>>>-----The Gun Issue Middle----->

[Anti-Party]

I hate parties because they all argue some good and some bad points. Every party thinks they are 100% correct but none are. I've collected the good points out of the parties and came up with this. You will probably like some but also dislike some..

Limit magazine size to 30 rounds on all guns. Even pistols are coming out with 50 round mags now. End production and grandfather clause it. Schools and citizens are taught to throw things at the shooter. When the shooter is trying to reload and kids are pelting him with textbooks it could help some escape or even take down the shooter.

Have walk through metal detectors at school and a lightly armed guard or a few depending on size of school. Of course the Righties would have to let go of some money to go towards this "entitlement". I don't believe we should allow teachers to conceal and carry because children can push your anger buttons more than anyone. And if anyone thinks teachers or school worker would never do that then take a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster.


End government driven "Gun Free Zones" and allow business to make their own choice. Excluding bar's, schools, courthouses etc. It's very important that some people in society conceal and carry with the right background checks and testing. This video below is not a massacre as it says, it's a robbery. But it shows why conceal and carry is necessary. If it was a massacre the gunmen would probably have bullet proof vests and bigger guns such as the AR-15 with 100 magazine. Grandpa wouldn't stand a chance in that situation.


Share your mature thoughts

[/MSG/]

I hate parties because they all argue some good and some bad points. Every party thinks they are 100% correct but none are. I've collected the good points out of the parties and came up with this. You will probably like some but also dislike some..

Probably.

Limit magazine size to 30 rounds on all guns. Even pistols are coming out with 50 round mags now. End production and grandfather clause it.

No. That's incrementalism, accomplishes nothing, and creates a black market (which certain people [not naming names]) will exploit for lots of money.

Schools and citizens are taught to throw things at the shooter. When the shooter is trying to reload and kids are pelting him with textbooks it could help some escape or even take down the shooter.

Why not just let teachers who are so inclined carry? And legally eligible students? (Obviously the latter is for colleges).

Have walk through metal detectors at school and a lightly armed guard or a few depending on size of school.

If a school wants to do that, that's their business. But I wouldn't go through that, and I wouldn't make my children either. I don't fly for the exact same reason.

I don't believe we should allow teachers to conceal and carry because children can push your anger buttons more than anyone. And if anyone thinks teachers or school worker would never do that then take a look at this

What exactly would make these security guards, or anyone else, immune to snapping?

End government driven "Gun Free Zones" and allow business to make their own choice...

Yes but...

...Excluding bar's, schools, courthouses etc.

No. No exceptions, unless the private establishment wishes so.

It's very important that some people in society conceal and carry with the right background checks and testing.

Sure.

If it was a massacre the gunmen would probably have bullet proof vests and bigger guns such as the AR-15 with 100 magazine. Grandpa wouldn't stand a chance in that situation.


Share your mature thoughts

Placement is king, penetration is queen, all else is angels on the head of a pin. 3 rounds of this:
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...ef8tjorssv53q3
Will go through even Level III body armor, and that's available in number of chamberings. And even if it doesn't pierce body armor, it WILL knock you down (trust me).

[Anti-Party]

Probably.

No. That's incrementalism, accomplishes nothing, and creates a black market (which certain people [not naming names]) will exploit for lots of money.
Why not just let teachers who are so inclined carry? And legally eligible students? (Obviously the latter is for colleges).

If a school wants to do that, that's their business. But I wouldn't go through that, and I wouldn't make my children either. I don't fly for the exact same reason.
What exactly would make these security guards, or anyone else, immune to snapping?

Yes but...
No. No exceptions, unless the private establishment wishes so.
Sure.
Placement is king, penetration is queen, all else is angels on the head of a pin. 3 rounds of this:
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...ef8tjorssv53q3
Will go through even Level III body armor, and that's available in number of chamberings. And even if it doesn't pierce body armor, it WILL knock you down (trust me).

If you think lower the size of magazines will do nothing it's just bias blind thinking. Who cares if there was a black market, they shouldn't have been legal to begin with. It's like saying, "We shouldn't stop the production of RPG's for owners because they are dangerous and the only way to fix that is for everyone to have an RPG" Nothing else is legal that can cause a massacre on such a large scale.

[Timshel]

I can't see much reason to believe there would be a black market for the high capacity mags. There is not much value in it and a gun owner might risk his right to bear arms if caught.

Black markets don't thrive just because something is banned. There has to ne a sufficient demand and few if any legal substitutes.

[/MSG/]

I can't see much reason to believe there would be a black market for the high capacity mags. There is not much value in it and a gun owner might risk his right to bear arms if caught.

Black markets don't thrive just because something is banned. There has to ne a sufficient demand and few if any legal substitutes.

Sufficient demand? Go try and order one now. They're back ordered. For MONTHS. Trust me, demand is there.

[/MSG/]

If you think lower the size of magazines will do nothing it's just bias blind thinking.

What will it do exactly?

Who cares if there was a black market, they shouldn't have been legal to begin with.

Oh really now? Sadly the USSC disagrees with you, but happily they agree with me. And have for nearly a century.

It's like saying, "We shouldn't stop the production of RPG's for owners because they are dangerous and the only way to fix that is for everyone to have an RPG"

Who says RPGs are illegal? They're not.

Nothing else is legal that can cause a massacre on such a large scale.

Mr. Mcveigh would beg to differ. In fact, even the link you posted in the OP would beg to differ.

[Anti-Party]

Sufficient demand? Go try and order one now. They're back ordered. For MONTHS. Trust me, demand is there.

It's easy to prove why banning large magazines is a good idea. But no one has ever proven why they are a necessity. The people who say, "This would do nothing" generally say "because you can just practice enough changing out mags and it's just like 100 round drum". But the people stealing these guns or buying them on the fly are not generally ones who practice mag swaps for long periods of time. However, the people who bring up the fast mag swap clearly paint themself in a corner proving they don't NEED a 100 round drum because they can just speed swap mags....

Off to bed for me. I'm sure we will be chatting in the future. I like to poke jabs at the right wing

[Timshel]

Sufficient demand? Go try and order one now. They're back ordered. For MONTHS. Trust me, demand is there.

It's not illegal now.

[/MSG/]

It's not illegal now.

Many think they will be (hence massive demand). Which would make possession illegal (under the current proposal no less). Again, trust me, there is demand.

[Anti-Party]

What will it do exactly?
Oh really now? Sadly the USSC disagrees with you, but happily they agree with me. And have for nearly a century.
Who says RPGs are illegal? They're not.
Mr. Mcveigh would beg to differ. In fact, even the link you posted in the OP would beg to differ.

So, you didn't read the original post where I described what lower mag's would change..

I didn't say RPG's were illegal, go buy some ammo though..That was an extremeist perspective to shine some light on the topic, sadly the point was missed and/or avoided.

Name something besides guns that can cause a massacre that is legal then. And don't try to say, "The chemicals in a bomb" because bomb's aren't legal.. I'll check it tommorow. Have a good night

[Anti-Party]

Many think they will be (hence massive demand). Which would make possession illegal (under the current proposal no less). Again, trust me, there is demand.

The demand was manufactured by the Right wing. When someone mentions an extra test to own a gun the Right wing screams, "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE MY GUNS! 2ND AMENDMENT! WAR TIME!"

[Timshel]

Mr. Mcveigh would beg to differ. In fact, even the link you posted in the OP would beg to differ.

I believe many of the ingredients McVeigh used are restricted now.

McVeigh is a different case. His act was well planned. Many of these shooters are just acting on impulse and don't have the wherewithal to do what McVeigh did. Anti did not seem to be making the argument that this would stop all mass murders but reduce the opportunities.

[Annie]

Probably.

No. That's incrementalism, accomplishes nothing, and creates a black market (which certain people [not naming names]) will exploit for lots of money.
Why not just let teachers who are so inclined carry? And legally eligible students? (Obviously the latter is for colleges).

If a school wants to do that, that's their business. But I wouldn't go through that, and I wouldn't make my children either. I don't fly for the exact same reason.
What exactly would make these security guards, or anyone else, immune to snapping?

Yes but...
No. No exceptions, unless the private establishment wishes so.
Sure.
Placement is king, penetration is queen, all else is angels on the head of a pin. 3 rounds of this:
http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/cat...ef8tjorssv53q3
Will go through even Level III body armor, and that's available in number of chamberings. And even if it doesn't pierce body armor, it WILL knock you down (trust me).

I met my brother for lunch today, he retired as deputy chief of police in a large Chicagoland suburb two years ago, after serving 28 years. He's never been a big fan of handguns in homes. Certainly not one to advocate for carrying in general. He's taught police science classes for the past 20 years at both Northwestern and U of I. He's knowledgeable.

For the most part we were discussing family stuff. I did though want his take on a discussion between myself and several 'teacher friends' including two that are principals. When I basically said, 'What do you think of 'schools making exceptions to 'gun free zones' for staff approved by principals and superintendent' with training and conceal carry permit?' His reply was reluctant but, 'It may be the best and only response. If only those that are deemed able and truly trained to a high degree, including crisis training,' it's likely the only real answer.' I said, 'What about adding 'armed guards?' His reply was pretty much my own to those on boards. 'We've already full time officers in all middle and high schools. 3 full-time officers between 6, k-5 schools. The split in costs is supposedly 75/25 with schools picking up the 3/4 of year. However it's out of the the police budget that the equipment, car, and overtime comes from. It's the police budget that pays for the officer to be at sporting events, etc. While 'on-duty' always armed, the biggest function of the officer is to get referrals from teachers, staff, etc and counsel students needing one on one, then when necessary, almost always the case, to liaise with social worker and psychologist, referring to child and family services when indicated. Even in well-to-do areas like Columbine or Sandy Hook, these are busy officers. They cannot be standing in front of building all day long.

2nd officer? Including upping in grammar schools? Cost prohibitive. Also, public knowledge for how many are in each building.

On the other hand, voluntary school staff? Quite a few, especially in HS and some in MS, are Vets. Most high schools have several previous lawyers teaching, that were previously police. Yes, really. Since only 'voluntary' and only with on-site principal and superintendent to ok, seems reasonable check. Some schools would have 0 volunteers, some might have a significant number. However, there isn't any reason to have to declare how many or who would carry. A potential perp would never know whether a target would be soft or not. Whether a chosen school target had an ex-cop or military sharpshooter or just a trained civilian or no one.

We agreed that those that commit school shootings are a different pathology than those choosing 'suicide by cops.' The rule change of conceal carry might make a difference. It's affordable and with reasonable silence of administration and volunteers, might offer an end to the issue.

[Annie]

I believe many of the ingredients McVeigh used are restricted now.

McVeigh is a different case. His act was well planned. Many of these shooters are just acting on impulse and don't have the wherewithal to do what McVeigh did. Anti did not seem to be making the argument that this would stop all mass murders but reduce the opportunities.

McVeigh had a political message, he was truly a domestic terrorist. Very different than school shooters, which really are not impulsive. They are planned out also, the goals are different. McVeigh would have escaped if he could have, police got lucky with that. The school shooters are more the 'suicide after glory of fame.' Again different than those choosing 'suicide by cops.' The school shooters or the CO movie shooter, a version of school shooter, off themselves before 'help arrives.'

[Anti-Party]

The loop of decision and consequence from this topic is what gets me. The Right wing legalized modified assault rifles when the Left didn't want them to because of the fear of mass killings. Mass killings start happening. Left wing wants to end ownership of these rifles. Right wing starts talking civil war if someone tries to take the gun.

If you think about it, it's almost like saying, "If you try to take my modified assault rifle from me, just because you think it's a danger to society, I will shoot you and anyone else that thinks it should be taken from me" Real logical thinking.