couple days a week, he says that school is a much safer place with a cop on duty, I beleive him.

[Bob33]

Ban high capacity magazines and all school shootings will be eliminated!

Why schools should have dress codes

[halflife65]

Thanks Larry S. and pianoman for thinking about your arguments before just posting outrageous crap...I'm in agreement with pianoman but I appreciate you thinking it through, Larry S. and, at least, you have some understanding of how firearms work.  I'm tired of the hyperbole...

[TwoSixFourWins]

Pianoman hit the nail on the head I think. Making tighter laws will only hurt the law abiding citizens. There are already enough ARs floating around that more laws wouldn't matter anyway. I'm not an AR owner but I also believe that knee jerk reactions to tragedies will not prevent them, only limit our freedoms more and more until we are left with a nanny state like England where pretty much anything you can hurt yourself or someone else with is illegal. As someone else mentioned the unstable individual bent on destruction will find a way. In my opinion vigilance and preparation are the key, not knee jerk emotional actions.

[deaner]

and I believed pretty much the same up until I read about one child soaking up 11 rounds at close range.



- Larry Simoneaux

                                 i fail to see how that is really any worse than a child taking one shotgun shell or bullet when the day is over.   rounds 2-10 probably didnt do anything to change the outcome.  he could have achieved much the same result with low capacity magazines, just being more frugal with his lead.  hope that doesnt sound like im totally desensitized, just making a logical point

[Curly]

“When someone persuades me that I’m wrong, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Variously attributed.

As an honest answer, I’ve been persuaded and have changed my mind on something.

Hopefully you will change your mind again once you realize you are wrong about wanting gun control.  You can't protect your granddaughter from all the crazies of the world; why not allow her to grow-up with the rights that you currently have so she can choose to protect herself and her family if she wishes?

[TangoU]

Thanks Larry S. and pianoman for thinking about your arguments before just posting outrageous crap.

 

The NRA suggested putting an officer in every school, I think that is a great idea.

Irrelevent to a bad guy intent on killing people at the school.  Mount a reflex scope to any weapon and you've reduced the necessary marksmanship skills, making the cop an easy target, especially while distracted by students or other faculty.  You need at least three if you want them to be effective, such that one can be on break and you still have two on duty. Bring our boys and girls home from the stan and use a very small portion of that fiscal savings to fund this. 

[Crunchy]

“When someone persuades me that I’m wrong, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Variously attributed.

As an honest answer, I’ve been persuaded and have changed my mind on something.

Hopefully you will change your mind again once you realize you are wrong about wanting gun control.  You can't protect your granddaughter from all the crazies of the world; why not allow her to grow-up with the rights that you currently have so she can choose to protect herself and her family if she wishes?

She will be able to protect herself when she grows up.  Just maybe not with an AK or AR or whatever ends up on a gun ban (if they have one).  Myself, I would rather defend somone breaking into my home with a shotgun filled with double 00 then an AR. As far as defending myself on the street, once again I pick a handgun over an AR or AK.  Not sure where an AK or AR would benefit anyone in protecting themselves??  Most SWAT team that do use ARs only do so because they are fully auto, otherwise there isnt much benefit to having one when doing tactical entries. 

[pianoman9701]

Sorry Crunchy, I didn't mean to edit your response. I hit the wrong button.

High capacity, low recoil, short arms work very well in tight spaces, especially when you're dealing with multiple intruders or a civil unrest situation, such as natural or economic disaster. Every home intrusion isn't just one guy with a BB gun or a knife.

[Crunchy]

Sorry Crunchy, I didn't mean to edit your response. I hit the wrong button.

High capacity, low recoil, short arms work very well in tight spaces, especially when you're dealing with multiple intruders or a civil unrest situation, such as natural or economic disaster. Every home intrusion isn't just one guy with a BB gun or a knife.

Yes I know that    Still doesnt make the long gun any more effective in that situation. Unless of course we are all being a little unrealistic.

[pianoman9701]

Sorry Crunchy, I didn't mean to edit your response. I hit the wrong button.

High capacity, low recoil, short arms work very well in tight spaces, especially when you're dealing with multiple intruders or a civil unrest situation, such as natural or economic disaster. Every home intrusion isn't just one guy with a BB gun or a knife.

Yes I know that    Still doesnt make the long gun any more effective in that situation. Unless of course we are all being a little unrealistic.

I was talking about a .223 with a tactical stock as opposed to a long gun. It's a very effective and accurate weapon in a close fighting situation. A shotgun is done very quickly and takes time to reload. A handgun with enough stopping power is harder to control and again, you'd have to reload more frequently.

[Curly]

“When someone persuades me that I’m wrong, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Variously attributed.

As an honest answer, I’ve been persuaded and have changed my mind on something.

Hopefully you will change your mind again once you realize you are wrong about wanting gun control.  You can't protect your granddaughter from all the crazies of the world; why not allow her to grow-up with the rights that you currently have so she can choose to protect herself and her family if she wishes?

She will be able to protect herself when she grows up.  Just maybe not with an AK or AR or whatever ends up on a gun ban (if they have one).  Myself, I would rather defend somone breaking into my home with a shotgun filled with double 00 then an AR. As far as defending myself on the street, once again I pick a handgun over an AR or AK.  Not sure where an AK or AR would benefit anyone in protecting themselves??  Most SWAT team that do use ARs only do so because they are fully auto, otherwise there isnt much benefit to having one when doing tactical entries.

That is what I'm talking about - when she grows up.  She should have the choice of protecting herself with the same weapons available to us today.  That includes AR15's AK47's or whatever with 30 round mags.  Why should we ban 30 rd mags and make it so that only criminals have them?   Good guys and gals should have the choice too, not just the bad guys.

[whacker1]

Larry,

while I appreciate your comments.  I feel that this is more of reactionary society.I don't mean to offend you, but rather trying to illustrate that society needs a wake up call. Try and look at from the 30,000 foot view. 

We react to 9/11 by inventing or expanding TSA and Homeland Security

There are still very few guards posted at parking garage entrances as a reaction to the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center, because that thought has faded into the background. 

Gun Free zones as a reaction to guns in society and the historical travesties inflicted by crazies with guns.  Thus resulting in societies desire to make the pulic at large feel safer with a false sense of such security. 

We, as humans, react to the current and recent historical travesties, but can not possibly forecast what will happen next.  We talk about chemical warfare as a part of war, 3rd world countries, but we rarely talk about the possibility of that domestically

You will never eliminate crazies or the threat of crazies, just like you won't eliminate sadness.   But you can position yourself and society to defend yourself or itself.  However, society as a heavy minority or slight majority that would rather pretend that the governement can defend them better via banning certain tools, thoughts, ideas, etc.  They would rather go down that path, because it is significantly more challenging to put the thought into actually learning how to defend oneself, operate a firearm, how to engage, when to engage, and what the possible outcomes might be if you do engage.

Loss of life, sadness, and fear are all real emotions related to the various debates at hand.  But decisions need to be made without emotion, and solutions not further limitations

[bearhunter99]

Thank you for your thoughts, but in relation to ANY form of compromise to our right to own firearms there are a couple of points I would like to touch on.

Revolvers. 
Ever see a guy who has practiced a bit shoot a revolver with speed loaders?  A person who has practiced can shoot pretty darn fast.  A Taurus .357 with an 8 round cylinder and a few speed loaders will be able to spread over 50 rounds in under well under five minutes.  While I agree that it would be harder to spray the bullets around compared to a semi auto, this kind of disaster will still not be preventable by the elimination of high capacity magazines.  Are we going to ban revolvers and speed loaders next?

Shotguns
Even with the ban of high capacity magazines, how many shotguns are out there that can hold 5 rounds or more?  How much devastation would there be with a guy carrying a shotgun loaded with buckshot?  From a distance the buckshot spreads out dramatically.  What if someone took a shotgun to a crowded mall or event?  A guy could easily carry 2-3 shotguns and shoot 15 rounds in short order, each round (#4 buckshot) shoots 21 pellets of .24 caliber.  That's 315 .24 caliber bullets.  Even using a double barreled shotgun, how fast can a break open shotgun be reloaded?  I can shoot some serious rounds through a double barrel in short order.  Are we going to ban shotguns next?

High powered rifles
14 people were killed and another 32 others were wounded by a guy in a clock tower with high powered rifles.  Granted he also had an M1 carbine but also used basic hunting rifles.  How many people could a guy with a good sniper position take out in a busier place?  Are we going to ban hunting rifles next?

Gasoline
How much damage could a guy with a truck full of gasoline do if he drove it into a school and ignited it?  Are we going to ban gasoline next?

Fertilizer
Timothy McVeigh's attack killed 168 people and injured over 800 in a bombing in Oklahoma City (which killed 19 children in a daycare by the way).  Are we going to ban fertilizer next?

My point is that bad people are going to do bad things, by any means necessary.  Gun control has proven to be pointless legislation in the major cities that have implemented gun control measures.  This is just another pointless regulation of the American people who are slowly losing more and more of their basic rights.  The founding fathers would be ashamed of what this nation has become IMHO.

[Larry S.]

To Whacker, Bearhunter, Pianoman, et. al...

Trust me, I've read, heard, USED, thought about, thrown out, re-thought just about every argument, counter-argument, and suggestion that has been made here. I've done that in writing to my representatives, in phone calls to same, and in coffee table discussions I have with several anti-gun friends that I've known for years (yes, they are, in fact, human and even "nearly normal" except with regard to firearms).

The suggestion I made (slowing down the volume of fire) is just that - an idea, a proposal, a starting point. It won't be the whole answer. It might not even be part of an answer. It is, however, something that many who are neither pro/anti firearm want to see and that is - thoughts from those of us who know and use these "things" that might help reduce the carnage or put roadblocks in front of the shooters.

Another individual who'd read this had stumbled across data regarding the profligate use of psychotropic drugs among the young in our society. Fidgety? Drug them. Depressed? Drug them. Angry? Drug them. The connection was that most - if not all - of these shooters were on or had been on drugs. We need to put that out in front of our representatives too.

The bottom line is that we, the responsible and safe firearm owners, need to be seen as engaged rather than intransigent. Participants rather than backbench shouters. Willing to interact constructively rather than distant and angry.

I made the point that fully-automatic weapons were put on the shelf when society got sick and tired of the mess they made back in the '30's. We're headed in that direction now with other firearms and accessories, and I think (or I wouldn't be saying any of this) we need to be proactive and willing to look at any suggestion...and explain to our reps  (you have been calling and writing them, right?) why we believe it will or won't work in a calm and constructive manner.

Which is mostly what I've seen here!

Again, have at me.

Larry Simoneaux

[JimmyHoffa]

Mass shootings are statistical outliers.  You (or your kids) have a much better chance of being hit by lightning than being killed in a crazed, mass-shooting event.  Gun bans in other countries or in some of the bigger US cities seems to show increases in crimes with guns.  Why would it be any different here?  So in effect in the efforts to prevent an outlier it would be acceptable to encourage a known given.  Banning anything will lead to more, so difficult to say how a ban on just magazines or military assualt rifles would be what would happen.  The antis will spin things--imagine how they will sell banning shotguns:  "Oh my!  That shell holds 12 rounds of 00 Buckshot.  It is like shooting 12 people with a 9 mm in one shot!  Ban now!"   

[Huntbear]

Larry,

Again, by banning high capacity magazines, or out right confiscation of them and so called "military look alike" firearms..  The only people following the law is the honest folks that do not want to go to jail.

Again, the criminal element does not and will not care about a new law.   We have 20,000 gun laws on the books by both Federal and state.  Lets start by enforcing the current laws. 

Do you know it is a crime to attempt to purchase a gun if you have a felony.  People do it all the time.  When the gun shop owner calls the local PD, they are to busy to worry about picking them up..  The DA refuses to prosecute.  Even though the gun shop owner now has all their pertinent data in his hands.   Why not start there?

Make crimes with guns a mandatory sentencing issue.  You use a gun in a crime.. even without pulling the trigger you get a mandatory 20 years.  You pull the trigger you get life.  You kill someone AUTOMATIC DEATH SENTENCE.  Put some teeth back in the laws we have instead of persecuting the law abiding gun owners, that are the ONLY ONES that will be affected by any new bans.

[Alan K]

However, I’m also the grandfather of a 7-year-old angel named Lori and, before she moved to Texas, I was a volunteer in her second-grade classroom. Because of that, and since the shootings in Newtown, there hasn’t been a waking hour wherein I haven’t thought, “There, but for the grace of God...”

The biggest difference in arguments between the left and right are that the left uses emotion to sway people, while the right uses reason and common sense.  It looks to me that Larry here is swayed by the emotional argument.  The odds that a kid will be shot in a school shooting is almost non-existent, but we want legislation that will affect hundreds of millions of law abiding citizens, and in all likely-hood (say the statistics) nothing will happen!?

Using this article here, that's a couple years old, you can do some quick math and see what kind of chance your child has of getting killed in a school shooting:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/09/us-school-shoot/

The article is from 2007, and says that there were 323 students were killed in the 15 years prior.  That's 21.5/year.  Assume the rate has increased over the last 5 (though I've heard it's actually gone down), to 25/year.  The article also states that there are 70 million students in kindergarten through college.  Lets say that has increased to 75 million a year.  That's one out of every 3 million students are killed via shooting each year. 

People are insane to want to infringe on the rights of hundreds of millions of people to try (and again almost certainly unsuccessfully) to reduce the odds of such an occurrence that is already almost 0.


And how about this. . . We've all been to a school at the end or beginning of the day when all the buses are lined up and kids are getting on/off.  A lunatic could easily drive up and plow through the tens to hundreds of kids depending on the size of the school.  Point is there are hundreds of ways to conduct mass killings, and you can't stop these lunatics! Infringing on the rights of hundreds of millions of people to try and stop these things is just STUPID!

Honestly, and I'll probably take some flack for this  , I don't think even if it did reduce the annual deaths from 25 to 0 it would be worth the rights of hundreds of millions.  If anyone thought that it was worth it, I'd imagine they think we should certainly take away cars, the right to walk outside (lightning!), and just about every other freedom that we have because there are countless other things that kill more kids every year.

[Special T]

It is an unfortunate fact of life that there is EVIL present. Evil and those that do evil acts will ALWAYS be with us. No reasonable person wants bad things to happen to good and/or innocent people. Evil will seek ANY tool to make carnage. These senseless acts of violence seem to make us NEED to find a way of preventing it, sadly there is little really that can be done.

A firearm is a tool, in the hands of a policeman or honest citizen it can prevent much harm... We all know what it can do in the hands of Evil. Since lawbreakers or the mentally ill pay no heed to laws there is no logic as to why we should handicap good people... If you fear your law abiding neighbors then i think your motives are not honest. You argument is a slippery slope designed to make each of us look extreme, or shame us into your version of "normal".  Your tactic is the soft sell so that we will slip your noose over our heads for you.

The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance. Too many of us have been lulled to into a false sense of security while letting our representatives pass BS legislation like you propose as "reasonable".

[buckhorn2]

I beleive that we need to protect children. There are people out there that for some reason want to cause the most trouble and hurt the most people so they turn to the children. If it takes more officers patrolling schools and malls or even maybe the reserves we need to come up with a plan. Have you noticed that you never see one of these people trying to shoot up a gun shop it;s always malls;schools and theaters.

[csaaphill]

the thing in the 30's was because of the tommy gun and all the prohobition crowd back then. since alchol becam legal again that ban could of been lifted. changing one ban prohobition to another has never worked at least not here. From 1994-2004 those very same guns were banned, and shorlty after columbine happened so banning things never work. The second ammendment is to fight against tyrrany which is why it was made in the first place.
the NRA's point I think is because they know that taking away the gun free zones is a pipe dream. So armed guards might be the only option. We can't give in to hype and fear and give into the gun grabbers. I may not have kids personally, but I have a niece who's 3 going on 4, and if I could I'd addopt her in a heart beat. That day she was my first thought as well as yours I'm sure. I shed a tear later that night talking things over with my wife. One thing Gov was never to be in the business to keeping us safe they were in the business to keep us free.
"One who gives up liberty for temporary safety shall deserve neither"

[arees]

There comes a point where you get so frustrated by scarey events happening in the news that you just can't stand to do nothing any more.  You are so overcome by your inability to prevent the unpreventable that doing anything is better than doing nothing.  At that point you are left to advocate for things that are not only ineffective, but possibly counter productive.

We should have "swift and harsh punishment" which would not stop shooters that shoot them selves at the end of their rampage.  Anybody who starts a shooting spree has to anticipate a high probability of swift and harsh punishment.

How about "legal accountability" for those who did not secure their firearms.  But the mother, the source of the firearms, is dead already and out of reach of any legal action.

More background checks...but there is no evidence that the mother did not go through a background check.

Fixed non-detachable magazines for all new firearms...assuming no crazy person can get a hold of a used firearm.  Would you like an estimate on the number of semi-automatic scary black rifles out there with detachable magazines?

Make it harder for law abiding citizens to access their firearms...which will only make things difficult for law abiding citizens.  Criminals won't obey the laws and the undiagnosed crazies have plenty of time to take off their trigger locks before they start their rampage.

We should keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.  A nice thought (and already the law) but truly hard to implement.  Note the Cafe Racer shooting in Seattle.  The shooter's family knew he had violent mental issues but refused to support judicial intervention because it would mean that their son would be locked up.  (When will that family be brought to justice or at least sued?)  There are lots of borderline crazy people out there and they may not do anything actionable until they start shooting.

Then there is whole sale confiscation.  The reason that gun owners are so afraid of gun confiscation is that it is the only thing that could work, except that it is impossible.  You would need to have an intensive house to house search of the entire US, draconian border searches and the cooperation of a willing populace.  Canada couldn't even implement a long gun registry.

So, go ahead and advocate for doing something, anything.  It might make you feel better in the short run.  It won't change anything else.

In the mean time, on the days you feel better, look into the real risks your grand daughter faces and see what you can do about those.  You could probably have a much bigger impact on her chances of survival by taking her to swimming lessons and volunteering as a crossing guard.  You could get extra points by making sure that she and her friends all get firearm safety training.

[Cap.Silver]

I believe that it is not our right to disarm our future generation without them having a say in this.........I understand the need of some people (especially those who's kids got killed) to do so .....look at some futuristic movies where the government does as they please because they are the only ones with guns  . I think I'm rational person with experience living and growing up in another country under the communist regime .....would you like me tell you how that turned out for the regular folks Really ,you think it was great ?? I'd say ask those who grew up suppressed by their regime ,they'll tell you . Gun control  :chuckle:is the next step to governmental control ,no thanks ...been there.Don't get me wrong -I'm not anti-government person ...I know the need for police ,army,state and city agencies so that the country can function properly and I can live and work . YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR PEOPLE . Here is one tiny example
http://www.carolinajournal.com/daily_journal/display.html?id=8947 ; here is why you should be thinking about what happens : http://ccrjustice.org/files/CCR_Gov.pdf .
What do you think would happen if you had traveled to Cuba several times ......? I don't know but I'd say think twice about it . We can spend hours and hours debating over this .... and I know you care about your grandkids

[GEARHEAD]

Lightning kills more people in this country than mass shooters. we are a country of 300 million. 100 million of us own or have access to a gun. there are as many guns as there are cars in this Country. Cars killed over 30,000 last year, guns killed a third of that. Assault style rifles are a tiny fraction of those deaths, and maybe more than half of those are officers defending themselves. 50 percent more people have been murdered by something other than a gun, (hands, feet, knife, bat) There are more people carrying concealed and open carry firearms than ever before, and as that number has been increasing over the decades, coincidentally, firearm murders have been on a consistent decline. (maybe related, maybe not, dunno) There are less firearm murders today than in the last 30-40 or so years. In This Country, so far anyways, we have averaged a mass shooting such as the recent tragedy, about one incident,  for every 236 years.  The only thing that has increased,.... is the quality of media coverage and technology. Everybody has access to, and  the ability to film events,  more people than ever before now have a platform to air their thoughts, fears and observations. it simply brings things near and far closer together, making incidents artificially close. I am in my 40's, and gun violence has been going down most of my life. When there is a problem, i will happily rethink my current stance, but for now i will keep my AR and my Glock.

I have taken the same Oath Twice, and last i checked, it didn't come with an expiration date.

[christopheri]

“When someone persuades me that I’m wrong, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - Variously attributed.

As an honest answer, I’ve been persuaded and have changed my mind on something.

Hopefully you will change your mind again once you realize you are wrong about wanting gun control.  You can't protect your granddaughter from all the crazies of the world; why not allow her to grow-up with the rights that you currently have so she can choose to protect herself and her family if she wishes?

She will be able to protect herself when she grows up.  Just maybe not with an AK or AR or whatever ends up on a gun ban (if they have one).  Myself, I would rather defend somone breaking into my home with a shotgun filled with double 00 then an AR. As far as defending myself on the street, once again I pick a handgun over an AR or AK.  Not sure where an AK or AR would benefit anyone in protecting themselves??  Most SWAT team that do use ARs only do so because they are fully auto, otherwise there isnt much benefit to having one when doing tactical entries.

IF an AR isnt an effective CQB and tactical weapon then why don't they use the MP5 or something shorter like a short shot gun with double OO buck shot?

[ICEMAN]

Larry S, you have lost it. Imagine your precious grand kids living in another area of the world. Your ideas will not solve anything. Stop trying to diminish my rights to satisfy your dream.

[Bean Counter]

Larry.

You are welcomed to join me on a tour of the Southern border with Mexico. I will show you some beautiful hunting properties that are sparsely populated by ranchers and farmers. I'd like you to look in their eye and tell them that while Chairman Maobama found it acceptable to sell 30 round magazines and magazine fed semi automatic rifles to the Sinaloa Cartel, that you and Senator Frankenstein think that these ranchers should watch smugglers trespass and liter on their land and that the ranchers should only have a lever action gun to defend themselves.

[TangoU]

There comes a point ...

Great post arees.  Thoughtful, well-written and conversational in tone.