majorspark;1348895 wrote:And how did that change come about in the USA? By force of firearms and 600,000+ dead Americans. While in most of the "rest of the world" the abolition of slavery was achieved through largely peaceful means. The "gun culture" in the USA is not changing anytime soon. Unless of course we want to fight about it.

The people without guns would have a hell of a time taking away the guns from those that do :laugh:

majorspark;1348895 wrote:And how did that change come about in the USA? By force of firearms and 600,000+ dead Americans. While in most of the "rest of the world" the abolition of slavery was achieved through largely peaceful means. The "gun culture" in the USA is not changing anytime soon. Unless of course we want to fight about it.

One would hope we could learn from our mistakes as a country, rather than saying "well, it's pointless to try because there's a very vocal minority who won't change." The Civil Rights movement occurred comparatively late here, but was done through [relatively] non-violent means, maybe we're progressing.

But if your argument is our country is unique in that the segment of the population that resists change can only be dragged down the road kicking and screaming, which sometimes means violence, I can't say I disagree.

We don't have to guess about whether Australia is like the US or not.

Did the AWB passed in '95(?) have any correlation with a reduction in shootings and violence involving guns?

Have any of our guns laws shown a positive correlation? I honestly do not know, but I suspect the answer is "no".

gut;1348930 wrote:We don't have to guess about whether Australia is like the US or not.

Did the AWB passed in '95(?) have any correlation with a reduction in shootings and violence involving guns?

Have any of our guns laws shown a positive correlation? I honestly do not know, but I suspect the answer is "no".

Columbine-1999

I just am sick and tired of politicians trying to pretend they are doing anything worthwhile. Ok, go ahead and put an assault rifle ban in place. That's is fine so we stop a few mass shootings but how many hundreds/thousands of kids die every year being shot by handguns/shotguns. This obviously was a tragedy on a huge level but this happens almost everyday in this country and where is the outcry? Now that there is a huge media push because it happened in Small Town USA, politicians are chomping at the bit to get their names on something they claim will stop the slaughter of innocent children so during the next election they can use it to score points with voters.

pmoney25;1348940 wrote:I just am sick and tired of politicians trying to pretend they are doing anything worthwhile. Ok, go ahead and put an assault rifle ban in place. That's is fine so we stop a few mass shootings but how many hundreds/thousands of kids die every year being shot by handguns/shotguns. This obviously was a tragedy on a huge level but this happens almost everyday in this country and where is the outcry? Now that there is a huge media push because it happened in Small Town USA, politicians are chomping at the bit to get their names on something they claim will stop the slaughter of innocent children so during the next election they can use it to score points with voters.

Exactly! This only happens in America as far as wealthy, advanced countries go...

The evidence is fairly strong across the industrialized world with different, varying cultures...strict gun control results in less gun violence, fewer gun shot wounds, less suicide and less homicide.

America has its own barricades in getting to achieve this...i.e. cultural, constitutional, pragmatic concerns....but it seems to be generally true.

Regardless of how hard it would be to change the status quo, it is a choice to have so many people die at the hands of guns in our country.

Footwedge;1348646 wrote:Bull. The Aussies mirror the US economically and to a degree culturally. They have a very similar tax structure. They employ personal liberties and freedoms that rival the US. They shared the EXACT SAME VIEW as America did regarding gun ownership....until 1996.

Not sure what economics and tax structure have to do with this. But I guess Australians have a blue sky and green grass too so maybe it is bull. I defined specifically how the Aussies differ from the USA. I disagree that they shared the exact same view as Americans regarding guns prior to 1996. Their history and birth as a nation is nothing like ours.

Footwedge;1348646 wrote:What the article stated was a 180 in how they would approach the subject of madmen splattering 6 year old brain matter against classroom walls. The old age argument that crime would increase with tighter gun laws has been destroyed by what has happened over the past 16 years in that country.

I am reading where sales of semi-automatic weapons are going through the roof across the nation in the wake of this tragedy. It would seem to me that many Americans are not approaching the subject in the same manner as the Australians.

Footwedge;1348646 wrote:What do these points have to do with the subject at hand? I see no relevance...if that is your argument.

Well last I heard numbers do play a significant role. There are more people and weapons to manage over a wider area. Which makes control much more difficult.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html From the article:

No matter the exact figures, there are a whole hell of a lot of assault weapons in America, which complicates any talk of gun control. The most effective way for the government to reduce the existing gun stock would be to buy them back from their owners. When Australia imposed strict gun control measures in 1996 in the aftermath of a mass shooting, the Aussie government bought back 643,726 newly illegal rifles and shotguns at market value. The gun buyback program, which cost an estimated $400 million in U.S. dollars, was funded by a temporary 1 percent income tax levy.

Would such a plan fly in America? Extrapolating from Australia's numbers, a similar buyback in this more gun-laden country would cost billions. While a tax increase isn't the only way to raise that much money—the federal government could have a bake sale, or auction off some of its lesser-known historical treasures—it's certainly the most obvious way to do it. We might soon see what voters and politicians hate more: guns or taxes

.

Also ports of entry are easier to enforce against smuggling than thousands of miles of porous land borders. I don't think Australian children grew up hearing about the great rebellion and overthrowing of a tyrannical King by average citizens organizing and grabbing their firearms to drive out the evil redcoats. Nor does the Australian constitution mention a right of its people to keep and bare arms. Before you get yourself all lathered up stop and think a little about what I am saying. If you see no relevance in all this well I really don't know what to say.

Footwedge;1348646 wrote:Us people? Really? So you are OK with the status quo?

No. And I am also not OK with the emotional responses and cookie cutter solutions that are being bandied about.

Footwedge;1348646 wrote:Maybe you would feel just a little differently if you had to bury your own kindergartener this week.

My youngest brother (just turned 21 in July) was brutally murdered this weekend. Services were held Wednesday. His injuries were so severe that a public viewing was not possible. He was attacked while sitting in his truck. The weapon was a knife and he was beaten and left for dead. Apparently at the hands of someone he had never been in contact with prior to the night of the attack. But detectives make a point to tell us they are not giving us all information. Detectives have an arrest warrant for the individual responsible for killing my brother and are telling us the evidence they have gathered leaves them certain they have the right man. When my wife saw the picture of the man suspected of killing my brother she called me crying as he is just a baby faced 21 yr old himself. Our three children are all just a few years younger than these young adults. What a shame.

My brother lived for about 36 hrs after he was attacked. One of my other brothers got to the hospital before me and told me to prepare myself for what I was going to see. I am not going into detail but I will tell you how I felt. And I voiced my thoughts as I paced around his bed in the ICU. "How could another human being do this to another human being". "I could not do this to an animal".

Its really about the devaluation of human life in society. Our nation is breeding large numbers of callous individuals that have no regard for the sanctity of life. That is the real heart of the problem.

Footwedge;1348646 wrote:The idea that "we are America...and therefor we...blah, blah, blah"...is the major reason our foreign policy is criminal, our jail holdings are the highest per capita in the world, and we are by far and away the most hated country around the globe.

Let me ask you this. Who has killed more children in the last decade? Individual nuts that got hold of firearms or the US federal government?

Footwedge;1348646 wrote:Hubris is one on the 7 deadly sins....let me remind you.

Pointing out historical and geographical facts that are distinct to America is not hubris. It is merely pointing out realities that you people are going to need to address.

pmoney25;1348939 wrote:Columbine-1999

Dude at Columbine had a Tec-9 with magazines containing 52 rounds, 32 rounds and 28 rounds. The other guy had that weird looking gun designed almost specifically around the AWB. If anything, shows the AWB should extend to those ridiculous clips as well as most semi-automatic weapons. It's not clear to me why civilians need weapons with clips that are easy to reload with little practice. (Obviously there are constitutional questions but I'm just saying).

No real reason for a CCW holder to carry anything beyond a more compact version of a Colt Single Action Army.

majorspark;1348986 wrote:My youngest brother (just turned 21 in July) was brutally murdered this weekend. Services were held Wednesday. His injuries were so severe that a public viewing was not possible. He was attacked while sitting in his truck. The weapon was a knife and he was beaten and left for dead. Apparently at the hands of someone he had never been in contact with prior to the night of the attack. But detectives make a point to tell us they are not giving us all information. Detectives have an arrest warrant for the individual responsible for killing my brother and are telling us the evidence they have gathered leaves them certain they have the right man. When my wife saw the picture of the man suspected of killing my brother she called me crying as he is just a baby faced 21 yr old himself. Our three children are all just a few years younger than these young adults. What a shame.

My brother lived for about 36 hrs after he was attacked. One of my other brothers got to the hospital before me and told me to prepare myself for what I was going to see. I am not going into detail but I will tell you how I felt. And I voiced my thoughts as I paced around his bed in the ICU. "How could another human being do this to another human being". "I could not do this to an animal".

Whoa. If this did happen to ya, I'm sorry to hear about that bro.

Footwedge;1348646 wrote:Bull. The Aussies mirror the US economically and to a degree culturally. They have a very similar tax structure. They employ personal liberties and freedoms that rival the US. They shared the EXACT SAME VIEW as America did regarding gun ownership....until 1996.

Did you know that the Australia Government does not permit anyone of dark skin to become citizen of Australia nor are dark skinned individuals give work permit long than six weeks if any at all. The only Black or dark skinned people that are Australia citizens are the natural born Aborigines. They are treated with respect and give all the rights of any Australia citizen but if you’re black or dark skinned nationality don’t look for Australia to grant you citizenship.

Belly35;1351778 wrote:Did you know that the Australia Government does not permit anyone of dark skin to become citizen of Australia nor are dark skinned individuals give work permit long than six weeks if any at all. The only Black or dark skinned people that are Australia citizens are the natural born Aborigines. They are treated with respect and give all the rights of any Australia citizen but if you’re black or dark skinned nationality don’t look for Australia to grant you citizenship.

Bull. The Aussies are just like Mericans.

[video=youtube;hxRlpRcorEU][/video]

Read this story: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/14071-the-san-antonio-theate

Bottom line is we did hear about this why?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

BoatShoes;1348987 wrote:Dude at Columbine had a Tec-9 with magazines containing 52 rounds, 32 rounds and 28 rounds. The other guy had that weird looking gun designed almost specifically around the AWB. If anything, shows the AWB should extend to those ridiculous clips as well as most semi-automatic weapons. It's not clear to me why civilians need weapons with clips that are easy to reload with little practice. (Obviously there are constitutional questions but I'm just saying).

Here's the thing. Do you think the AWB in any form would have stopped those individuals from doing what they did?

I'm not suggesting that there isn't a problem, of course. You and I certainly agree on that. However, as we should indeed look into solutions, we ought to look into ones that would make sense.

Most of these mass shootings involve individuals whose end game doesn't involve them coming out alive. What's a little law-breaking if you don't plan on being around to serve any time?


Also, as a fun little fact, you can essentially make an AK out of a shovel (with access to some metalwork resources, admittedly) and a small kit, which tells you just how easy it is to even fashion a gun that would be deemed an "assault" weapon. Not even going into buying illegally, it just seems far too easy to acquire a gun ILLEGALLY for any kind of ban to be effective.

The more I think about this problem, the less confident I am that an actual solution exists at all.

majorspark;1348986 wrote:Not sure what economics and tax structure have to do with this. But I guess Australians have a blue sky and green grass too so maybe it is bull. I defined specifically how the Aussies differ from the USA. I disagree that they shared the exact same view as Americans regarding guns prior to 1996. Their history and birth as a nation is nothing like ours.



I am reading where sales of semi-automatic weapons are going through the roof across the nation in the wake of this tragedy. It would seem to me that many Americans are not approaching the subject in the same manner as the Australians.



Well last I heard numbers do play a significant role. There are more people and weapons to manage over a wider area. Which makes control much more difficult.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html From the article:
.

Also ports of entry are easier to enforce against smuggling than thousands of miles of porous land borders. I don't think Australian children grew up hearing about the great rebellion and overthrowing of a tyrannical King by average citizens organizing and grabbing their firearms to drive out the evil redcoats. Nor does the Australian constitution mention a right of its people to keep and bare arms. Before you get yourself all lathered up stop and think a little about what I am saying. If you see no relevance in all this well I really don't know what to say.



No. And I am also not OK with the emotional responses and cookie cutter solutions that are being bandied about.



My youngest brother (just turned 21 in July) was brutally murdered this weekend. Services were held Wednesday. His injuries were so severe that a public viewing was not possible. He was attacked while sitting in his truck. The weapon was a knife and he was beaten and left for dead. Apparently at the hands of someone he had never been in contact with prior to the night of the attack. But detectives make a point to tell us they are not giving us all information. Detectives have an arrest warrant for the individual responsible for killing my brother and are telling us the evidence they have gathered leaves them certain they have the right man. When my wife saw the picture of the man suspected of killing my brother she called me crying as he is just a baby faced 21 yr old himself. Our three children are all just a few years younger than these young adults. What a shame.

My brother lived for about 36 hrs after he was attacked. One of my other brothers got to the hospital before me and told me to prepare myself for what I was going to see. I am not going into detail but I will tell you how I felt. And I voiced my thoughts as I paced around his bed in the ICU. "How could another human being do this to another human being". "I could not do this to an animal".

Its really about the devaluation of human life in society. Our nation is breeding large numbers of callous individuals that have no regard for the sanctity of life. That is the real heart of the problem.



Let me ask you this. Who has killed more children in the last decade? Individual nuts that got hold of firearms or the US federal government?



Pointing out historical and geographical facts that are distinct to America is not hubris. It is merely pointing out realities that you people are going to need to address.

/me'd

"TOLEDO — A school district in Ohio says it plans to arm a few of its non-teaching employees with handguns. The school in the state’s northwest corner says four of its employees will begin carrying handguns later this year after completing a training course.
Members of the Montpelier school board voted unanimously on the plan after consulting with the local police chief and attorneys who reviewed Ohio’s concealed carry law.
The school isn’t saying which of its employees will be armed.
Education officials in Ohio say they’re not aware of any other schools in the state that have taken action to allow employees to carry guns.
The move comes as school districts and lawmakers across the nation are weighing how to protect students following the school massacre in Connecticut. "

They are the first...but won't be the last.

Who was it that said no "serious" school would ever do that? Was it Tiernan?

Maybe Montpelier just isn't a serious school.

ccrunner609;1364432 wrote:hate to say I told you so but I told you so.

Yeah, you were part of that. Who did you tell so?

O-Trap;1364442 wrote:Yeah, you were part of that. Who did you tell so?

He thinks he came up with the idea. :rolleyes:

Also, since other schools aren't doing this, does that mean I can say I told you so?

ccrunner609;1364454 wrote:I posted the idea days before the national news organizations were talking about it. Its the first thing that I thought of the day of the shooting.

You do know that some people in this world can actually think for themselves and not wait for others to feed them their ideas.

And this "idea" was around long before the CT shooting. There were already schools that did it. Great idea you came up with!

Front page Wooster Daily Record this AM...

ORRVILLE TEACHER OK TO CARRY
BOARD APPROVES AS EDUCATOR/POLICE OFFICER 'STEPS UP' FOR SAFETY


The teacher is a part time police officer in a nearby township, and a has law enforcement/firearms training.

HitsRus;1364956 wrote:Front page Wooster Daily Record this AM...

ORRVILLE TEACHER OK TO CARRY
BOARD APPROVES AS EDUCATOR/POLICE OFFICER 'STEPS UP' FOR SAFETY


The teacher is a part time police officer in a nearby township, and a has law enforcement/firearms training.

What a great idea ccrunner came up with!

Let's ask the Australians how their gun control is working for them.

[video=youtube;fGaDAThOHhA][/video]

CNN has an article pointing out that pistols are responsible for 72% of all homicides and questions if banning assault weapons will have any affect. They are not opposed to the assault weapons ban however (even though they think it will be ineffective) but they do want funding to study what we can do to stop the violence. Does anyone doubt that their studies will conclude more weapons need to be banned/licensed/tracked?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/29/us/handguns-and-federal-legislation/index.html?hpt=hp_c4