[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;330879]Apparently, you don't know of any statistics, and were just making conjectures that such measures would be a good thing, and prevent more crimes.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. My conjectures were based on reasonable theories and possible scenarios.

Reciprocally, [B][I][U]your[/U][/I][/B] conjectures were based on?

[QUOTE=Andrew;330883]Yep, just sit back while your place becomes a dictatorship. Maybe the dictator will be a nice guy this time.[/QUOTE]

Hey... China already owns most of the US of A. And they did it with no use of gun power (which they invented).

Go and suck on that for a while....

I observe that in the general gun control debate, not only here, there is a tendency for one side to reply to the suggestion of a ban on "assault weapons" (I realize there are complications in the definition) by pretending the threat is the confiscation of all guns from their present owners. This is straw-manning, of course, and its use often indicates that the strawmanning side doesn't have an adequate answer to what the other side actually said.

If there actually existed an adequate objection to an "assault weapons" (however defined) ban, then the objecting side would do well to simply and straightforwardly set that argument forth. Its continual resort to exaggeration, instead, indicates that the objecting side actually has no adequate objection to what is actually proposed.

(And no wonder -- uber-Republican President Ronald Reagan supported an assault weapons ban.)

[QUOTE=Andrew;330883]
You don't have Mexico right next door either. They have way more gun crime, and I think, if I remember, more guns in sum. There's no point in taking guns from a country that borders them.

[/QUOTE]

Mexico has [URL="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico"]fewer guns[/URL] and much [URL="http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf"]fewer per population[/URL] than the US.

Gun ownership in Mexico is [URL="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico#right_to_possess_firearms"]guaranteed by law[/URL], though they have stricter and more reasonable laws about it than the US.

Most of the guns used in Mexico by drug cartels [URL="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guv1zxttoSAF-NOJzZkAJV2R93mg"]come from the US[/URL]. [URL="http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/TOCTA_Report_2010_low_res.pdf"]and also page 8[/URL]

Also the US buys the drugs that fuel the gun smuggling. So to turn your silly comment on it's head. You aren't the one with drug craving, gun smuggling US of A right next door either.

[QUOTE=chalsall;330884]Agreed. My conjectures were based on reasonable theories and possible scenarios.

Reciprocally, [B][I][U]your[/U][/I][/B] conjectures were based on?[/QUOTE]Do you mean my statement that most gun crime comes from one-on-one violence? That came from an article I read recently.

Or were you thinking of something else?

Anyway, just so you know, I too very recently thought that limiting things like semi-automatic weapons would make a measurable difference in gun crimes. Until I realized I had no basis for this belief, except just like you, my idea of what are "reasonable theories and possible scenarios". Then I started looking at the actual data. At the effect the previous assault weapon ban had on crime, at the numbers of and types of people who uses semi-automatic weapons in crimes and what they would have done if such weapons were illegal, etc...

If our primary concern is gun violence, there are other things we could do that would be much more effective. For example, having police actually police those danger zones, etc... I believe I linked to an article about how most criminals get their guns (which you can easily find via google). The example of how Chicago deals with its gun crimes shows us what not to do, whereas the recent example of New York City shows us some of what can be done. And these are not necessarily one-size-fits-all solutions, as these are two big cities with their own unique problems. Other cities, say near the border with Mexico, may have their own unique problems.

I'm for lowering crime rates. But I'm not for limiting freedoms when there is no actual data that such changes would be effective (and in some cases, data which shows the opposite). [Similarly, I didn't think it would be appropriate to tax the rich more out of some idea of "fairness" if such measures would actually decrease the revenue government receives. This is not to say that I'm opposed to taxing the rich more, per se. Just that the reason better be to increase revenues.] And by the way, the reason people own guns is not limited merely to self-defense. Indeed, that is not the (only) principle cited in the 2nd amendment for allowing a right to bear arms.

According to Wikipedia:
[quote]In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of handguns in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported.[/quote]
That means in 2010, at least 72% of gun killings were not with rifles of any sort, automatic or not. (I suppose the handguns could have been automatic, but I suspect that to percentage to be quite low.)

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;330892]
If our primary concern is gun violence, there are other things we could do that would be much more effective. For example, having police actually police those danger zones, etc... I believe I linked to an article about how most criminals get their guns (which you can easily find via google). The example of how Chicago deals with its gun crimes shows us what not to do, whereas the recent example of New York City shows us some of what can be done.[/QUOTE]Indeed. [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=17110"]Like this example from NYC.
[/URL]

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;330892]If our primary concern is gun violence, there are other things we could do that would be much more effective. For example, having police actually police those danger zones, etc...[/QUOTE]Sounds like a plan. Deal with gun problems by introducing more guns. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

[QUOTE=retina;330921]Sounds like a plan. Deal with gun problems by introducing more guns. Nothing could possibly go wrong.[/QUOTE]

And thus we see a prime example of why I should just give up on political topics on message boards.

1. I never said we should introduce more guns.

2. You beg the question by characterizing the problem as a "gun problem" rather than a "gun violence problem".

3. You don't actually deal with my quotation in the slightest.

I'm done in this thread. Ciao.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;330932]And thus we see a prime example of why I should just give up on political topics on message boards.

1. I never said we should introduce more guns.

2. You beg the question by characterizing the problem as a "gun problem" rather than a "gun violence problem".

3. You don't actually deal with my quotation in the slightest.

I'm done in this thread. Ciao.[/QUOTE]While I understand your frustration, I would also appreciate your views on the issue to which I just posted a link.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;330932]2. You beg the question by characterizing the problem as a "gun problem" rather than a "gun violence problem".[/QUOTE]Without guns there would not be any gun violence problem.[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;330932]3. You don't actually deal with my quotation in the slightest.[/QUOTE]Yeah I did. How else are police supposed to police "danger zones"? With lots of talking in really cross voices?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;330895]That means in 2010, at least 72% of gun killings were not with rifles of any sort, automatic or not. (I suppose the handguns could have been automatic, but I suspect that to percentage to be quite low.)[/QUOTE]

The issue is (obviously) rather complex. And charged...

I stand by my inference that the general populous does [U]not[/U] need "assault weapons" to defend themselves. Assault != Defend.

And, to put on the table, my step-father was what some would consider a "gun nut". He was also a highly respected civil engineer. His guns were always locked up in a very secure cabinet. His magazines were securely locked up somewhere else. And his ammo (which he packed himself) was locked up somewhere else again.

Hand-guns (which my step father also owned) are a real problem. They may fall under the 2nd amendment, but while relatively inaccurate at a distance the are very easy to conceal.

[QUOTE=retina;330975]Without guns there would not be any gun violence problem.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;330977]
I stand by my inference that the general populous does [U]not[/U] need "assault weapons" to defend themselves. Assault != Defend.[/QUOTE]

The ratio of those who own guns in the US for fun (and do no harm to humans with them) to those who do harm humans with guns is remarkably high. Those on the top of the fraction would not be happy if they lost one of their favorite things because 1% of the people with guns are morons.

Or, cars and alcohol kill more people than guns every year. Why don't we ban cars and alcohol? (Obviously the car analogy doesn't quite work -- cars are a lot more useful than guns -- but it's something to think about. For alcohol it is a reasonable analogy.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;330978]Or, cars and alcohol kill more people than guns every year. Why don't we ban cars and alcohol? (Obviously the car analogy doesn't quite work -- cars are a lot more useful than guns -- but it's something to think about. For alcohol it is a reasonable analogy.)[/QUOTE]

Actually, it's a very good analogy.

Is not driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol illegal in the US of A, Canada, Britain, Germany et al?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;330978]Those on the top of the fraction would not be happy if they lost one of their favorite things because 1% of the people with guns are morons.[/QUOTE]

Consider it a bell-curve.

Those at the "top" might be willing to forgo their "toys" for the "greater good".

Unless, of course, this is a Machiavellian "Evolution in Action" kind of situation....

[QUOTE=chalsall;330979]Actually, it's a very good analogy.

Is not driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol illegal in the US of A, Canada, Britain, Germany et al?[/QUOTE]

It's illegal, and yet there are still more drunk driving deaths than gun deaths. So why would making guns illegal help?

[QUOTE=Dubslow;330986]It's illegal, and yet there are still more drunk driving deaths than gun deaths.[/QUOTE]

Yes. But the DWI deaths are actionable.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;330986]So why would making guns illegal help?[/QUOTE]

Sigh... We're not taking about guns been illegal.

We're only talking about guns which citizens don't need to (for example) protect themselves in their own homes or property, or what is needed to hunt for animals to feed themselves.

Do our youth not read history? :sad:

[QUOTE=chalsall;330991]Yes. But the DWI deaths are actionable.[/quote]What do you mean?

[QUOTE=chalsall;330991]
Sigh... We're not taking about guns been illegal.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you're not, but most of the US (and retina) is.

Also as I recall, N.B. the Tar Heel has already described a situation where an assault rifle is plausibly required by private citizens.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;330993]What do you mean?[/QUOTE]

Definition: actionable -- Giving sufficient reason to take legal action.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;330993]Perhaps you're not, but most of the US (and retina) is.[/QUOTE]

Please demonstrate.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;330993]Also as I recall, N.B. the Tar Heel has already described a situation where an assault rifle is plausibly required by private citizens.[/QUOTE]

Please document.

[QUOTE=chalsall;330995]Definition: actionable -- Giving sufficient reason to take legal action.[/quote]
You mean making DUIs illegal (as they already are)? Or the right of the relatives of the deceased to take action against the drunk driver? Neither of which helps lower drunk driving deaths.

[QUOTE=chalsall;330995]
Please demonstrate.
[/quote]
Chicago definitely tried that route -- and it was [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago"]struck down[/URL] by the SCOTUS.

As for proposed bills today, in light of that case, they don't actually try to outright ban guns; however most "gun control advocates", given the chance, would like to outright ban them. (That is a my subjective feeling; I'll look for some polls to that matter.)

Here's a decent place to start.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States[/url]
Edit: [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics#United_States"]Some numbers[/URL]:
[quote] According to a 2012 CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, 10% of Americans support banning all guns except for police and authorized personnel, 76% support gun ownership with some restrictions, and 10% support gun ownership with no restrictions.[106] Michael Bouchard, Assistant Director/Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, estimates there are 5,000 gun shows annually in the United States.[107]
In 1959, the Gallup poll showed that 59% of Americans supported banning handgun possession. In 2011, the Gallup poll showed that 26% supported banning handgun possession. In 1990, the Gallup poll showed that 78% of Americans supported stricter laws on gun sales than were existing at the time, 17% felt the laws were fine as they were, and 2% supported less strict laws. In 2011, the Gallup poll showed that 43% supported stricter laws on gun sales, 44% felt the laws were fine as they were, and 11% supported less strict laws. In 2001, the Gallup poll showed that 51% of Americans preferred that current gun laws be enforced more strictly. In 2011, it was 60%.[108] A 2009 CNN/ORC poll found 39% favored stricter gun laws, 15% favored less strict gun laws, and 46% preferred no change. CNN reported that the drop in support (since the 2001 Gallup poll) came from self-identified independents and Republicans, with support among Democrats remaining consistent.[109]
There is a sharp divide between gun-rights proponents[110] and gun-control proponents.[111] This leads to intense political debate over the effectiveness of firearm regulation.[112][verification needed] Democrats are more likely to support stricter gun control than are Republicans. In an online 2010 Harris Poll, of Democrats, 70% favored stricter gun control, 7% favored less strict gun control, and 14% preferred neither. Of Republicans, 22% favored stricter control, 42% favored less strict control, and 27% preferred neither.[113]
In the same 2011 Gallup poll, 55% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents had a gun in their household compared to 40% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Of Republicans and Republican-leaners, 41% personally owned a gun. Of Democrats and Democratic-leaners, 28% personally owned a gun.[114] Republicans are more likely to own guns, according to Joseph Fried's interpretation of General Social Surveys conducted in the last 35 years. He has also argued in the graphs below that gun ownership has generally declined.[115][better source needed][/quote]

[QUOTE=chalsall;330995]
Please document.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=321892#post321892[/url]

[YOUTUBE]VHn1zogeyO4[/YOUTUBE]

[QUOTE=xilman;330947]While I understand your frustration, I would also appreciate your views on the issue to which I just posted a link.[/QUOTE]As you wish. Specifically, do you mean the issue of arming our police force with guns? Or do you mean the issue of accidental shootings even by the highly trained? Or something else entirely?

Clearly, allowing the police force, much less the citizens, to carry guns will (over time) result in the injury and even death of innocent bystanders. I take a mostly pragmatic approach to this problem. To carry a concealed firearm you must register with the state, take training, and renew the registration and training periodically. As far as I understand it, those with concealed carry permits are very unlikely to harm you. I'm not familiar enough with the research to know whether they prevent more violence and injury than not, but I'd think it would swing to the "prevent" side. Similarly, on the whole, it is very unlikely that the police will injure or kill you with their firearms.

But I could be convinced otherwise, if you give solid evidence that over time there are more injuries caused by the firearm holder than prevented.

This is a very interesting topic for me to read. Unfortunately I can't comment anything, because I have no idea what is going on there and what solution would be the best, and second, I have no right to give any advice about how other people should shape their societies and should live their lives. Coming from a background where owning a gun was illegal or required special privileges (like policeman, forest ranger, whatever), this discussion is indeed very interesting for me.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;331008]As you wish. Specifically, do you mean the issue of arming our police force with guns? Or do you mean the issue of accidental shootings even by the highly trained? Or something else entirely?

Clearly, allowing the police force, much less the citizens, to carry guns will (over time) result in the injury and even death of innocent bystanders. I take a mostly pragmatic approach to this problem. To carry a concealed firearm you must register with the state, take training, and renew the registration and training periodically. As far as I understand it, those with concealed carry permits are very unlikely to harm you. I'm not familiar enough with the research to know whether they prevent more violence and injury than not, but I'd think it would swing to the "prevent" side. Similarly, on the whole, it is very unlikely that the police will injure or kill you with their firearms.

But I could be convinced otherwise, if you give solid evidence that over time there are more injuries caused by the firearm holder than prevented.[/QUOTE]I have seen it opined, here on the forum and elsewhere, that the presence of law-abiding armed people reduces the incidence of death and injury potentially caused in incidents which involve gun-wielding criminals. The reported incident would appear to argue strongly against that view. No casualties were caused by the (alleged) criminals; several innocents were injured by gun fire from LE agents.

By contrast, here in Great Britain the police do very occasionally shoot members of the public whom they believe to be armed and/or dangerous but subsequently turn out not to be. Each case makes national news, largely because they so rarely occur. I have never heard of more than one person being shot by police in any one incident.

I'm wondering what your take on the view "an armed citizenry and /or law enforcement reduces the likelihood of death or injury arising from the activities of armed criminals" might be, especially in the light of the reported incident.

[QUOTE=LaurV;331070]This is a very interesting topic for me to read. Unfortunately I can't comment anything, because I have no idea what is going on there and what solution would be the best, and second, I have no right to give any advice about how other people should shape their societies and should live their lives. Coming from a background where owning a gun was illegal or required special privileges (like policeman, forest ranger, whatever), this discussion is indeed very interesting for me.[/QUOTE]

I have a couple of good friends who were dumb-founded to hear about my experiences with guns. It was completely outside their experience.

I nearly shot my dad once. On a scout activity, we were using black-powder rifles to shoot at balloons. My dad walked in front of the gun, I got nervous and pulled the trigger. Fortunately, he jumped out of the way.

I've also shot at rabbits from the back of a pick-up truck. It was a lot of fun.

I've also done skeet shooting. That is also a lot of fun, although the gun kicks quite a bit, and your shoulder is very sore at the end.

One of my neighbors is opposed to almost any controls being put on guns. His point being that these controls merely restrict freedom, without actually being based on any idea of decreasing violence. My friends I mentioned earlier are opposed to killing animals with guns, as they feel it is inhumane. I'm somewhere in the middle, where I strongly favor freedom, but also understand licensing and training are good ideas (just like with cars).

[QUOTE=xilman;331110]I have seen it opined, here on the forum and elsewhere, that the presence of law-abiding armed people reduces the incidence of death and injury potentially caused in incidents which involve gun-wielding criminals. The reported incident would appear to argue strongly against that view. No casualties were caused by the (alleged) criminals; several innocents were injured by gun fire from LE agents.

By contrast, here in Great Britain the police do very occasionally shoot members of the public whom they believe to be armed and/or dangerous but subsequently turn out not to be. Each case makes national news, largely because they so rarely occur. I have never heard of more than one person being shot by police in any one incident.

I'm wondering what your take on the view "an armed citizenry and /or law enforcement" reduces the likelihood of death or injury arising from the activities of armed criminals" might be, especially in the light of the reported incident.[/QUOTE]

As I said, I don't have any actual statistics to support my conjecture on that specific topic. I've watched multiple videos of armed store owners (for example) stopping crimes. The same with bank security guards. Occasionally I also read reports such as the one you linked to, where the police majorly screw up, or a citizen uses their gun in a wild manner and endangers others.

But, at least in my very limited experience, both of these scenarios (the prevention of violent crime by citizens, and the accidental injuring of bystanders) are a very small minority of gun related incidents. The bigger problem is that it is easy for criminals to get guns; but not, perhaps, because of the reasons you might think. Most criminals get their guns from dirty sellers or from straw-purchasers. ([URL="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html"]This article[/URL] explains more.)

[QUOTE=chappy;330890]Mexico has [URL="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico"]fewer guns[/URL] and much [URL="http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf"]fewer per population[/URL] than the US.

Gun ownership in Mexico is [URL="http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico#right_to_possess_firearms"]guaranteed by law[/URL], though they have stricter and more reasonable laws about it than the US.

Most of the guns used in Mexico by drug cartels [URL="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5guv1zxttoSAF-NOJzZkAJV2R93mg"]come from the US[/URL]. [URL="http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/tocta/TOCTA_Report_2010_low_res.pdf"]and also page 8[/URL]

Also the US buys the drugs that fuel the gun smuggling. So to turn your silly comment on it's head. You aren't the one with drug craving, gun smuggling US of A right next door either.[/QUOTE]

here's the stat I was thinking of.

[url]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states[/url]

[url]http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/mexico[/url]


Mexico has 3 times the gun homicide rate as the united states does.

[QUOTE=chalsall;330886]Hey... China already owns most of the US of A. And they did it with no use of gun power (which they invented).

Go and suck on that for a while....[/QUOTE]

No they dont. They dont own nearly as much as the Federal Reserve Cartel.

And thank goodness for guns. We're just farther behind in terms of bank control. When the Nazi's are running our streets as they are in Greece, I'll be thankful they dont have a monopoly on force. The police are actually turning to the white supremacists for restoration of order.

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/24/smith-wesson-to-stop-selling-some-pistols-in-california-due-to-gun-law/[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;365307][url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/24/smith-wesson-to-stop-selling-some-pistols-in-california-due-to-gun-law/[/url][/QUOTE]

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad...

Similar "this is useless" arguments were raised with tagging gun-powder with non-combustible encoded micro-plastic particles for tracing the manufactures and suppliers of bullets.

If anyone wants to be able to kill from a distance without being traced, a common crossbow is always an option....

I still don't get this. [QUOTE]Firearm microstamping, or ballistic imprinting, works by engraving a microscoping marking onto the tip of the firing pin. [/QUOTE] With my understanding of how firearms work, the firing pin does not hit the bullet, but it hits the cartridge of it, which can be easily collected (a sock over the gun is enough) or for many handguns it is not disposed (you take them out when recharge). How this helps solving crimes? Can't I use some sandpaper to take the mark off, if I want to commit a crime? This law looks very silly to me and indeed, as the article says, it is made "by politicians with little to no knowledge of firearms". Another thing I don't get it, is why the law enforcement is excluded? They don't do crimes, or what?

[QUOTE=LaurV;365435]How this helps solving crimes?[/QUOTE]It doesn't. That is not the point of such laws. The laws are made to make people [i]feel[/i] safer. Whatever made you think laws are made for any other reason? :loco:

[QUOTE=LaurV;365435]I still don't get this. With my understanding of how firearms work, the firing pin does not hit the bullet, but it hits the cartridge of it, which can be easily collected (a sock over the gun is enough) or for many handguns it is not disposed (you take them out when recharge). How this helps solving crimes?[/QUOTE]

An excellent point.

From my understanding, there are two fingerprints involved here...

1. Every rifled barrel imprints a unique pattern onto the slug (the projected portion of the bullet). If one or more fired slugs are recovered, and the gun is, then a fairly sure (but not 100% certain) match can be made.

2. If the firing pin also has a unique pattern on its head, then the cartridge portion of the bullet can be matched.

Obviously, the "smart criminals" will file off the pattern of the firing pin just before the "job", "collect the brass" and dispose of them appropriately, and dispose of the "tool" separately but almost immediately.

[QUOTE=retina;365436]It doesn't. That is not the point of such laws. The laws are made to make people [i]feel[/i] safer. Whatever made you think laws are made for any other reason? :loco:[/QUOTE]

Right... Everyone should have the constitutionally given right to bear semi-automatic military level assault weapons to "feel safe"...

How's that worked out for "ya all's" safety?

To be clear:

The firing pin impacts the primer, which is press fitted into the cartridge brass.

It would be very easy to file a firing pin down or replace the firing pin.

The microstamping in the chamber of the barrel is caused from the expanding brass pressing into the chamber. It would be moderately easy to remove such stampings, and barrels can be replaced, but this is less likely.

Possible solution? If one buys a firearm, it comes with a "sample" brass fired from the factory. This is given to the local police or perhaps the FBI. Just include a padded envelope with the gun. Or have the manufacturer send it directly to the FBI. While they are at it they could send the recovered bullet (that was shot into ballistic gel) so they have a record of barrel striations.

If one changes a barrel or firing pin then it is the responsibility of that person to use an approved barrel or firing pin and to update the information with the people who keep the database.

There is nothing preventing rifles or revolvers from using this technology.

This probably would create a mess of work initially, but it would prove to be useful. Maybe not in all cases, but if it is even moderately successful then it is worth the trouble. (We have no idea why a sample fired bullet is not sent to the FBI already!)

While we have frequently in the past changed barrels and firing pins on our guns, we only did so for "extreme" conditions and it is very unlikely that 1 in a 1,000 people will ever need to do so.

If someone is going to commit a crime with a gun they are very unlikely to reload (as in put powder in the brass, with a new primer and a bullet) their own ammunition, so the worry about multiple markings on a brass casing is not relevant.

We do not have a concrete opinion on this technology yet, and we can (somewhat) understand the (paranoid?) thought process of the gun right's groups who believe any concession to the anti-gun people will result in the eventual banishment of all guns. This extreme stance is why we are no longer a member of the NRA.

For the record, we do not own a gun right now. In the past gun ownership (in the form of competitive pistol shooting) was a major hobby for us. We believe that there probably is a line where both sides could meet to work things out but both sides are unwilling to compromise.

There have been, in the past, several gun laws that were poorly designed. One resulted in newer versions of the 1911's firing pin having a safety mechanism added to them, which unfortunately affects trigger pull quality on ultra-precise competition guns. The 1911 has numerous safeties already, and is considered an "expert" level gun, but they do end up in the hands of ordinary people, too. (The firing pin safety prevents the gun from firing if dropped a certain way. Improper maintenance of the gun is required for this condition to exist as well.)

We are torn on the gun ownership issue because plinking away with a .22 revolver or a tuned 1911 "race" gun is a lot of fun. And very safe when done by sober and intelligent people who understand the gravity of what could happen. We are considered a "safety Nazi" by most gun owners, which scares us because proper gun handling and usage is critical, and most people are very casual (to us) about it, even those who preach safety.

Up front, and this is a very extreme view, we would be entirely happy if any of the following things happened:

All guns except air-powered "BB" or pellet guns are banned. You might be surprised at how nice of a pellet gun one can buy and how they can be used for hunting small game or ultra-high-level competition.

All guns are banned period.

Only revolvers and bolt-action rifles/shotguns without a magazine are allowed.

And so on and so forth.

We do have a major problem with law enforcement not being held to the same standard as ordinary citizens. The local PD in our middle-of-nowhere town is armed and outfitted like a SEAL team. We could talk about this issue or others related to it for hours.

It is our opinion that, at most, a person might need a simple 5-shot hidden-hammer .38 revolver for personal safety.

Owning a gun does not make things safer. And most gun owners are not aware of how an escalation of any encounter could easily lead to a shooting. When you have a gun in your possession you must deescalate any confrontation, even if it means "losing face" or being viewed as a "loser".

Taking a human life is serious stuff. Even firing a warning shot is not cool. (Another topic we could talk about forever!) If you need to shoot, you shoot to kill. But again, one must be calm and not let adrenalin and/or stress tunnel-vision you into thinking that the death of another human being is the only escape.

We do not, as of right now, know anybody in our area that we trust with a gun. We have seen too many mishaps and the like.

Final bit: We were visiting a friend who has a just-walking toddler. The toddler stumbled around and pointed at us with a toy gun, which had an orange plug in the barrel to, we guess, make things safer. We immediately disarmed the toddler and told him "NO!" very loudly, which upset him to no end. Our friends were aghast at our behavior but we told them that that was unacceptable behavior and if it happened again we would not be visiting anymore.

Gun safety begins immediately and is never compromised.

Sorry for all that!

Thanks for the information, Mike. It is good to hear from someone with extensive experience and knowledge.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;365446]Sorry for all that![/QUOTE]

To the contrary...

Thank you (sincerely) for all that!!! :smile:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;365446]Final bit: We were visiting a friend who has a just-walking toddler. The toddler stumbled around and pointed at us with a toy gun, which had an orange plug in the barrel to, we guess, make things safer. We immediately disarmed the toddler and told him "NO!" very loudly, which upset him to no end. Our friends were aghast at our behavior but we told them that that was unacceptable behavior and if it happened again we would not be visiting anymore.

Gun safety begins immediately and is never compromised.[/QUOTE]
I have seen a video clip of a child about that age with a real gun at some party (dLBlde4KmiM for those who care to see it on the popular video site). The child wound up firing a round into the belly of an adult and decking themselves with the kickback.

I personally have fired guns at targets and realise that one should treat every firearm like it is alway loaded. I at times work close to (but completely unrelated to) police practice ranges and other locations target practice occurs. I take special care for strays when I am in the area.

Thank you very much Xyzzy for the very nice post, which enlightened us (me personally) in many areas. I understand both sides of this story. In spite of the fact that people we know (like our SWMBO and in general women, they tend to be more pacifists) would be for removing the guns, we would vote for keeping them. Not going too much into details, and being confident that the American people can solve their own problems, but anyhow, this story about committing crimes reminds me another old story. We once were "robbed" of one object we very much loved (a small 10 cm screwdriver), because some idiot believed that it could be used as a weapon. We argued that I could kill someone better and faster with my bare hands, that screwdriver would only confuse the things and make the process slower and not very reliable. We argued in vain...

TL;DR version: After the communism went down, a lot of Moldavian people came to our country to work, or to live (their language is Romanian) or just bribe some officials to get Romanian passports (as Romania was on the way to become EU member, so, owning a Romanian passport would give them the rights to travel and work in Germany, or other developed EU countries). Most of these guys were just small smugglers, they were bringing different things to sell from one side of the borderline to the other. From east to west, they were mostly selling tools (like hammers, screwdrivers, etc). Very good "Russian army" steel. Never found other so strong. Once I bought a nice small screwdriver, only because it was very cheap. Over the years, I was falling in love with it :blush:, very strong metal tip, never found another one so good! it hadn't changeable tips (I hate changeable tips for screwdrivers!), but the blade was such dimensioned that it could fit almost all screws found in a desktop computer, crossed or straight (I didn't know that when I bought it, I just found that later) and because it was very useful in my work, I was carrying it with me everywhere, for years. Small, delicate ebonite handler, not heavy, but still very strong.

Long story short, sometime I was traveling to somewhere by air and the airport security took my lovely screwdriver away from me. They said it could be used as a weapon. It was shortly after 9-11, when everybody went crazy about security in the planes. The biggest frustration: I knew it before (it was in all newspapers and regulations), and I was [U]very[/U] carefully removing all the bigger and/or sharper stuff from my handbags (like tweezers, for example :smile:, you know how it is, you go to some guy to repair his computers, and you need some tool which you didn't use for one year, but you need it right there, and the guy is an accountant or lawyer and he does not have such tools) before going to the airport, but I didn't believe that the small screwdriver could cause problems. I could really kill someone with my bare hands faster than I could do it with that screwdriver.

Same story with the guns, I think, if the criminal mind is... criminal, it will find a way to kill with or without marked bullets. More should be invested in educating the people, giving them the resources to learn, to understand, or how someone told me earlier, teaching them how to "manage" the "anger". Few idiots will ever be, we use to say in our language that "there is no forest without some dead wood", or more plastic, "the mother of all idiots is always pregnant"....

In their scientific study "Vuurwapengebruik door de politie: de invloed van omgevingsfactoren" (Firearm use by the police: the influence of environmental factors), Vrij, Barton and Winkel found that the probability that police officers would use their guns during an incident was significantly higher if they had driven to it at high speed, or even simply if the weather was unusually hot.

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/firearm-injuries-hospitalize-about-20-us-kids-a-day-study/[/url]

[QUOTE=LaurV;365458]Long story short, sometime I was traveling to somewhere by air and the airport security took my lovely screwdriver away from me. They said it could be used as a weapon. It was shortly after 9-11, when everybody went crazy about security in the planes.[/QUOTE]

LOL... Sometimes real "security" is lost in the "noise"...

One of my cousins is an airline pilot -- certified for both 737s and 747s (the son of a (now retired) 747 pilot who was so good he was tasked to train and certify other pilots)).

He was going through security one day, and they pulled some nail-clippers out of his bag and said "you can't carry these on-board; they could be used as a weapon!

"But I'm the pilot!" said my cousin. "It doesn't matter!" answered security...

My cousin shortly later took the plane off the runway, and set the autopilot. He then looked at his finger-nails he had planned to trim, and then looked at the fire-axe in the cockpit, then looked at his finger-nails again, and then looked at the fire-axe again...

(This is a second-hand story, but this is what my cousin told me. I have never known him to lie. Further, although not required, neither he nor his father would ever accept even a single glass of wine during family gatherings if they were scheduled to fly in 48 or less hours.)

[QUOTE=LaurV;365458]Long story short, sometime I was traveling to somewhere by air and the airport security took my lovely screwdriver away from me. They said it could be used as a weapon.[/QUOTE]

One of my cousins is into arts and crafts. She was visiting once, when she was doing bead work. Among her bead-stringing tools she had a pair of scissors to cut threads. These scissors were about 2 inches long, and had rounded ends. We suspected that there might be a problem, so I followed her into the airport. We showed them to an agent at the counter, who thought they were OK, but went to check. She came back shaking her head in disbelief. I took the dangerous implement home with me and mailed it to my cousin.

[URL="https://www.schneier.com/"]Bruce Schneier[/URL] has for a decade been agreeing with the past several posts here about [URL="https://duckduckgo.com/?kh=1&q=security+theater&sites=www.schneier.com%2Fblog"]"security theater"[/URL].

Very interesting. Thanks, Richard!

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/missoula-montana-homeowner-shoots-teenager-in-garage.html[/url]

Sorry, but I can't feel sorry for the dead guy. He found what he was looking for. This is not some drunk robbing a liquor store. It is a vandal entering my house, and I have all the right to shot him. The trouble in this case is that the vandal was an exchange student from a foreign country, and there will need a lot of diplomatic blah-blah to explain how and what...

This remembers me a story few years ago, in my yard. We live in a well-guarded mooban here, there are a hundred houses or so, there is a gate with security, fences around the residential complex, with cameras, hourly patrols (including during the night) etc, so there is not so common that somebody goes into your house and steal things. Well... Few years ago, one of the neighbors built a new house, and he had a quite strange variegated bunch of fellow constructors wandering around, they all got permission from the security guys to enter the mooban. During this period and few weeks after, different things used to disappear from around the houses, like here a children's bike, there a watering hose from the garden, etc. Thai construction workers are like Romanian gypsies, with the difference that from time to time, they work. :razz:

The neighbors in front of me (American family, in their fifties, teachers at an international school here around) were robbed two times during the night, in an interval of two or three weeks. Not very valuable things: video player, etc. But the scary part is that the thieves went into the house during the night, during they were sleeping, and they were kinda lucky that nothing worse happened. The funny part is that they had a cur of a small dog who was sleeping with them in the house during the night. During the day sometime they let the dog alone, so that scoundrel of a dog made such a nuisance of himself, barking and making terrible noise all the day, and sometimes during the night too.

Well, during the robbery nights, the dog did/said nothing. Not a bark! Not a whisper! No warning! Quiet as a stone! He was either drugged, but better I think he was terrified by the burglars :razz:

The police came, they wrote some papers, most probably the papers ended in some toilet at the police building. Who cares about some rich Americans who were parted from some of their goods?

The security guards were alert for a period, intensified the patrols during the night, etc. We were alerted too, letting the light around the house on during the night, etc.

Back to my yard now, not long after the story told above (still alert, hehe, condition yellow), one night I "felt" a shadow moving into my garden.

As you all know, I use to work during the night, programming, posting on the forums, watching movies, etc. Sometime to early morning hours. Most of the time the lights are off, as I don't need light to operate the computer. In the cold period the doors and windows might be open too. During the night the air is clean, it is quiet and cool. I have a large door opening directly in the garden, in the back of the house. That night, that door was large opened and protected only by a mosquito net. The house was in the dark, but the garden could be well seen from the light on the streets and the moonlight. One guy was cautiously moving toward my door, and I could see him clearly through the window. I took some piece of furniture on my hand (imagine a baseball bat, it was a different thing, but close to it) and hidden myself on the side of the large open door. I could see the guy outside, coming close to the door. He could not see me, because inside of the house was darker. He came as close as 2-3 meters from the door, but not closer. He did not put the head through the door, neither tried to go inside. He stayed there for few seconds, I was worried that he spotted me, but he didn't. Then he just left in hurry.

I closed the door (which is in fact a large glass door) after that, and locked it. I was a bit scared too. Then, in the next 2 minutes, he appeared with another guy, talking loud in Thai and gesturing toward my door. From behind the glass, I recognized the other guy. They were both security guards from the mooban. The first guy saw the door open at two o'clock in the night, and the house in the dark, he wanted to investigate, but he was either afraid, either he wanted a witness, so he brought the other guy. Then they saw the door closed, and they saw me. We smiled to each other, they laugh. I didn't understand what they said, but I guess that most probably it was something like "this idiot [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farang"]farang[/URL] has nothing better to do than haunting the house in the night"...

I was still thinking to that story for months. If the guy would have put his head inside of the house through that door, he would be now, most probably, a dead guy, and I would have been in jail. And all from very good intentions, on both sides, and with no fire weapon involved...

[QUOTE=LaurV;372929]Sorry, but I can't feel sorry for the dead guy. He found what he was looking for.
[/QUOTE]

There is an old saying: Two wrongs do not make something right.

I agree in that I don't feel sorry for the victim either.

As for his father spouting off, I ask: "Why did you fail in your responsibility
to teach your son proper behavior?"

[QUOTE]
This is not some drunk robbing a liquor store. It is a vandal entering my house, and I have all the right to shot him.
[/QUOTE]

Only if you are DIRECTLY THREATENED. And I agree with your assertion
in that case.

It is clear in this case that the shooter set out a deliberate trap and
came out shooting. He also made statements on the previous day that
he was out to get some teenager. This is called murder.

How many of us here can say, with hand on heart, that we never trespassed on other people's property during our teen years?

It wasn't something I made a habit of doing. But when I did trespass, for whatever reason (usually egged on by friends), it certainly didn't cross my mind that I was in danger of being shot dead by the owner.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;372949]There is an old saying: Two wrongs do not make something right.[/QUOTE]But three lefts do.

Here's a company which is manufacturing bullet-proof blankets for use by children in schools when they come under fire.

[URL="http://bodyguardblanket.com/pages/bgourcompany.html"]http://bodyguardblanket.com/pages/bgourcompany.html
[/URL]
Where is this being marketed? Syria? Pakistan? No, the United States of America.

What needs to happen?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;375581]Where is this being marketed? Syria? Pakistan? No, the United States of America.[/QUOTE]Of course. That's where all the money is.[QUOTE=Brian-E;375581]What needs to happen?[/QUOTE]Nothing. Let them waste their money in whatever way they want. No one will be "saved" by this. It is only to appease the FUD that exists in the minds of parents living in a world of media propaganda. Whether that be the US or anywhere else it makes no difference, there are gullible parents everywhere.

[QUOTE=retina;375586]Of course. That's where all the money is.Nothing. Let them waste their money in whatever way they want. No one will be "saved" by this. It is only to appease the FUD that exists in the minds of parents living in a world of media propaganda. Whether that be the US or anywhere else it makes no difference, there are gullible parents everywhere.[/QUOTE]

+1 to all this.

Well, yes, but I'm a lot less bothered about the waste of gullible people's money than I am about the "FUD" which causes it. And, in this case, especially that FUD which will be transferred to the children who are subjected to these blankets and taught how to use them in an emergency. So doesn't something need to happen to make USA citizens feel generally safer from attackers with firearms?

[QUOTE=retina;375586]No one will be "saved" by this. It is only to appease the FUD that exists in the minds of parents living in a world of media propaganda. Whether that be the US or anywhere else it makes no difference, there are gullible parents everywhere.[/QUOTE]

What "media propaganda" did you have in mind, exactly? The routine sensationalizing of violence, or something else?

There's been an average of more than one school shooting every week in the United States since the Newtown shootings. Do parents really have to be "gullible" to worry about the safety of their children in school?

Mind you, I'm all in favor of spending money on safety in direct proportion to actual risk levels (better traffic safety would have far more bang for the buck than these silly blankets). But your diagnosis of "propaganda" seems over the top to me. The dangers aren't just made up.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;375581]Here's a company which is manufacturing bullet-proof blankets for use by children in schools when they come under fire.

[URL="http://bodyguardblanket.com/pages/bgourcompany.html"]http://bodyguardblanket.com/pages/bgourcompany.html
[/URL]
Where is this being marketed?[/QUOTE]Invented, manufactured and marketed in Oklahoma, of course, where [I]the major practical value[/I][sup]*[/sup] is the other touted use -- protection from tornado projectiles -- that all you non-Oklahomans overlooked.

- -[SIZE=2]

[sup]*[/sup] I'm not saying "value for the money".

- - -

[/SIZE]
[QUOTE=Brian-E;375606]Well, yes, but I'm a lot less bothered about the waste of gullible people's money than I am about the "FUD" which causes it.[/QUOTE]You haven't lived in Oklahoma, have you? Don't have an aunt and uncle whose reinforced concrete tornado shelter sticks up two feet above ground in their backyard?

[quote]And, in this case, especially that FUD which will be transferred to the children who are subjected to these blankets and taught how to use them in an emergency.[/quote]... such as a [U]tornado[/U]. Do English or Dutch elementary schools regularly conduct tornado drills like my Tulsa elementary school did?

[quote]So doesn't something need to happen to make USA citizens feel generally safer from attackers with firearms?[/quote]Yes, and it's not Oklahoma's "concealed carry" law ... but many people do die every year in US tornadoes.

- -

It's true that the cost of these blankets is almost certainly prohibitive for stocking in public schools, but [I]what the children are doing in the photo at the website appears to be practicing what they're taught about taking cover during a tornado[/I]. If a shooting were in progress, children would NOT be advised to crouch down by the lockers in the hallway.

I expect a large fraction of sales to be to families for storage at their designated tornado shelter rooms at home. (Such rooms need not necessarily be of special construction. They may simply be interior rooms that could provide best shelter during a near-by tornado.)

Yes, point well taken. My impression from the company's website was that both natural calamities (tornadoes are indeed highlighted) and gunfire attack are handled in fairly equal measure when promoting the benefits of these blankets, and I took a certain liberty in choosing to highlight the latter function (bullet proofness) for the purposes of this thread's discussion.

[B]The gun lobby’s new tactic: redefining 'school shootings' so they don’t count[/B]

[QUOTE]If you’d lost the capacity to be appalled by those opposing reform of America’s gun laws, their latest effort should fix that.[/QUOTE]

Press article:
[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jun/12/gun-lobby-tactic-redefining-school-shootings[/URL]

[url]http://bigstory.ap.org/article/albuquerque-police-officer-fatally-shoots-woman[/url]

[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/accused-florida-movie-theater-shooter-granted-bond/[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;377946][url]http://www.cbsnews.com/news/accused-florida-movie-theater-shooter-granted-bond/[/url][/QUOTE]The real [URL="http://www.clickorlando.com/news/court-date-could-be-set-in-florida-theater-shooting-case/26860010"]WTF[/URL]: [quote]Attorneys for a retired Tampa police captain accused of shooting a man in a movie theater might use a "stand your ground" defense at trial next year.

...

Prosecutors said Oulson was shot in the chest during an argument about texting. Reeves' attorneys say their client shot in self-defense.

Florida's "stand your ground law" says people not involved in illegal activity have the right to "stand their ground" and even use deadly force if they reasonably believe it's necessary to avoid death or great bodily harm.[/quote]

[QUOTE=schickel;377986]I would like that to be taken to court, and argued.[/QUOTE]

It would set a president, and possibly case law.

[url]http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/presidential-precedents[/url]

[url]http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Ex-LA-deputy-pleads-over-kids-prank-gunfire-5704510.php[/url]

just thought this might affect things here
 

[URL="https://gma.yahoo.com/9-old-girl-accidentally-kills-shooting-range-instructor-063706519--abc-news-topstories.html"]9-Year-Old Girl Accidentally Kills Shooting Range Instructor[/URL]

[QUOTE]According to the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office, the instructor – identified as Charles Vacca, 39 – was standing next to the girl, teaching her how to use an automatic Uzi. The girl’s parents stood nearby, capturing video of the experience.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=science_man_88;381531][URL="https://gma.yahoo.com/9-old-girl-accidentally-kills-shooting-range-instructor-063706519--abc-news-topstories.html"]9-Year-Old Girl Accidentally Kills Shooting Range Instructor[/URL][/QUOTE]

It's time to hand out a Darwin award.

Indeed, though the parents are insane, too.

Latest Darwin Award candidate:

[url]http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/26/shooting-instructor-dies-after-girl-accidentally-shoots-him-in-the-head-with-an-uzi/[/url]

Now I'm as big a believer in "girl power" as any sane person, but this is taking it a little too far, IMO. After the girl gets over (hopefully) the worst of her PTSD from this, wonder what her parents will have in mind by way of fun activities for her next summer vacation?

Edit: Whoops, posted before reading the most recent entries - I see the late Mr. Shooting Range Instructor already has a nomination. Consider it seconded.

[url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/limit-u-s-gun-insanity-article-1.1919590[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;381648][url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/limit-u-s-gun-insanity-article-1.1919590[/url][/QUOTE]

[quote=New York Daily News]Guns don’t kill people.

Nine-year-old girls with ponytails and pink shorts on summer vacation do.[/quote]

Couldn't do irony better myself. First class!

[QUOTE=ewmayer;381594]Latest Darwin Award candidate:[/QUOTE]

I agree with you.

It was the instructor who changed the setting on Uzi from single shot to fully automatic, and then told her to pull the trigger.

Oooops....

[QUOTE=ewmayer;381594]Latest Darwin Award candidate[/QUOTE]Too late. He's already reproduced.

Unless you're proposing retroactive birth control, visiting the sin of the fathers on the sons to the third and fourth generations.

[QUOTE=xilman;381656]Too late. He's already reproduced.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but given that he was close to his reproductive prime, this is still natural selection at work. As you know it only takes a tiny overall reduction in fecundity associated with a particular set of personality traits to drastically reduce those traits over a few hundred generations.

While it has not been demonstrated, it is my sincere hope that "gun nuttery" is such a trait, in the larger bin of "excessively risk taking" personality types.

My main worry here, though, is that for all their self-inflicted casualties the gun nuts may still be killing off a similar (or larger) fraction of non-gun-nuts.

At least in this case, however, we know that was not the case, hence an award nomination is merited.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;381662]At least in this case, however, we know that was not the case, hence an award nomination is merited.[/QUOTE]

Come on! At least in this case it is waranted.

"Give me a single shot! Good girl!

"Now lets go automatic...

"Ooooppps....

[url]http://www.juancole.com/2014/08/shooting-raises-instructor.html[/url]

Common sense at last prevails: They’ve raised the age limit to 12.

As we know 12-year-olds are much more capable of handling such responsibility - that's why we let them drive, vote, join the military, marry, and buy liquor. (Not nec. in that order, though).

Word now is that the [URL="http://www.news10.net/story/news/nation/2014/08/28/range-where-instructor-killed-by-girl-drew-concerns/14738249/"]Bullets and Burgers range has closed [/URL]indefinitely, to the relief of some of its neighbors.

[url]http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865610697/Taylorsville-teacher-injured-after-her-gun-discharges-in-school-bathroom.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;382861][URL]http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865610697/Taylorsville-teacher-injured-after-her-gun-discharges-in-school-bathroom.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
To start with I read this article with some sympathy for the teacher who, I guessed, felt safer from her potentially violent students if she carried a gun at school. (Not that I thought she would indeed be safer, quite the contrary. But I still had a smidgeon of understanding, having many years ago taught 15-year-olds myself and by no means always felt completely safe.)

Then I looked at the picture. The kids look about 8-10 years old. And I read more carefully: it's an "Elementary school".

Maybe she feels unsafe from intruders due to the spate of school shootings in recent years in the USA?

But anyway, wouldn't a blanket Federal ban on all guns in schools be a good start to changing the mentality of gun ownership in the USA? Perhaps that measure would get popular support?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;382887](SNIP)

But anyway, wouldn't a blanket Federal ban on all guns in schools be a good start to changing the mentality of gun ownership in the USA? Perhaps that measure would get popular support?[/QUOTE]

Popular support is meaningless. Large majorities already support universal background checks, but you'd never know it, looking at the law books.

[QUOTE=kladner;382904]Popular support is meaningless. Large majorities already support universal background checks, but you'd never know it, looking at the law books.[/QUOTE]
The scenario I would envisage is a major political party (I assume it would have to be the Democrats at the moment) ascertaining that a policy of removing guns from schools by law would have popular support and adopting it to increase their vote in elections.

Are the Democrats so financially dependent on the gun lobby that this is unrealistic?

I really am not sure how the gun extremists such as the NRA, Survivalists, Militias, etc. manage to exert such dominance. It is the same as the outrageous, out-sized political coercion wielded by APAC.

As far as protecting school children goes, consider the following:

[CENTER][B]Another Republican candidate implodes by telling the truth[/B]

[LEFT][QUOTE]"Legitimate rape", "Macaca", "47%", when we catch Republicans saying what they really believe, it's curtains. Tonight, at a local candidate forum, the Republican candidate for Pueblo County Commissioner essentially endorsed the [U]Sandy Hook truther[/U][B]**[/B] position.


Even his Republican cheerleaders, who showed up en masse to support their challenger, turned on him. The boos, gasps, and shouts of shock and contempt came from just about all of the ~200 folks in attendance. There may have been a few people with their tin foil hats in their pockets, but the very vocal outrage seemed unanimous.


The debate was essentially over at that point. The cheerleader applause after each of his answers was distinctly muted. Details below the cloud rising from his vaporized candidacy.
[/QUOTE]**Sandy Hook Truthers:
[QUOTE]The guy's name is Dr. Tom Ready, a dentist, and his Democratic opponent is the incumbent Sal Pace, who's served in various elected positions including the Colorado state legislature.
-----
I was caught off guard when Pace completely ignored the expensive clean energy attack by stating that the two candidates had agreed to keep it clean before the debate started, but since Ready went there... Pace proceeded to ask him about stuff on Ready's Facebook page dealing with [B][U]Sandy Hook being faked so a gun ban could be passed.[/U][/B] Oh, and Pace pointed out that he has a connection to someone whose kid was murdered in that school shooting.


I expected Ready to deflect this easily with a quick, "Why are you talking about nonsense on Facebook, I asked you about voting to raise rates on low income Puebloans for the sake of "clean energy". Explain that vote."


But no.


[B][U]Ready went for it, and began to claim that there is no proof that Sandy Hook actually happened.[/U][/B] Unbelievable.


That was when the crowd erupted. There for a second I thought they were going to drag him out in the street and tar and feather him like he was a Wall Street banker.

[/QUOTE]

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]

[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/heart-milwaukee-girl-shot-head-donated-26781949[/URL]
[QUOTE]Flynn said so far 11 children under the age of 13 have been shot this year in Milwaukee, compared to two last year.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;382917] It is the same as the outrageous, out-sized political coercion wielded by APAC.[/QUOTE]
Deeply worries me too, the influence of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-PAC"]A-PAC[/URL] (wikipedia)

[QUOTE=tha;387324]Deeply worries me too, the influence of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-PAC"]A-PAC[/URL] (wikipedia)[/QUOTE]

:redface: I noticed that typo too late to correct it.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;372892][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/missoula-montana-homeowner-shoots-teenager-in-garage.html[/URL][/QUOTE][url]http://www.wsls.com/story/27659717/self-defense-fails-in-montanas-man-murder-trial[/url]

What is the true purpose of, and reasoning behind, this strange, widely criticised, film showing a teenage boy stealing his parents' gun, taking it to school in his bag and presenting it to his teacher?

[URL]http://mic.com/articles/107174/this-is-the-most-monumentally-stupid-anti-gun-ad-you-ll-ever-see[/URL]

[QUOTE]The creator has defended herself: "I'm not telling kids to commit felonies. My message is that kids should not have access to guns in their houses. Kids should feel safe and their schools should be safe zones. I made this video for that purpose," Sincic [URL="http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/gun-violence-psa-director-rejina-sincic/"]told [/URL][I][URL="http://www.vocativ.com/culture/society/gun-violence-psa-director-rejina-sincic/"]Vocativ[/URL].[/I]
[B]There is a more sinister possibility: [/B]Perhaps the video was produced by pro-gun groups to ridicule gun control activists. "I smell a rat here," Coalition to Stop Gun Violence spokesman Ladd Everitt told [I]Vocativ.[/I] "To me, this reeks of something that's been planted. It's shocking how this suddenly went viral on right-wing media when no one in our movement is promoting this video. I'm actively questioning who this woman is. And I'd like to know who paid for this and why."
[/QUOTE]

The right to arm bairns.
 

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326[/url]

[QUOTE=xilman;391267][url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30636326[/url][/QUOTE]
Squeaking in under the wire for this year's Darwin Awards nominations.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;391274]Squeaking in under the wire for this year's Darwin Awards nominations.[/QUOTE]I would fail this entry under self-infliction requirements although in this case perhaps that is too strict of an interpretation.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;391274]Squeaking in under the wire for this year's Darwin Awards nominations.[/QUOTE]

She already had a gaggle of kids. Too late to prevent reproduction.

What a horrible thing for the child to have to bear.

[URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30880636"]The African state where a grenade is cheaper than a Coke[/URL]
The Central African Republic (CAR):
[QUOTE]"Type 82-2 hand grenades are among the most widespread military item in CAR," says the report, compiled by Britain's Conflict Armament Research group, for the European Union.

The Central African Republic has been in turmoil since rebels seized power in March 2013
"They are so common that they reportedly can be bought for the equivalent of around $0.50-$1.00 (£0.33-£0.66) each, less than a bottle of Coca-Cola," the report says.

"Small and easily concealed, they have had a significant security impact, causing civilian injuries and deaths in Bangui and elsewhere throughout 2014."

One batch of more than 25,000 Type 82.-2 grenades was traced by researchers to a 2006 consignment, manufactured in China, and - according to the packaging - destined for the "Royal Nepalese Army Headquarters". The Nepalese army "insist they have never used grenades of this kind".[/QUOTE]

[URL]http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-missouri-boy-shot-by-5-year-old-20150120-story.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]"Firearms are great, it's when people start leaving them loaded and unattended that things like this happen," White said.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/23/politics/fort-hood-investigation-gun-rules/[/url]

Another armed bairn
 

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-31082294[/url]

Michigan woman accidentally killed herself while adjusting bra holster
 

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/19/michigan-woman-shot-herself-while-adjusting-bra-holster-police-say/[/url]

[QUOTE=only_human;392954][URL="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30880636"]The African state where a grenade is cheaper than a Coke[/URL][/QUOTE]

How can they manufacture them at those prices? :confused:

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;395856]How can they manufacture them at those prices? :confused:[/QUOTE]
The per unit recurring expenses are likely not fully recovered for the full end-to-end distribution but this shows the power of markets to utilize externalities of costs and fulfill desires once any pesky regulations are minimized.
[QUOTE]e batch of more than 25,000 Type 82.-2 grenades was traced by researchers to a 2006 consignment, manufactured in China, and - according to the packaging - destined for the "Royal Nepalese Army Headquarters". The Nepalese army "insist they have never used grenades of this kind".

'Violation'
Some of the other weapons were looted from government arsenals. Others were smuggled, in the hands of foreign mercenaries, across porous borders. But many appear to have been flown into CAR by neighbouring states - including Sudan.

An anti-Balaka fighter near the town of Yaloke in CAR (25 April 2014)
Armed men from rival groups in CAR have trawled many areas looting, killing, burning crops and homes
"The new 2013 shipments included at least two deliveries of weapons by air from Sudan to Bangui," said the report.

"In several cases, Chinese and (suspected) Iranian ammunition present in CAR appears to have been re-transferred from Sudan. In the case of China, this may violate end-user agreements between the governments of China and Sudan."

But it should be noted that Sudan's shipments came before a UN arms embargo was imposed on the Seleka at the end of 2013.[/QUOTE]