Leaderboard

Despite the fact that this is a hotly debated political issue (gun rights vs. gun control), there comes a point in which we ALL should be talking about ways to reduce the chances of this happening again. If your solution is "we're going to take your guns," you're not being reasonable. If your response is "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," you're being unreasonable, too.

I have a pistol, FN-57, that holds 20 rounds in a standard double-stacked clip. It's very accurate...actually once used by the Secret Service. It's not an assault rifle, but I would pit myself against a guy carrying an AR-15 any day of the week. It's not the assault rifles or any rifles for that matter that is the problem. I can take a standard carbine with a 10 round clip and have just as much portability, have a duffle bag full of clips and have just as much firing capacity. Folks, we have a MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE on our hands... Btw, Timothy McVeigh was not using an assault rifle.

I can’t stand when people fall into superfluous arguments like “can you tell me what an assault rifle is” like it’s some catch-22 that’s going to help them win a debate. Can you define a school shooting? Because that’s what we’re talking about. You don’t have to know the difference between an AR15 and an AK47 to have an opinion on kids getting mowed down in class. If they ever do enact here, it will be because of gun people who sell bump stocks, scream “what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?” or refuse to at least admit that there are a heck of a lot of innocent people losing their lives via .223/5.56 rounds. Just because the left wants to use these shootings as an excuse to disarm law-abiding gun owners (typically conservatives) doesn’t mean that the repeated mass shootings shouldn’t be addressed in any way.

I FIND THE LACK OF BLAMING THE SHOOTER VERY DISTURBING

You will have to ask the lawmakers that. I have never brought up the shall not be infringed argument.

And that’s the problem. We sit around discussing guns and it’s obvious, to a few of us at least, that it’s not a gun problem, it’s a people problem. I could list a plethora of reasons, not the least of which is Dr. Spock’s infamous book, “The Common Book of Baby and Child Care”. This idiot turned parents into “would be psychologists”, raising children without physical discipline. The old saying, spare the Rod and spoil the child, was shelved for verbal chastisement and ‘time out’. Probably our first step into wokeism 🐂💩. Then add the decline of Christianity (morals), prayer out of school, lack of corporal punishment in schools, disintegration of the family, etc, etc, etc. Again, I go back to the weight scales. You keep taking from the good side (the side that had been working fairly good) and adding it to the bad side, it didn’t take long to create chaos. Guns the problem? Lay that rifle/pistol down and see how many people it kills. Guy wants to kill, he’ll find a way - no gun - no problem. He’ll get a knife, machete, baseball bat, whatever. No folks, it’s a people problem.

FWIW, when I purchased my last AR online the local FFL holder literally said "check them all _______ except for the last one and sign here" or something to that affect. I'm really starting to get the opinion that we need to hold retailers responsible when events like this happens. If you overserve somebody at a bar, you get charged if they drive off and kill somebody. I'm kinda getting the same feeling about gun dealers and individuals who sell/give away their guns. If that gun dealer in Uvalde knew that he faced prison time if that goth kid in the black trench coat came in wanting to buy a couple of ARs and few hundred rounds of ammo (a humongous red flag, IMO).... this whole thing might not have happened. Kinda like when I was watching the news on the morning after the shooting in Vegas and listening to the gunfire I instantly said "holy crap.... that's full auto." Then some 2A nutjob that manufactures the "bumpstocks" comes on trying to explain how it ISN'T an automatic weapon, but rather a semi-auto that fires itself and I thought to myself... "this jerk has to know that these things will only be used for one thing... spraying a crowd... and he's trying to defend it. The gun owners are losing the argument and their too stubborn to realize it. It's time to make some changes that don't involve point our fingers at the other guys.

Not sure how you come up with the ridiculous assumption that I'm ok with what happened. And I would say that putting prayer back in the schools would be a good move that could reach some of these kids that may not hear it at home. Moral degradation is a big part of what is happening. We have killed millions in the womb for convenience and many don't bat an eye. Life is cheap to many. And "shall not be infringed" should definitely apply...you have it wrong, as many have stated, this isn't a gun problem. I certainly don't see you presenting any solutions other than pointing at the gun crowd.

So you're okay if events like the one in Uvalde keep happening? There's going to come a time when law abiding gun owners are going to have to come up with a better answer than "no." If you have no suggestions of how to make it stop other than "we need to put prayer back in schools" or "shall not be infringed," you're going to lose the argument in the long run.

Thank you, this conversation should not be about guns, some just don't get that.

Not everyone is armed, many Pro 2nd amendment ppl aren't armed at all times.. I'd waiver a majority of Pro 2nd amendment ppl don't carry... that argument won't work here I don't think the solution is taking away weapons that will never happen or work, it's more of what do we do now? Wait and see where the next school is going to have kids slaughtered? I have a son in school, own weapons, and don't believe every idiot in the world should should have the right to possess a weapon... we have things in place where not everyone can enlist in the army, drive a car, etc

I'd ask the govt to ban windows - of course.

In the novel I typed previously on this thread I stated that I think raising the age to buy high capacity rifles to 21 might help. 3 extra years of maturity, and 3 years away from the angst and emotions of high school would likely stop some of these shootings. Stiffer penalties for anyone who allows a shooter access to firearms might help as well.

Ha! They will write me a ticket as quick as anyone. First met nash when Clay was at Jasper. In two years there was 11 overtimes in the four games played. Always enjoyed visiting with him

Teachers who carry go through fairly extensive training and a psych evaluation.

I’ve asked you twice for the compromise gun owners should give, no answer. I’ve given my answer, make schools hard targets by allowing teachers to carry and campus police. Rather than pointing fingers at both sides let’s hear your answer.

I believe that all rights have limitations. The problem is what do certain rights mean or what was their intent? Does freedom of religion mean that I can use cocaine because I belong to the Church of the Rock-Cocaine? Does freedom of speech mean that I can make threats against politicians who I think are traitors? But we are discussing gun control. SCOTUS has ruled that well regulated militia is the justification for being armed, not a requirement. So there is no requirement to be in a militia. “Armed” in 1776 meant handguns and long guns yet Washington DC had a city ordinance banning the possession of a handgun “in your home” without a license AND the handgun had to be disassembled. That has to be one of the most ludicrous laws ever yet The Democrats say, we will not try to take your rights away. No one is coming for your guns. So you can have a gun but you can’t even load it in your own homy for self defense? Fortunately SCOTUS tossed that and a similar law in Illinois but only 5-4. How is that even a question? Did the founding fathers intend that you could on a handgun or rifle but you could not even assemble it? That is where the left is going however. Those are actually laws on the books and not some theoretical intempt. Last anyone forget with the people on the left one. They claim that they are not for taking weapons or denying their use but all you have to do is look at the United States Capitol and their absolutely stupid law. That kind of negates the claim of, common sense gun laws.

If this guy had committed this heinous crime in LA, he would be out on bond with an ankle bracelet. A segment of society wants less police presence and defund whoever is left. Then, they are the first to question why the police did not stop this from happening. Talk about a”Catch 22”.

It is completely a gun issue or absolutely not a gun issue at all. It is according to your take on the weapon possession. If you ban all firearms in the United States and confiscate or attempt to confiscate them all and ban any further manufacture, yes it can make a difference. You’ll just have to trim a little fat off of the Constitution. But if you uphold the 2A at all, any firearms laws will likely be useless. I have already mentioned, the deadliest school attack with a firearm in United States history is it Virginia Tech and it was with the small 9mm and .22 pistols. At classroom ranges they are just as deadly as rifles and in some respects, more so. If the same guy got into the same classroom in Uvalde with almost any modern handgun which carries about 20 rounds and had five or six magazines in his front pocket, could he have killed the same number of people? In fact he might have killed more. If you restricted the magazines to 10 rounds, would it have changed anything? No I was a young police officer in 1984 when a man went into a McDonald’s in San Ysidro, California and murdered 21 people. It was the largest firearms mass murder in US history up to that point. About six years later I was working a regular off-duty security job on my day off at a bank. I got to know the bank president fairly well. He asked if I would give a presentation at one of the service organization, maybe the Lions Club. He said at their monthly meeting they always had a guest speaker. It would only be for 10 or 15 minutes. I could eat with them since they always had a meal during this time and after the talks and meal, they conduct their business and I could leave. To say that I hated the idea would be an understatement. I had no public speaking skills at that time and I would be in front of probably several businessman from the area. Even the thought of it rattled me pretty good. I hated to tell the guy no however and finally accepted. I asked what I should talk about since they were about 1 million police topics that could last for 10 minutes and he said I had to pick. I absolutely hated that even worse and would rather him just given me a topic. I had no self-confidence whatsoever and was afraid I would look like an idiot. I decided to talk about drunk drivers since I was a certified Intoxilyzer operator. I could easily get a 10 minute talk on that. So I wrote up an outline and practiced my delivery. What did not bother me in most public speaking was me answering questions. I even tried to get it where I would just answer any questions about police work but no, I had to give a talk. After I was introduced at the meeting and scared to death, some business guy in the audience gave me the break that I needed. He said that before I spoke could I answer a question. YES YES YES!!! He said they have been discussing it and what about the mass shooting a few years ago in San Ysidro and should they ban “assault weapons”? In that shooting I think the perpetrator was armed with a couple of handguns but also an Uzi and a shotgun. I think that is he was the big story weapon…. the dreaded 9mm Uzi. Being totally unprepared for that question, I felt perfectly comfortable answering. I said that the weapon was not the issue. I said that I would make a prediction if somebody would take a Glock type weapon (they were extremely new) and kill more people and likely quicker. How? Well a combat rifle or submachinegun like an Uzi is relatively heavy and reasonably hard to lug around when compared to handguns. Also the magazines and ammo are huge in comparison and they are slower to reload unless you’re an expert. On the other hand a guy could have a Glock 9mm with 19 rounds in the magazine and have about four magazines in each front pocket for a total of almost 200 rounds. At typical mass murder shooting distances, a guy with that GLOCK could get off 100 rounds in about 45 seconds. A very short time later like maybe weeks, the Luby’s mass murder in Killeen Texas happened. That guy killed 23 people with……. a Glock and Ruger pistols. He wounded 27 others, all with 9mm handgun bullets. I so wished that I could go back just for 30 second, I told you so comment. So it is a rare instance where a rifle is really a better choice for a mass murder. One of the extremely rare examples is Las Vegas where the guy was a quarter of a mile away and hammered away at a crowd of several thousand people. Much was made about Adam Landsa and Sandy Hook and him having an AR15. He got into the classroom and walked up and shot the kids in the head. Would it really have mattered what firearm heused to shoot kids in the head or even in the heart? So are firearms the problem? If your idea is to take all of them away, then yes. If you’re going to allow people to have semi-automatic handguns however, banning rifles might stop a Mandalay Bay shooting like in Las Vegas but that’s about it.

That's a fair question too. But until someone takes an unbiased look into that answer and ALL are willing to act on the solution, we might as well be kicking rocks. Nope, this issue will continue to be politicized to push agendas from the left & right and nothing will happen.

Good thing I care about both... wish more did, but their rights get in the way of that 👀

I’m tired of hearing folks claim to be concerned about kid’s lives but have no problem with abortion.

Well, if you're unhappy with something and unwilling to do anything about it, then you are in fact okay with it. That's just common sense. I hear what you're saying... but that also would mean that we should be able to own a fully automatic machine gun if we wished. There are restrictions in place on those (or at least you have to have a license to own one) and I think that the common sense of most people would point towards a consensus that the restrictions on automatic weapons are good thing... even if it "infringes" on your right to shoot up a school. When there are so many school shootings going on that we can't even keep track of them all anymore, it's getting a little late to keep sticking our heads in the sand as gun owners and saying "I don't care about those kids.... I've got my rights, you know." Because that's kinda what's happening these days.

And that is absolutely the problem with gun control and the people who are conservative who are generally against it. It is the foot in the door or the slippery slope. Oh, you have OCD, you have a mental issue? Oh, you have anxiety attacks? Oh, you have insomnia? Anytime someone says, can we all agree…. they are probably setting up a trap.

Now, this is worth debating!

You will have to ask law enforcement in Uvalde. Typically not commenting has to do with hindering an investigation and the rules of evidence. I wish that I had seen exactly what was said in the “confirmation”. Many times they will use phrases like…. the information we have at this time….. what we have been told by witnesses……

you CAN though, drown in a teaspoon of water.

Of course not everyone is armed. I agree with your post. It’s what makes this such a delicate subject. No one on here wants any more dead kids.

Hate it when I loss an argument…have a nice day.

Wasn’t silly at all. If someone wants you dead, they will figure out a way to get it done, guns be damned.

Reading all these comments I wouldn't have guessed it was Republi"cants" led states leading the way

I know lots!! Arm teachers that want to be armed it’s there choice.

So, (I love beginning a sentence with the word “so”, if I pushed someone out a window to murder them, you’d feel better than if I used a firearm?

States with the most gun related homicides Louisiana - R Mississippi - R Alabama - R Missouri - R Maryland - R South Carolina - R Tennessee - R Illinois - D [Hidden Content]

A big contributing factor, the closing of State Psychiatric Hospitals. At one point in the 50’s there were more than half a million Americans confined to these Hospitals/Asylums (at great cost). Now there are about 37,000 beds assigned for short term, acute in-patient units in general medical hospitals. From the article - “The mass closure of State Mental Hospitals in the US coincided with the advent and popularity of neuroleptic medications, the patient rights movement, and the well intentioned, but poorly delivered, National transition towards community-based mental health care.” IMO, the politicians saw a way to save buku money, and I think we’re seeing the cost. Population in the 50’s avg about 170,000, about half of what it is now, and half a million were in Asylums. The math says we should have close to a million in Asylums now, but they’re not. They’re on the streets. In the schools. The meds aren’t working & the result is the insanity we see in America today. Would the building of these Asylums stop all the crazies? Of corse not, but it would stop much of it. At this point, I’d bet it’s the most significant answer to our problem. Jmo [Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content]

Cain killed Abel with a rock, THE LORD didn't get rid of all the rocks. HE blamed Cain, not the rock. We have a sin problem, not a gun problem.

Because the media and people want immediate answers and that was what had been reported at that time. Maybe a year before I retired, we had an officer involved shooting where a suspect was killed. I arrived on scene within a couple of minutes. I quickly spoke to an officer who had spoken with a witness. The information that I received was it a man approached the officer and put his hand near his back pocket like he might have been going for something. No weapon was ever displayed but the officer shot him. So I approached the chief and another commanding officer with that information. I was told practically immediately that that is not what happened. I was simply relaying the information but that information was so far from the truth. I later watched the car camera video and the officer’s body camera video and the story I was told at the actual crime scene was so far from the truth. That video was later released to the public. The point is that I was on scene within a couple of minutes and was given what appeared to be good information from an eye witness, through another officer, and it was complete nonsense. Had I spoken to the media at that time however, I might have repeated that completely bogus story. On occasion I have been the on scene spokesman and fortunately, not for officer involved incidents. That is why we do “investigations”. Remember Michael Brown and “hands up, don’t shoot”. The FBI under President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder had a year long investigation costing millions of dollars which concluded that the hands up don’t shoot, never happened. Not so strangely, the DA and local and state police came to the conclusion within a couple of days.

So you are saying that 21 should be the age to get in the army and also when men have to register for the selective service.

Can you tell me what an assault rifle is?

Game 1-DIboll- 7 Cameron Yoe- 5 Final

If you think the government that just spent two years masking, force vaccinating and threatening your children—driving up youth suicide rates and drug overdoses— If you think that government wants gun control to keep them safe, you are utterly delusional. Not one inch. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Game 1- Strake- 2 Katy- 1 Final

Still waiting Bobcat…..Chicago the first city had 800 homicides in 2021, 90% of them were gun related. Chicago has some the strictest gun laws in the country. Like I said criminals love strict gun laws. Law abiding gun owners are not the problem. [Hidden Content]

Interesting…, [Hidden Content]

Australia has strict gun laws as does the UK neither of which have a higher crime rate than the US.

This is my two cents on teachers with guns. We all know that the protocol is such a situation in almost every school is a lockdown. Shelter in place behind a locked door. If a teacher is in a room with 20 students and the door is locked but the bad guy forces his way in, the incident stops right there at the door. As it is now, if a shooter forces his way into a room, the only defense is throwing books at him. I am certainly not against a teacher who sees a gunman walk by that classroom and peaks out to see the gunman’s back turned, stepping out and bringing the fight to him. Swift and aggressive force is how you can turn the tables on an ambush but I just not “expecting” teachers to take the offensive. If they wish to do so however, go for it.

If he could have won a state title probably gets him alot more

Saw them interviewing a boy in class. Had a table with a cover on it. He got his friend to crawl under with him & they hid there. Kudos to that young fellow.

I've always thought allowing teachers to carry, after going through training, was a good idea. But if someone gets it in their sick mind to do something like this, it would be almost impossible to stop. I think armed teachers could at least minimize damage. Also have specific gates that have to be accessed to enter a campus like a refinery, with campus LE if possible. I understand this would make drop off and pickup more difficult and would take some logistic problem solving but lots of traffic is managed through plant gates. I also understand this would be very costly to implement and maintain. Just throwing it out there.