Is that a genuine post? How far do you think someone would get with that approach before someone intervened? 2-3 people? Double figures? Beyond that? C'mon, a gun is much more effective in a multiple victim attack.. if for nothing else, at least the reluctance to get close to the shooter. I know I wouldn't go near someone wielding a gun..

How far would these shooters get if schools were not gun free zones, and many people were armed? 2-3? Double figures? Come on guns are a much more effective deterrent of gun violence than 'gun free zones.'

So let's solve gun problems with guns? Sounds logical.

---

But surely regardless of whether it's homicide, suicide or accident, a fire arm should not be on school grounds, right?

That wasn't the argument though. 

I don't have problems with student having guns as long as they stay in vehicles and not inside the school I do, however, want teachers trained in using guns so that we can end these threats a whole lot sooner.

I'm not suggesting it is, I'm just saying that whether it's a homicide, suicide or accidental with no one hurt, a gun has still been fired in what should ALWAYS been considered a place of safety. I know that's not the way of the world these days, and that's really saddening.

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

How far would these shooters get if schools were not gun free zones, and many people were armed? 2-3? Double figures? Come on guns are a much more effective deterrent of gun violence than 'gun free zones.'

While it's unfortunate, but I think it is time schools adapt to the rediculous culture in America. Most large schools have a Resource Officer but I think it is time to place a rotation of Resource Officer Teams. Either pay to have armed officers roam campus or incentivized an armed off-duty officer presence. I'm not certain eliminating gun free zones or arming teachers addresses the issue.

Agree that this is the least of what is required. Having 1 officer on these large campus is not enough. When I used to work in a psychiatric facility we had something called a show of force. When a resident would act up, you get a bunch of people around him. Amazingly 95% of the time, no matter how 'unbalanced' they were, people would stop acting up when they saw 5 or 6 guys around them. Now of course you had a couple who would keep going anyway, and those you would take down, but it was far less common than you would expect going into a psychiatric facility.

The same principle could be applied to high schools. If you knew your highschool had ten armed guards that were rotating around in pairs (so you can't catch them alone), you might rethink your plan to come in guns blazing.

There are other solutions as well. You could separate these giant high schools into a bunch of smaller ones, and perhaps mix youth into different districts further from their houses. This would have a couple of effects. 1. It would be harder to get to the highschool without a vehicle 2. A smaller highschool is easier to guard, plus it decreases the chances of a kid getting 'missed' having signs just because there are less. 3. it would decrease gangs due to less numbers.

Humans tend to behave better in smaller groups than larger ones. Protests that are small never do the small amount as large violent ones. Anyway, thats some of my thoughts. I am sure there are other ways.

---

How far would these shooters get if schools were not gun free zones, and many people were armed? 2-3? Double figures? Come on guns are a much more effective deterrent of gun violence than 'gun free zones.'

So let's solve gun problems with guns? Sounds logical.

---

That wasn't the argument though. 

I don't have problems with student having guns as long as they stay in vehicles and not inside the school I do, however, want teachers trained in using guns so that we can end these threats a whole lot sooner.

I'm not suggesting it is, I'm just saying that whether it's a homicide, suicide or accidental with no one hurt, a gun has still been fired in what should ALWAYS been considered a place of safety. I know that's not the way of the world these days, and that's really saddening.

Its worked for the US and the entire world with Nukes. Has a long track record.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

While it's unfortunate, but I think it is time schools adapt to the rediculous culture in America. Most large schools have a Resource Officer but I think it is time to place a rotation of Resource Officer Teams. Either pay to have armed officers roam campus or incentivized an armed off-duty officer presence. I'm not certain eliminating gun free zones or arming teachers addresses the issue.

Agree that this is the least of what is required. Having 1 officer on these large campus is not enough. When I used to work in a psychiatric facility we had something called a show of force. When a resident would act up, you get a bunch of people around him. Amazingly 95% of the time, no matter how 'unbalanced' they were, people would stop acting up when they saw 5 or 6 guys around them. Now of course you had a couple who would keep going anyway, and those you would take down, but it was far less common than you would expect going into a psychiatric facility.

The same principle could be applied to high schools. If you knew your highschool had ten armed guards that were rotating around in pairs (so you can't catch them alone), you might rethink your plan to come in guns blazing.

There are other solutions as well. You could separate these giant high schools into a bunch of smaller ones, and perhaps mix youth into different districts further from their houses. This would have a couple of effects. 1. It would be harder to get to the highschool without a vehicle 2. A smaller highschool is easier to guard, plus it decreases the chances of a kid getting 'missed' having signs just because there are less. 3. it would decrease gangs due to less numbers.

Humans tend to behave better in smaller groups than larger ones. Protests that are small never do the small amount as large violent ones. Anyway, thats some of my thoughts. I am sure there are other ways.

---

So let's solve gun problems with guns? Sounds logical.

---

I'm not suggesting it is, I'm just saying that whether it's a homicide, suicide or accidental with no one hurt, a gun has still been fired in what should ALWAYS been considered a place of safety. I know that's not the way of the world these days, and that's really saddening.

Its worked for the US and the entire world with Nukes. Has a long track record.

Completely agree. Add to those suggestions and secure access to campus during school hours as another deterrent (many do already).

---

Just to clarify my opinion:

I'm not suggesting America abolishes the right to have guns, I'm not knocking anyone's reasons for having them. It's all opinion based.

I feel terribly sad that we live in a world where people have to have a gun for protection. I feel relieved that I don't have that headache over here in England.

I do, however, feel as though gun laws in the US have contributed to some of the atrocities that have happened. I'm not so arrogant to ignore the fact that some murders occur within gangs, with untraceable weapons and by suicide and even by accident.

I find it devastating that we even have to broach the subject of armed guards at schools etc.. Or that regular Police Officers have to carry fire arms as a standard part of their PPE.

This is now the way of the world and I my understanding of it isn't in question, my acceptance is, however.

Please understand that my views are from a 33 year old from England who has never held a firearm outside of an Army base. I've never shot a firearm. I've never been in possession of one and I've never seen a handgun that is outside of a display cabinet.

This may make me sounds a bit boring, but I've never been in a position where the situation has been any different.

So let me take this opportunity to explain that there is no offence intended in any of my posts regarding this subject.. I'm just fascinated by it.

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

Just to clarify my opinion:

I'm not suggesting America abolishes the right to have guns, I'm not knocking anyone's reasons for having them. It's all opinion based.

I feel terribly sad that we live in a world where people have to have a gun for protection. I feel relieved that I don't have that headache over here in England.

I do, however, feel as though gun laws in the US have contributed to some of the atrocities that have happened. I'm not so arrogant to ignore the fact that some murders occur within gangs, with untraceable weapons and by suicide and even by accident.

I find it devastating that we even have to broach the subject of armed guards at schools etc.. Or that regular Police Officers have to carry fire arms as a standard part of their PPE.

This is now the way of the world and I my understanding of it isn't in question, my acceptance is, however.

Please understand that my views are from a 33 year old from England who has never held a firearm outside of an Army base. I've never shot a firearm. I've never been in possession of one and I've never seen a handgun that is outside of a display cabinet.

This may make me sounds a bit boring, but I've never been in a position where the situation has been any different.

So let me take this opportunity to explain that there is no offence intended in any of my posts regarding this subject.. I'm just fascinated by it.

In some ways I wish that the US didn't have guns, but at the same time I view that as a fallacy. Every nation has guns, even if its just the government. Thinking that no one else has guns doesn't make you any safer. If a robber broke into my house and he wasn't armed I wouldn't know. But I feel a whole lot better about my odds of coming out of it okay if I have a gun. Just to illustrate I will point out a basic safety plan if you house/apartment is broken in to and  you do have weapons so you can understand what I mean.

If a intruder broke in, I would get all my family in a back room with only one door and preferably a hallway in front, I would have them in the corner and I would stay off to the side loaded and watching. I would call the police, keep the phone on speaker and announce my presence and the fact that I am armed, but I would not move. If anything is going down, they are coming to me. Hopefully a robber would run at this point, but if they came in my line of sight I would open fire. Ideally I would have cover, but reality is that nothing in a house is really cover.

Now if you do that same scenario, without a gun, how helpless are you? You have no chance, better off jumping out your window. Thats how it would be in England or Australia, and you hope your robber doesn't have an 'illegal' weapon or is just in it for money rather than to rape, murder, beat you etc.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Just to clarify my opinion:

I'm not suggesting America abolishes the right to have guns, I'm not knocking anyone's reasons for having them. It's all opinion based.

I feel terribly sad that we live in a world where people have to have a gun for protection. I feel relieved that I don't have that headache over here in England.

I do, however, feel as though gun laws in the US have contributed to some of the atrocities that have happened. I'm not so arrogant to ignore the fact that some murders occur within gangs, with untraceable weapons and by suicide and even by accident.

I find it devastating that we even have to broach the subject of armed guards at schools etc.. Or that regular Police Officers have to carry fire arms as a standard part of their PPE.

This is now the way of the world and I my understanding of it isn't in question, my acceptance is, however.

Please understand that my views are from a 33 year old from England who has never held a firearm outside of an Army base. I've never shot a firearm. I've never been in possession of one and I've never seen a handgun that is outside of a display cabinet.

This may make me sounds a bit boring, but I've never been in a position where the situation has been any different.

So let me take this opportunity to explain that there is no offence intended in any of my posts regarding this subject.. I'm just fascinated by it.

In some ways I wish that the US didn't have guns, but at the same time I view that as a fallacy. Every nation has guns, even if its just the government. Thinking that no one else has guns doesn't make you any safer. If a robber broke into my house and he wasn't armed I wouldn't know. But I feel a whole lot better about my odds of coming out of it okay if I have a gun. Just to illustrate I will point out a basic safety plan if you house/apartment is broken in to and  you do have weapons so you can understand what I mean.

If a intruder broke in, I would get all my family in a back room with only one door and preferably a hallway in front, I would have them in the corner and I would stay off to the side loaded and watching. I would call the police, keep the phone on speaker and announce my presence and the fact that I am armed, but I would not move. If anything is going down, they are coming to me. Hopefully a robber would run at this point, but if they came in my line of sight I would open fire. Ideally I would have cover, but reality is that nothing in a house is really cover.

Now if you do that same scenario, without a gun, how helpless are you? You have no chance, better off jumping out your window. Thats how it would be in England or Australia, and you hope your robber doesn't have an 'illegal' weapon or is just in it for money rather than to rape, murder, beat you etc.

Believe me, I totally understand your argument. I'm grateful of the fact that break ins of this nature are few and far between where I live. Maybe I'm sheltered, maybe I'm boring but I hope that never changes.

Edit:

Further to that, a scary fact: Over here, if we have a firearms incident, we have to wait for a special unit from the police to attend as our regular officers do not carry firearms. This is a scenario in which your police have an upper hand on ours.

Unfortunately, as and when these incidents DO occur, the firearms unit may only be there for damage limitation, depending on their response time. Especially if the incident is in a particularly rural patch, or if by chance the local response team is tied up with another incident. Incidents of this nature would require our regular police officers to hang back as they do not have the facility to intervene without disastrous consequences.

Hopefully that last paragraph will show people that I DO understand the argument for firearms, but it doesn't change my stance on it, again because this is an irregular occurrence.

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

2. The jury holds the ultimate power, and "self defense" is a common defense. Not to mention that the DA is under no obligation to prosecute, ever, as we see so often in cases like those you cite of offenders being let off with a slapped wrist. If a jury believes that someone charged with a crime didn't commit it or was faced with circumstances that excuse their crime, that's what "not guilty" is for.

Those are more of exceptions than the rule. Besides, I'm referring to the judges or prosecutors that simply dismiss cases because they don't want to risk tarnishing their record which happens frequently. I know that the prosecutors aren't required to try cases, but when you have repeat offenders getting off scot-free then there's a problem.

3. If the gun was sold legally and the buyer later used it illegally, the seller has nothing to worry about. If the seller ignored or broke the law and the buyer used that gun illegally, yes, the seller should be held accountable. Hell, if a seller is caught skirting the law they should be held accountable regardless of whether or not guns they sold were used illegally.

That didn't seem to be what you were talking about. I'm fine with punishment for sellers that sell weapons illegally, just not those that sell it legally. But they're already held accountable. 

4. Bill failed to secure a deadly weapon, and a member of his immediate family was able to get their hands on it and use it against another human being. He absolutely bears a large degree of responsibility for the crime. Ever seen anyone try to rob a Stab-N-Go with a baseball bat? Here's a hint: the clerk is legally in possession of a firearm.

I don't secure my weapons. When I need them, I don't need them secured. Don't get me wrong, my infant child doesn't have the ability to reach them or they would be more secured, but they certainly wont be inaccessible or difficult to get to. If it's time to use a gun in defense of your person, you don't have time to waste. I don't think we'll ever agree that someone should be held accountable if their gun is stolen (even by family).

No, the punishment should not be exclusive to gun crimes. I could go into a whole diatribe about how the for-profit prison system in the United States has resulted in more and more nonviolent drug offenders being sent to prison, which diminishes the amount of room available for the people who actually belong there. Many of those nonviolent drug offenders are in there because they have severe mental health issues, which comes back around to the inevitable point. Yes, we have a mental health problem, and fixing that will solve lots of other problems.

It isn't so much of an opinion on what we should do with drug offenses, but the presence of drug offenders wont deter prisons from housing violent suspects. Until we can get appropriate care for people with mental issues, they shouldn't be on the streets. If they use stupid drug laws to accomplish that, I simply don't have a problem with it. It isn't an ideal solution, however.

Just a question. Would it help at all if all gun owners were required to go for a psych exam twice a year? I know it's already part of the process in places and it wouldn't stop people getting unlawful guns but it might help some.

Then again where do you draw the line for the mental capacity required to own a gun in the first place?

That's the problem. Who decides who is unfit to possess a gun? If there was a 100% reliable test that showed when someone had a propensity for violence, then you'd probably be able to pass this as law. But how do we know when someone isn't kept from owning a gun because the the examiner simply doesn't like him, or if the government doesn't want to hand out as many permits? We've already seen the IRS target conservative groups; do we not think this would happen too?

And let's say someone had depression 10 years ago , should that render them unable to have a gun? I don't think so, but who knows what standard would be set. 

I think I've started to realise there is no magic wand or easy fix to any of this. Probably quite tiresome to hear foreigners opining about guns every time something happens too. 

Trying to stop young men from being disenfranchised would probably have more effect than any gun law would. But again the the solution to that isn't apparent nor is it easy.

---

In some ways I wish that the US didn't have guns, but at the same time I view that as a fallacy. Every nation has guns, even if its just the government. Thinking that no one else has guns doesn't make you any safer. If a robber broke into my house and he wasn't armed I wouldn't know. But I feel a whole lot better about my odds of coming out of it okay if I have a gun. Just to illustrate I will point out a basic safety plan if you house/apartment is broken in to and  you do have weapons so you can understand what I mean.

If a intruder broke in, I would get all my family in a back room with only one door and preferably a hallway in front, I would have them in the corner and I would stay off to the side loaded and watching. I would call the police, keep the phone on speaker and announce my presence and the fact that I am armed, but I would not move. If anything is going down, they are coming to me. Hopefully a robber would run at this point, but if they came in my line of sight I would open fire. Ideally I would have cover, but reality is that nothing in a house is really cover.

Now if you do that same scenario, without a gun, how helpless are you? You have no chance, better off jumping out your window. Thats how it would be in England or Australia, and you hope your robber doesn't have an 'illegal' weapon or is just in it for money rather than to rape, murder, beat you etc.

Believe me, I totally understand your argument. I'm grateful of the fact that break ins of this nature are few and far between where I live. Maybe I'm sheltered, maybe I'm boring but I hope that never changes.

Edit:

Further to that, a scary fact: Over here, if we have a firearms incident, we have to wait for a special unit from the police to attend as our regular officers do not carry firearms. This is a scenario in which your police have an upper hand on ours.

Unfortunately, as and when these incidents DO occur, the firearms unit may only be there for damage limitation. Especially if the incident is in a particularly rural patch. Incidents of this nature would require our regular police officers to hang back as they do not have the facility to intervene without disastrous consequences.

Hopefully that last paragraph will show people that I DO understand the argument for firearms, but it doesn't change my stance on it, again because this is an irregular occurrence.

Is it worth it to those who are murdered or raped in that 'irregular occurrence'? In the US, we get to make up our minds on whether we are sitting ducks or not. Some may still choose to be, cause the thought of planning for something like this is unpleasant, or for whatever reasons. People don't like planning for bad things, but that doesn't stop bad things from happening. You can go on youtube and listen to 911 calls from people whose house was broken into and they had no weapon. Its not pleasant, and it still happens.

But for your own sake, if someone ever breaks in, just run, without a gun, your chances of something really bad happening are very high. I hope it never does, but a baseball bat or a knife is not good protection.

---

Yes, it's improvement, but it's Blaine Gabbert 2012 level improvement. - Pirkster

http://youtu.be/ouGM3NWpjxk The Home Hypnotist!

http://youtu.be/XQRFkn0Ly3A Media on the Brain Link!
 

Peyton must store oxygen in that forehead of his. No way I'd still be alive after all that choking.

 

Believe me, I totally understand your argument. I'm grateful of the fact that break ins of this nature are few and far between where I live. Maybe I'm sheltered, maybe I'm boring but I hope that never changes.

Edit:

Further to that, a scary fact: Over here, if we have a firearms incident, we have to wait for a special unit from the police to attend as our regular officers do not carry firearms. This is a scenario in which your police have an upper hand on ours.

Unfortunately, as and when these incidents DO occur, the firearms unit may only be there for damage limitation. Especially if the incident is in a particularly rural patch. Incidents of this nature would require our regular police officers to hang back as they do not have the facility to intervene without disastrous consequences.

Hopefully that last paragraph will show people that I DO understand the argument for firearms, but it doesn't change my stance on it, again because this is an irregular occurrence.

Is it worth it to those who are murdered or raped in that 'irregular occurrence'? In the US, we get to make up our minds on whether we are sitting ducks or not. Some may still choose to be, cause the thought of planning for something like this is unpleasant, or for whatever reasons. People don't like planning for bad things, but that doesn't stop bad things from happening. You can go on youtube and listen to 911 calls from people whose house was broken into and they had no weapon. Its not pleasant, and it still happens.

But for your own sake, if someone ever breaks in, just run, without a gun, your chances of something really bad happening are very high. I hope it never does, but a baseball bat or a knife is not good protection.

I guess I'm lucky that a baseball bat or a knife.. or in my case a 5 iron (having said that, if I tried to hit someone with a golf club, I'd only shank it), would be up against a baseball bat or a knife and not a gun.

I work for the Ambulance Service, I know these things do happen and yes I agree that saying "at least it's an irregular occurrence" is not in any way comforting to a victim and or their families. In fact, saying that literally just tells those people that they are merely a statistic, and not a good one.

We have intelligence and tactics to try and combat these incidents without force, but would I attempt to be a hero without force? No way! Why? I have a wife, a 7 year old son and a baby girl on the way (due April).

I totally understand that my last sentence opens me up for you to say about the need for protection - young family etc etc.. I know my water pistol would do very little damage, unless the assailant is concerned for their appearance.. I've enjoyed this debate very much. It's weird to say that given the subject at hand, but it's really important, I think, to understand peoples reasons for things.. even if they don't change your own, at least they educate you (me) on where other people are coming from so thank you for engaging in this. People become very defensive over this subject and it's refreshing to have a clean discussion over it.

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

Is it worth it to those who are murdered or raped in that 'irregular occurrence'? In the US, we get to make up our minds on whether we are sitting ducks or not. Some may still choose to be, cause the thought of planning for something like this is unpleasant, or for whatever reasons. People don't like planning for bad things, but that doesn't stop bad things from happening. You can go on youtube and listen to 911 calls from people whose house was broken into and they had no weapon. Its not pleasant, and it still happens.

But for your own sake, if someone ever breaks in, just run, without a gun, your chances of something really bad happening are very high. I hope it never does, but a baseball bat or a knife is not good protection.

I guess I'm lucky that a baseball bat or a knife.. or in my case a 5 iron (having said that, if I tried to hit someone with a golf club, I'd only shank it), would be up against a baseball bat or a knife and not a gun.

I work for the Ambulance Service, I know these things do happen and yes I agree that saying "at least it's an irregular occurrence" is not in any way comforting to a victim and or their families. In fact, saying that literally just tells those people that they are merely a statistic, and not a good one.

We have intelligence and tactics to try and combat these incidents without force, but would I attempt to be a hero without force? No way! Why? I have a wife, a 7 year old son and a baby girl on the way (due April).

I totally understand that my last sentence opens me up for you to say about the need for protection - young family etc etc.. I know my water pistol would do very little damage, unless the assailant is concerned for their appearance.. I've enjoyed this debate very much. It's weird to say that given the subject at hand, but it's really important, I think, to understand peoples reasons for things.. even if they don't change your own, at least they educate you (me) on where other people are coming from so thank you for engaging in this. People become very defensive over this subject and it's refreshing to have a clean discussion over it.

Little girl due in April over here as well. Congrats my man.

---

I guess I'm lucky that a baseball bat or a knife.. or in my case a 5 iron (having said that, if I tried to hit someone with a golf club, I'd only shank it), would be up against a baseball bat or a knife and not a gun.

I work for the Ambulance Service, I know these things do happen and yes I agree that saying "at least it's an irregular occurrence" is not in any way comforting to a victim and or their families. In fact, saying that literally just tells those people that they are merely a statistic, and not a good one.

We have intelligence and tactics to try and combat these incidents without force, but would I attempt to be a hero without force? No way! Why? I have a wife, a 7 year old son and a baby girl on the way (due April).

I totally understand that my last sentence opens me up for you to say about the need for protection - young family etc etc.. I know my water pistol would do very little damage, unless the assailant is concerned for their appearance.. I've enjoyed this debate very much. It's weird to say that given the subject at hand, but it's really important, I think, to understand peoples reasons for things.. even if they don't change your own, at least they educate you (me) on where other people are coming from so thank you for engaging in this. People become very defensive over this subject and it's refreshing to have a clean discussion over it.

Little girl due in April over here as well. Congrats my man.

And the very same to you my friend!!

I was worried for a while, but pleased to find out that after 7 years "it" still works.

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

The thing is, the people on the far left who want to abolish "assault rifles", don't realize what this would do to the nation. There are so many of these types of weapons out on the street right now, how would you outlaw them? I live out in rural Ohio and the vast majority of people I know in my area, own some version of an AR-15 or AK-47. I suppose you could offer a government buyback program, but I can assure you that about only 10% of the people who own them are going to turn them back in. Not only that, but the only ones that will be turned in, would likely be the cheap Chinese surplus versions. You used to be able to pick them up for under $100. People will wanna keep the mid grade to high grade variations. Are you gonna go door to door and demand people give them up? That would be a terrible idea and would almost certainly lead to a civil war. People paid for them with their own hard earned money when they were legal, so if the government tried to take them away by force, that would be equivalent to theft. "Assault weapons" are here to stay. We just need a way to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable.

---

Guns have been in American homes for over 200 years but mass shootings have only been a problem for a decade or so...Guns are not the root of the problem, the ability to access a weapon is not the problem, lack of regulation isnt the problem, so I ask again, what is the root of the problem? Even 50 years ago the ability was present to commit mass shootings yet it was not a problem...The answer is much deeper than the what I mentioned

A lot of variables but for me it circles back to poor social environment and poor social conditioning. The Orlando mass shooting was based on hate by all accounts. The Dylann Roof shooting was based on hate. This shooting will more than likely be linked to bullying in high school both physically and mentally which led to his hate and need to kill. 

The only two shootings I don't feel 100% comfortable nor clear on is the Sandy Hook and Las Vegas shootings. A lot of the circumstances, motives and investigations between those two shootings doesn't add up in most cases. But I think 50 years ago the population, demography, social environment and social conditions were a lot less complex but you still had heated issues. 

1968 though you're talking about black and white affairs, Vietnam, the assassination of JFK, etc. Television wasn't the forefront. You had maybe 200 million people in the country compared to the 320-330 million people living in it now. Work was probably more consistent too. 

I think today's social media platforms and the access to so much violence, pornography and random hook ups doesn't help. There's been a tremendous shift in lifestyle. There's more dependency on prescription or over the counter drugs. The identity of what a family used to be and look like has changed. The social constructs and terminologies are just overbearing at times. 

The world has always been a [BLEEP] up place in spurts. Don't get me wrong. Times were tougher at times back then and so forth and each generation tried to approve upon the hardships of the previous one but I now think we're entering this really, really weird age of technology and industries that really begin to devalue and dehumanize all of us. Everyone is locked in 24/7 to their news feeds, their multiple social networking accounts. I experience it here at work now with work emails clearly coming in after hours but it's like an unspoken thing now where you're expected to be available 24/7. Taking work home with you. 

It's never enough. The average person now is way too wired in this country. And the generations to come will be just as bad. The conditions we're now living in are fascinating because for all the good we think it's doing there is definitely something there in the underbelly [BLEEP] us all up. Eventually everything ends. It's cyclical. At least that's what I hope.

I think you have hit on something here.  The advent of the internet and sites where you can go to confirm your own biases and beliefs.  Call it an echo chamber where anyone that confronts your beliefs is accosted by the masses.  We have become a society where we no longer have to be confronted with opposition as we can label them, dismiss them and then pat ourselves on the back for agreeing with each other.  

I go to several sites that lean slightly left to extremely left because I want to be challenged.  There is no growth with always agreeing with everyone you know and talk to.  Sadly it seems I am in a vast minority on this thought process.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Some interesting dialog in this thread today.

First I'll address our English friend regarding shooting as a "sport" or "hobby".  I have just a bit over 40 acres of property out in the woods that I'm currently developing.  All of my "neighbors" around me have at the minimum 10 acres.  We do like to get together on the weekends and socialize, cook out, etc.  We also set up targets and take turns shooting different firearms to practice our shooting skills.  We also have a few that shoot some skeet.  We are very safe and have strict rules among ourselves regarding the handling of firearms, which direction to not only point them but where and when to shoot.  We always announce to one another when the "range" is hot meaning somebody is about to shoot and when it's safe.  It's a fun thing and a social thing when we get together.  Very rarely do you see anyone take a phone out which leads me to my next point.

I believe it was Caldarac that pointed out something a few pages back that leads me to think that it's a major contributing factor in the rise of these kinds of incidents.  People are so "connected" to technology these days 24/7 via apps like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, etc.  Many seem to place so much "value" in "likes" or "followers".  That's one of the major things that is different today vs. "back in the day" when I went to school.  It's not only social media, but also the internet.  There is so much available instantly.  I'm not saying that this is the whole cause, but it is a major contributor to our social problems in today's society.  Add to that the very violent and graphic video games that are available today.

Back when I was a youth, we didn't have such things and didn't have mass shootings.  I was taught gun safety via a voluntary course that my PE instructor taught after school in the school cafeteria (Hunter's Safety) when I was in 5th grade.  In high school I was one of those that had a gun rack and a gun in my truck in the school parking lot.  The thought never crossed my mind to use it there, even if I got into a fist fight with another student.

Another major contributor in this issue is the change in values regarding what is "acceptable" in today's society.  Much of the modern culture shuns religion (this is not a religious discussion or argument) and accepts what once used to be "taboo" as "normal".  Teenage pregnancy, single parent homes, kids in school being disrespectful to faculty, drug use, etc. is now "acceptable" and "normal".  Heck, we have kids today that don't know which bathroom to use.

Back when I was a youth we stood for The Pledge of Allegiance and The National Anthem, and we respected the authority and leadership of our teachers.  We addressed elders as Sir and/or Mam.  We honored our parents and respected them.

The bottom line is, new gun laws are not going to change anything.  What needs to change is society and the values that we hold.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Just to clarify my opinion:

I'm not suggesting America abolishes the right to have guns, I'm not knocking anyone's reasons for having them. It's all opinion based.

I feel terribly sad that we live in a world where people have to have a gun for protection. I feel relieved that I don't have that headache over here in England.

I do, however, feel as though gun laws in the US have contributed to some of the atrocities that have happened. I'm not so arrogant to ignore the fact that some murders occur within gangs, with untraceable weapons and by suicide and even by accident.

I find it devastating that we even have to broach the subject of armed guards at schools etc.. Or that regular Police Officers have to carry fire arms as a standard part of their PPE.

This is now the way of the world and I my understanding of it isn't in question, my acceptance is, however.

Please understand that my views are from a 33 year old from England who has never held a firearm outside of an Army base. I've never shot a firearm. I've never been in possession of one and I've never seen a handgun that is outside of a display cabinet.

This may make me sounds a bit boring, but I've never been in a position where the situation has been any different.

So let me take this opportunity to explain that there is no offence intended in any of my posts regarding this subject.. I'm just fascinated by it.

Let me ask you a simple question.  As a non American, do you trust our government?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Some interesting dialog in this thread today.

First I'll address our English friend regarding shooting as a "sport" or "hobby".  I have just a bit over 40 acres of property out in the woods that I'm currently developing.  All of my "neighbors" around me have at the minimum 10 acres.  We do like to get together on the weekends and socialize, cook out, etc.  We also set up targets and take turns shooting different firearms to practice our shooting skills.  We also have a few that shoot some skeet.  We are very safe and have strict rules among ourselves regarding the handling of firearms, which direction to not only point them but where and when to shoot.  We always announce to one another when the "range" is hot meaning somebody is about to shoot and when it's safe.  It's a fun thing and a social thing when we get together.  Very rarely do you see anyone take a phone out which leads me to my next point.

I believe it was Caldarac that pointed out something a few pages back that leads me to think that it's a major contributing factor in the rise of these kinds of incidents.  People are so "connected" to technology these days 24/7 via apps like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, etc.  Many seem to place so much "value" in "likes" or "followers".  That's one of the major things that is different today vs. "back in the day" when I went to school.  It's not only social media, but also the internet.  There is so much available instantly.  I'm not saying that this is the whole cause, but it is a major contributor to our social problems in today's society.  Add to that the very violent and graphic video games that are available today.

Back when I was a youth, we didn't have such things and didn't have mass shootings.  I was taught gun safety via a voluntary course that my PE instructor taught after school in the school cafeteria (Hunter's Safety) when I was in 5th grade.  In high school I was one of those that had a gun rack and a gun in my truck in the school parking lot.  The thought never crossed my mind to use it there, even if I got into a fist fight with another student.

Another major contributor in this issue is the change in values regarding what is "acceptable" in today's society.  Much of the modern culture shuns religion (this is not a religious discussion or argument) and accepts what once used to be "taboo" as "normal".  Teenage pregnancy, single parent homes, kids in school being disrespectful to faculty, drug use, etc. is now "acceptable" and "normal".  Heck, we have kids today that don't know which bathroom to use.

Back when I was a youth we stood for The Pledge of Allegiance and The National Anthem, and we respected the authority and leadership of our teachers.  We addressed elders as Sir and/or Mam.  We honored our parents and respected them.

The bottom line is, new gun laws are not going to change anything.  What needs to change is society and the values that we hold.

Just to clarify my opinion:

I'm not suggesting America abolishes the right to have guns, I'm not knocking anyone's reasons for having them. It's all opinion based.

I feel terribly sad that we live in a world where people have to have a gun for protection. I feel relieved that I don't have that headache over here in England.

I do, however, feel as though gun laws in the US have contributed to some of the atrocities that have happened. I'm not so arrogant to ignore the fact that some murders occur within gangs, with untraceable weapons and by suicide and even by accident.

I find it devastating that we even have to broach the subject of armed guards at schools etc.. Or that regular Police Officers have to carry fire arms as a standard part of their PPE.

This is now the way of the world and I my understanding of it isn't in question, my acceptance is, however.

Please understand that my views are from a 33 year old from England who has never held a firearm outside of an Army base. I've never shot a firearm. I've never been in possession of one and I've never seen a handgun that is outside of a display cabinet.

This may make me sounds a bit boring, but I've never been in a position where the situation has been any different.

So let me take this opportunity to explain that there is no offence intended in any of my posts regarding this subject.. I'm just fascinated by it.

Let me ask you a simple question.  As a non American, do you trust our government?

JIB - Thank you for your comments. FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that shooting is NOT a "sport" or a "hobby".. nor am I suggesting that you took what I said as if I was suggesting it. I have to say, the way you put it, it sounds like a fun and enjoyable, yet safe hobby. Please excuse my ignorance, as I said before, I've never been in a position to engage in such activities.. to be completely honest with you, I've never fancied doing so. I'm always interested in trying out new things, though - I wouldn't rule it out. Perhaps it would change my stance on the gun laws? Perhaps, again, I wouldn't rule it out. For me, I've always put shooting in the same bracket as archery or darts when it comes to being a sport. Bear with me on this.. I acknowledge that they are sports, but strike me more like a hobby.. if that makes sense?

copycat - As a non-American, I don't know much about it. To be completely honest with you, I don't know a lot about my own government.. perhaps if you explain the relevance for which you ask that question, I may be able to elaborate on my answer to tie in with your point?

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

Some interesting dialog in this thread today.

First I'll address our English friend regarding shooting as a "sport" or "hobby".  I have just a bit over 40 acres of property out in the woods that I'm currently developing.  All of my "neighbors" around me have at the minimum 10 acres.  We do like to get together on the weekends and socialize, cook out, etc.  We also set up targets and take turns shooting different firearms to practice our shooting skills.  We also have a few that shoot some skeet.  We are very safe and have strict rules among ourselves regarding the handling of firearms, which direction to not only point them but where and when to shoot.  We always announce to one another when the "range" is hot meaning somebody is about to shoot and when it's safe.  It's a fun thing and a social thing when we get together.  Very rarely do you see anyone take a phone out which leads me to my next point.

I believe it was Caldarac that pointed out something a few pages back that leads me to think that it's a major contributing factor in the rise of these kinds of incidents.  People are so "connected" to technology these days 24/7 via apps like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, etc.  Many seem to place so much "value" in "likes" or "followers".  That's one of the major things that is different today vs. "back in the day" when I went to school.  It's not only social media, but also the internet.  There is so much available instantly.  I'm not saying that this is the whole cause, but it is a major contributor to our social problems in today's society.  Add to that the very violent and graphic video games that are available today.

Back when I was a youth, we didn't have such things and didn't have mass shootings.  I was taught gun safety via a voluntary course that my PE instructor taught after school in the school cafeteria (Hunter's Safety) when I was in 5th grade.  In high school I was one of those that had a gun rack and a gun in my truck in the school parking lot.  The thought never crossed my mind to use it there, even if I got into a fist fight with another student.

Another major contributor in this issue is the change in values regarding what is "acceptable" in today's society.  Much of the modern culture shuns religion (this is not a religious discussion or argument) and accepts what once used to be "taboo" as "normal".  Teenage pregnancy, single parent homes, kids in school being disrespectful to faculty, drug use, etc. is now "acceptable" and "normal".  Heck, we have kids today that don't know which bathroom to use.

Back when I was a youth we stood for The Pledge of Allegiance and The National Anthem, and we respected the authority and leadership of our teachers.  We addressed elders as Sir and/or Mam.  We honored our parents and respected them.

The bottom line is, new gun laws are not going to change anything.  What needs to change is society and the values that we hold.

Let me ask you a simple question.  As a non American, do you trust our government?

JIB - Thank you for your comments. FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that shooting is NOT a "sport" or a "hobby".. nor am I suggesting that you took what I said as if I was suggesting it. I have to say, the way you put it, it sounds like a fun and enjoyable, yet safe hobby. Please excuse my ignorance, as I said before, I've never been in a position to engage in such activities.. to be completely honest with you, I've never fancied doing so. I'm always interested in trying out new things, though - I wouldn't rule it out. Perhaps it would change my stance on the gun laws? Perhaps, again, I wouldn't rule it out. For me, I've always put shooting in the same bracket as archery or darts when it comes to being a sport. Bear with me on this.. I acknowledge that they are sports, but strike me more like a hobby.. if that makes sense?

copycat - As a non-American, I don't know much about it. To be completely honest with you, I don't know a lot about my own government.. perhaps if you explain the relevance for which you ask that question, I may be able to elaborate on my answer to tie in with your point?

Darlo, thank you!  Thank you for confirming that all of Europe is NOT quivering in their boots "because Trump".  One would never know it from the websites I frequent.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

JIB - Thank you for your comments. FWIW, I wasn't suggesting that shooting is NOT a "sport" or a "hobby".. nor am I suggesting that you took what I said as if I was suggesting it. I have to say, the way you put it, it sounds like a fun and enjoyable, yet safe hobby. Please excuse my ignorance, as I said before, I've never been in a position to engage in such activities.. to be completely honest with you, I've never fancied doing so. I'm always interested in trying out new things, though - I wouldn't rule it out. Perhaps it would change my stance on the gun laws? Perhaps, again, I wouldn't rule it out. For me, I've always put shooting in the same bracket as archery or darts when it comes to being a sport. Bear with me on this.. I acknowledge that they are sports, but strike me more like a hobby.. if that makes sense?

copycat - As a non-American, I don't know much about it. To be completely honest with you, I don't know a lot about my own government.. perhaps if you explain the relevance for which you ask that question, I may be able to elaborate on my answer to tie in with your point?

Darlo, thank you!  Thank you for confirming that all of Europe is NOT quivering in their boots "because Trump".  One would never know it from the websites I frequent.

No.. we have no real need to.. what happens, happens.. although we're allies, I'd say that we make our own decisions and regardless of what people care to believe..

---

80% of what I talk about is nonesense.. the other 25% is made up statistics...


 

No, it's not. No more than any other crime. Your hysterics are antithetical to American philosophy, law, and jurisprudence, all of which have and do make the world a better place. 

So fine, I'll give up my guns when you give up your cars, knives, tools, liquor, drugs, and submit to a mental health exam every time you head to Home Depot. Because if we're going to blame inanimate objects for the actions of Evil people then I demand we blame them all.

So we just say "Man this sucks but some people are bad." 

Why didn't we do that when 9/11 happened? "Man. This sucks but some people are bad. No reason to change boarding procedures."

I don't know what's changed in the past 30 years or so but we need to change with the times. Some people on this board were saying how they grew up with guns in trucks and gun racks and this never happened. Well, it's happening now and it's happening more frequently. Doing nothing is clearly not working and it seems to only be getting worse. I don't know what the solution is but keeping everything the same is clearly not working. Saying "Oh this was just a bad person. Come take my guns? Yea right. Come and try." Isn't helping anything or anyone.

How can you possibly have a "solution", when you admittedly haven't even identified the underlying problem?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Some interesting dialog in this thread today.

First I'll address our English friend regarding shooting as a "sport" or "hobby".  I have just a bit over 40 acres of property out in the woods that I'm currently developing.  All of my "neighbors" around me have at the minimum 10 acres.  We do like to get together on the weekends and socialize, cook out, etc.  We also set up targets and take turns shooting different firearms to practice our shooting skills.  We also have a few that shoot some skeet.  We are very safe and have strict rules among ourselves regarding the handling of firearms, which direction to not only point them but where and when to shoot.  We always announce to one another when the "range" is hot meaning somebody is about to shoot and when it's safe.  It's a fun thing and a social thing when we get together.  Very rarely do you see anyone take a phone out which leads me to my next point.

I believe it was Caldarac that pointed out something a few pages back that leads me to think that it's a major contributing factor in the rise of these kinds of incidents.  People are so "connected" to technology these days 24/7 via apps like Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Twitter, etc.  Many seem to place so much "value" in "likes" or "followers".  That's one of the major things that is different today vs. "back in the day" when I went to school.  It's not only social media, but also the internet.  There is so much available instantly.  I'm not saying that this is the whole cause, but it is a major contributor to our social problems in today's society.  Add to that the very violent and graphic video games that are available today.

Back when I was a youth, we didn't have such things and didn't have mass shootings.  I was taught gun safety via a voluntary course that my PE instructor taught after school in the school cafeteria (Hunter's Safety) when I was in 5th grade.  In high school I was one of those that had a gun rack and a gun in my truck in the school parking lot.  The thought never crossed my mind to use it there, even if I got into a fist fight with another student.

Another major contributor in this issue is the change in values regarding what is "acceptable" in today's society.  Much of the modern culture shuns religion (this is not a religious discussion or argument) and accepts what once used to be "taboo" as "normal".  Teenage pregnancy, single parent homes, kids in school being disrespectful to faculty, drug use, etc. is now "acceptable" and "normal".  Heck, we have kids today that don't know which bathroom to use.

Back when I was a youth we stood for The Pledge of Allegiance and The National Anthem, and we respected the authority and leadership of our teachers.  We addressed elders as Sir and/or Mam.  We honored our parents and respected them.

The bottom line is, new gun laws are not going to change anything.  What needs to change is society and the values that we hold.

Multiple kids with multiple women, knowingly defrauding people, cheating on your wife and then paying them off, intentionally stirring up hatred and discord  towards multiple American institutions and agencies not to mention individual citizens. Stuff like that gets celebrated, defended, and rewarded with sweet gigs these days. Back when I was a kid that was consider outside the norm. Maybe you all should drink what you are pouring before pointing your hypocritical finger at other people. 

The self righteousness and complete lack of self awareness by the "BUT MUH VALUES" crowd is laughably absurd. 

As for the topic at hand, it's a pointless conversation. If multiple mass murders of our children isn't enough to move the needle on a reasonable compromise, then nothing is. And don't be fooled, a compromise could be had. Nobody is suggesting taking away all guns but plenty of the hard line right wingers seem convinced that's the case. What is actually the case is the line drawn in the sand by the right. That no matter how many children get murdered absolutely nothing can be done. No real talks can be had. Nothing should be done. Period. These tragic events will keep happening because that's the price of freedom in the best country the earth has ever known.

---