NRA - Put Armed Good Guys In All Schools

[Poorisolation]

The whole "good guy bad guy" thing makes me wonder why the NRA seems to believe the world is a bloody comic book.

Actually I do not think they actually believe their rhetoric. I was among those who could have been hooked up to a steam turbine and used to generate electricity in the immediate aftermath of the Lapierre pressers. However I think the object of that charade was not to open any kind of dialogue but merely to fire up more of the bat shit crazy brigade among those whom the NRA relies on for projecting a false sense of its voting power.

If they did actually believe the whole "good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun and nothing else line" they likely would not have used it due to those horrible internationalist commies of the OECD and their horrible decades of carefully accumulated and cross referenced data showing that while most developed countries have a shortage of Good Guys with guns they are even more woefully lacking in the requisite number of bad guys with guns.

Either that or most Anzac, European or Canuck Good Guys are just awesomely way more bad ass that US ones...take your pick.

[Gauthier]

The whole "good guy bad guy" thing makes me wonder why the NRA seems to believe the world is a bloody comic book.

Part and parcel for the NRA narrative that guns solve every problem in the world.

[Occupied Deutschland]

The whole "good guy bad guy" thing makes me wonder why the NRA seems to believe the world is a bloody comic book.

Y'know, criticize them for the idea but this is ridiculous.

I think society as a whole finds it acceptable to classify people going to schools with the intent of murdering everyone there as "bad guys". It's probably okay to classify the police/guard stopping said man with intent to murder schoolkids as the "good guy".

Is it shorthand? Yes. Is the perpetrator probably mentally disturbed in some manner? Quite likely. But unless you are serious about moral relativism, I don't think one can criticize their choice of characterization of school shooters.

[Machtergreifung]

At first, I was thinking along these lines, but after putting some thought into it, I'm not so sure. Then I thought about gun ownership in Israel.

It is forbidden in Israel to own any kind of firearm, including air pistols and rifles, without a firearms license.

Israel Defense Forces officers honorably discharged with the rank of non-commissioned officer, reservists honorably discharged with the rank of regimental commander, ex-special forces enlisted men, retired police officers with the rank of sergeant, retired prison guards with the rank of squadron commander, licensed public transportation drivers transporting a minimum of five people, and full-time dealers of jewellery or large sums of cash or valuables, Civil Guard volunteers, and residents of militarily strategic buffer zones considered essential to state security are eligible for licenses allowing them to possess one handgun. Reservists honorably discharged with the rank of regimental commander are also eligible for licenses allowing them to possess one rifle. Licensed hunters may possess one shotgun, and licensed animal-control officers are allowed to possess two rifles while Civil Guard snipers may possess one rifle.

To legally own a gun as a souvenir, prize, inheritance, or award of appreciation from the military, an individual must first present proper documentation that they are about to receive it. Permits for gun collectors are extremely rare, and typically only given to ex-high-ranking officers.

To obtain a gun license, an applicant must be a resident of Israel for at least three consecutive years, have no criminal record, be in good health, have no history of mental illness, pass a weapons-training course, and be over a certain age (20 for women who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 21 for men who completed military service or civil service equivalent, 27 for those who did not complete military service or civil service equivalent, 45 for residents of East Jerusalem).

Gun licenses must be renewed every three years and permits are given only for personal use, not for business in the firearms sale while holders for self-defense purposes may own only one handgun, and may purchase a maximum of fifty rounds a year, except for those shot at firing ranges.

...

Members of officially recognized shooting clubs (practical shooting, Olympic shooting) are eligible for personal licenses allowing them to possess additional firearms (small bore rifles, handguns, air rifles and air pistols) after demonstrating a need and fulfilling minimum membership time and activity requirements. Unlicensed individuals are allowed supervised use of pistols at firing ranges. Following a number of cases of firearm-related suicides at firing ranges, private individuals who do not own firearms are required to present a certificate of good conduct and a physician's health declaration in order to shoot at commercial firing ranges.

Self-defense firearms may be carried in public, concealed or openly. Israel is notable for being a country with few places where firearms are off limits to licensed individuals (private premises, some government offices and institutions, courts).

In addition to private licenses of firearms, organizations can issue carry licenses to their members for activity related to that organization (e.g. security companies, shooting clubs, other workplaces).

Soldiers are allowed to carry their personal weapons and ammunition while on furlough during active service, uniformed or in civilian clothing.

So maybe we should consider something like this.

Why the American mentality think's it requires such easy access to weaponary is beyond me. The Isreali's have a valid reason for being so well armed (the fact that they're in the middle of a warzone) but I can't see the same for America. Access to thing's like hunting rifles for sporting, yes. Why someone living in the city would need a weapon with near military spec's instead of a handgun, no. Could someone explain?

[Mikland]

If a guy goes into a school and he is armed to the teeth, and he is met by security guards at the school who are armed to the teeth, he either surrenders, or tries to shoot the guards but will be shot down himself. Yes, small children will think its scary, but they will actually be safer. Sure, a security guard might be killed, but at least its not a child. Yes, it is simple, but it really does not need to be so complex.

[Poorisolation]

If a guy goes into a school and he is armed to the teeth, and he is met by security guards at the school who are armed to the teeth, he either surrenders, or tries to shoot the guards but will be shot down himself. Yes, small children will think its scary, but they will actually be safer. Sure, a security guard might be killed, but at least its not a child. Yes, it is simple, but it really does not need to be so complex.

Other possibilities include

1) strikes at a portion of the school property where the armed security guards are not currently located

2) Takes advantage of the element of surprise and shoots down the security guards...even wearing body armour being shot hurts and can frequently be incapacitating for an indefinite amount of time

3) Is one of the security guards

Alas these are not the limits of the ways such a situation could turn out.

[Tmutarakhan]

If a guy goes into a school and he is armed to the teeth, and he is met by security guards at the school who are armed to the teeth, he either surrenders, or tries to shoot the guards but will be shot down himself. Yes, small children will think its scary, but they will actually be safer. Sure, a security guard might be killed, but at least its not a child. Yes, it is simple, but it really does not need to be so complex.

Other possibilities include

1) strikes at a portion of the school property where the armed security guards are not currently located

That's why we need to have armed guards every couple feet, everywhere.

[Poorisolation]

Other possibilities include

1) strikes at a portion of the school property where the armed security guards are not currently located

That's why we need to have armed guards every couple feet, everywhere.

Or and you have inspired me here.

Why not force every child to be home schooled...by their mother of course...who further shall have to be armed at all times and furthermore...be a compulsory member of a teachers' union.

This solution would go far to solving unemployment, boosting gun sales while at the same time removing women from competing with men so much for work in their previous jobs yet at the same time boosting trades union enrolments. There is something in this solution for both big government Dems and back to the stone ages Repubs....who could possibly object?

[Northern Dominus]

If you're going to quote me, at least quote the entire thing and not chop it up and shoehorn my statements to fit your own statement.

After that I mentioned the following:
So that encompasses civilian firearms patterned off of assault rifles and sub machine guns among others. Compared to your average "utility" rifle such as a Remington Model 8 which is designed to be stable and simple by comparison, military-pattern weapons are rather focused and specific in their design. Yes they can be used for other purposes, but their design is first and foremost combat.

As far as Weaver rails...that's a gray area really. Certainly they have both military and civilian applications, but then again they don't come in miles and miles long versions like picatinny rails do. It all comes down to primary application and use.

I only quoted what was needed to be quoted and that was your severe lack of understanding of an AR platform or any other platform of weapons and your understanding of mechanics.

You rail about an AR being quick to aim, Oh, NO, other firearms fail in this category? What are those little iron things? Oh, yeah, they are called iron sights, oh wait maybe you mean red dot sights? Obviously these red dot sights cannot be placed on say, a Winchester bolt action rifle or maybe you mean scopes, gasp not scopes.

You also display your lack of understanding of why an AR platform or other platform rifles that have pistol grips, hip firing a pistol grip rifle is VERY uncomfortable, regular stock weapons are much suited for this task, the other reason for pistol grips is to allow the shooter to remain in control of the weapon while being fired do to the recoil and other forces in play.
Then there is the fact in the way the AR platform or other platformed rifles that use a pistol grip is the way they are designed to allow a comfortable fit when rifle is raised to shoulder and the hand placement.

Now on to picatinny rails VS weaver, here you show your lack of understanding, the difference is with the spacing in between the slots.

And by quoting a small sliver you've just quote-mined me and therefore misrepresented me. I'll thank you to not do it again.

As far as my "misunderstanding"... yeah, USCG Gunner's mate so I'm very familiar with the M4, which is part of the AR family unless you're going to contest that as well. Perhaps the hip thing was a misnomer, generally that denotes firing from a position other than from the shoulder, generally with the arm bent at 90 degrees. Not ideal but its better than not shooting back when under threat. And even if it's not ideal from the traditional hip-firing perspective, it is still designed for quick acquisition and engagement, not stable precision shots, hence the pistol grip and extended magazine among other features. It is a hallmark of, once again, firearms intended for modern combat.

As far as the "argument" regarding non-iron sights...yeah not going to justify that with an answer. Not worth the text space. And forgive me for not knowing the exact difference between picatinny rails vs weaver rails but since I'm only really familiar with the one system and have other things worth my attention rather than familiarizing myself with every single nuance of firearms accessories forgive my lack of knowledge when it comes to spacing.

[Meryuma]

Even better would be arming the law-enforcing to weed out the lunatics, instead of obsessively looking for a way to get out of paying for the law enforcement and mental health infrastructure that we all need to buckle down and pay for.

Why do you think the police are more trustworthy than people who aren't in a position of authority?

[Chernoslavia]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20815130

The US has observed a moment of silence for the 26 victims of the Connecticut school shooting, as a gun lobby group called for armed security at schools.

Bells in Newtown tolled 26 times, one week after 20 children and six adults died at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

In Washington, the National Rifle Association called for "good guys" to be armed for "absolute protection".

More via link.


Good idea? Or bad?

I say bad...not good to have more guns in schools. What good would it do?

I dont support arming teachers and students, but I do support having armed police on campus. And I do not support the ban of semi-automatic sporting/hunting rifles nor am I in favor of banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

[Grinning Dragon]

I only quoted what was needed to be quoted and that was your severe lack of understanding of an AR platform or any other platform of weapons and your understanding of mechanics.

You rail about an AR being quick to aim, Oh, NO, other firearms fail in this category? What are those little iron things? Oh, yeah, they are called iron sights, oh wait maybe you mean red dot sights? Obviously these red dot sights cannot be placed on say, a Winchester bolt action rifle or maybe you mean scopes, gasp not scopes.

You also display your lack of understanding of why an AR platform or other platform rifles that have pistol grips, hip firing a pistol grip rifle is VERY uncomfortable, regular stock weapons are much suited for this task, the other reason for pistol grips is to allow the shooter to remain in control of the weapon while being fired do to the recoil and other forces in play.
Then there is the fact in the way the AR platform or other platformed rifles that use a pistol grip is the way they are designed to allow a comfortable fit when rifle is raised to shoulder and the hand placement.

Now on to picatinny rails VS weaver, here you show your lack of understanding, the difference is with the spacing in between the slots.

And by quoting a small sliver you've just quote-mined me and therefore misrepresented me. I'll thank you to not do it again.

As far as my "misunderstanding"... yeah, USCG Gunner's mate so I'm very familiar with the M4, which is part of the AR family unless you're going to contest that as well. Perhaps the hip thing was a misnomer, generally that denotes firing from a position other than from the shoulder, generally with the arm bent at 90 degrees. Not ideal but its better than not shooting back when under threat. And even if it's not ideal from the traditional hip-firing perspective, it is still designed for quick acquisition and engagement, not stable precision shots, hence the pistol grip and extended magazine among other features. It is a hallmark of, once again, firearms intended for modern combat.

As far as the "argument" regarding non-iron sights...yeah not going to justify that with an answer. Not worth the text space. And forgive me for not knowing the exact difference between picatinny rails vs weaver rails but since I'm only really familiar with the one system and have other things worth my attention rather than familiarizing myself with every single nuance of firearms accessories forgive my lack of knowledge when it comes to spacing.

Why would I contest the M4, I am very familiar with the M4, familiar enough to know that the M4 is more suited for close combat situations. I am also very familiar with a lot of military hardware, what I am contesting is your knowledge, and with you being a GM, I would think you would know a bit more, than spew holier than thou nobody needs this or that statements with little to no regard for clarity nor facts. I am still calling bullshit on your premise of quick to acquisition, any firearm can be used to acquisition a target quickly and has more to do with the shooter than it does the weapon. It may just be me, but I get the feeling you feel that you are more qualified to operate such weapons and there is no possible way anybody else could be qualified to operate such weapons that hasn't been in any type of service. I have run into your types before in the military, and while your type is a very small minority that feels this way, the rest of us will continue to educate and encourage all Americans to enjoy a great American past time with their weapon of choice and the accessories they may want.

[Farnhamia]

Other possibilities include

1) strikes at a portion of the school property where the armed security guards are not currently located

That's why we need to have armed guards every couple feet, everywhere.

Full employment, baby!

[Distruzio]

It's a good idea although arming teachers sounds much better.

[AiliailiA]

No way i could read all of this. But what i have read, people complaining about armedcops, police officers, men trained to defend society, being in our schools. Ever heard of a resource officer? My city has 6,000 registered adults. The high-school has 1200 students. There are six resource officers for the high-school alone, and they really do cover the whole damn place, despite its size. There's four officers stationed at the Junior High School. And three for every elementary school, of which there are five, as well as five in the old high-school, now district headquarters.

Seriously, its already done. Armed cops are already patrolling U.S. schools. And this is a pretty small 'city' too.

OK, well I HAVE read the whole thread. And your post is one of only two or three I chose to reply to.

This is an incredibly high rate of police presence you describe. It reeks of a local or city government giving out "jobs for the boys" when they should be employing more teachers.

Are the SIX resource officers in the high school all full time? That is, are there six of them there all through the school day?

I have no intention of saying where I'm from, so I won't ask what town you're from. But could you please tell me what years are in which schools? That varies from place to place, though the most likely arrangement is 1-5, 6-8, 9-12.

[Grinning Dragon]

No way i could read all of this. But what i have read, people complaining about armedcops, police officers, men trained to defend society, being in our schools. Ever heard of a resource officer? My city has 6,000 registered adults. The high-school has 1200 students. There are six resource officers for the high-school alone, and they really do cover the whole damn place, despite its size. There's four officers stationed at the Junior High School. And three for every elementary school, of which there are five, as well as five in the old high-school, now district headquarters.

Seriously, its already done. Armed cops are already patrolling U.S. schools. And this is a pretty small 'city' too.

OK, well I HAVE read the whole thread. And your post is one of only two or three I chose to reply to.

This is an incredibly high rate of police presence you describe. It reeks of a local or city government giving out "jobs for the boys" when they should be employing more teachers.

Are the SIX resource officers in the high school all full time? That is, are there six of them there all through the school day?

I have no intention of saying where I'm from, so I won't ask what town you're from. But could you please tell me what years are in which schools? That varies from place to place, though the most likely arrangement is 1-5, 6-8, 9-12.

I know you are asking New Babylonia, but I would like to answer.
In the area I am at, and depending on the campus size, there are police and or paid security that will range from one armed person to as many as 8 armed personnel in all schools that are k-12. There are also rumors, that there are teachers / administrative staff that have taken courses and are allowed to carry on school grounds.

[AiliailiA]

OK, well I HAVE read the whole thread. And your post is one of only two or three I chose to reply to.

This is an incredibly high rate of police presence you describe. It reeks of a local or city government giving out "jobs for the boys" when they should be employing more teachers.

Are the SIX resource officers in the high school all full time? That is, are there six of them there all through the school day?

I have no intention of saying where I'm from, so I won't ask what town you're from. But could you please tell me what years are in which schools? That varies from place to place, though the most likely arrangement is 1-5, 6-8, 9-12.

I know you are asking New Babylonia, but I would like to answer.
In the area I am at, and depending on the campus size, there are police and or paid security that will range from one armed person to as many as 8 armed personnel in all schools that are k-12. There are also rumors, that there are teachers / administrative staff that have taken courses and are allowed to carry on school grounds.

OK. Presumably the paid security comes out of school budgets. Do you know who pays for the cops? Police might be quite eager to work in schools (for good reasons or bad) and perhaps it's just a matter of the school giving them permission (and presumably an office or two).

[Grinning Dragon]

I know you are asking New Babylonia, but I would like to answer.
In the area I am at, and depending on the campus size, there are police and or paid security that will range from one armed person to as many as 8 armed personnel in all schools that are k-12. There are also rumors, that there are teachers / administrative staff that have taken courses and are allowed to carry on school grounds.

OK. Presumably the paid security comes out of school budgets. Do you know who pays for the cops? Police might be quite eager to work in schools (for good reasons or bad) and perhaps it's just a matter of the school giving them permission (and presumably an office or two).

The way it was explained to me, the school pays a fee to whichever precinct the officer is from, and yes the officers have a little office somewhere in the school, most of these rooms are the smaller classrooms that are centrally located in the school, the officers and or paid security also have their own parking spot directly in front of the school.

I also would like to point out, that these schools are surrounded with heavy gauge 8' chain link fencing, and after the buses have run their routes, all gates but one are closed and locked, so there is only one way in and one way out. All of the schools also have mag lock doors and you need to be buzzed in to gain entry. Most teachers also lock their doors, so you need to knock on the door to get into the classroom or have someone unlock it for you. I find it sad that in this day and age, schools are setup like prisons, when I went to school campuses were wide open with no fencing except for the ball park.

[Jocabia]

NRA makes profit from dead children?

Baseless libel. Its sad that society always needs a scapegoat

If we weren't having massacres, there would be nothing to be scapegoated for. You reap what you sow.

[Xomic]

The whole "good guy bad guy" thing makes me wonder why the NRA seems to believe the world is a bloody comic book.

Y'know, criticize them for the idea but this is ridiculous.

I think society as a whole finds it acceptable to classify people going to schools with the intent of murdering everyone there as "bad guys". It's probably okay to classify the police/guard stopping said man with intent to murder schoolkids as the "good guy".

Is it shorthand? Yes. Is the perpetrator probably mentally disturbed in some manner? Quite likely. But unless you are serious about moral relativism, I don't think one can criticize their choice of characterization of school shooters.

Which isn't what I'm criticizing them on. I call it comic book logic because in essence, the unspoken premise of the argument (such as it is) is that "good guys always win." It's comic book logic because, in fact, the 'good guys', whether they're police or security guards or the pope don't always win.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

I only quoted what was needed to be quoted and that was your severe lack of understanding of an AR platform or any other platform of weapons and your understanding of mechanics.

You rail about an AR being quick to aim, Oh, NO, other firearms fail in this category? What are those little iron things? Oh, yeah, they are called iron sights, oh wait maybe you mean red dot sights? Obviously these red dot sights cannot be placed on say, a Winchester bolt action rifle or maybe you mean scopes, gasp not scopes.

You also display your lack of understanding of why an AR platform or other platform rifles that have pistol grips, hip firing a pistol grip rifle is VERY uncomfortable, regular stock weapons are much suited for this task, the other reason for pistol grips is to allow the shooter to remain in control of the weapon while being fired do to the recoil and other forces in play.
Then there is the fact in the way the AR platform or other platformed rifles that use a pistol grip is the way they are designed to allow a comfortable fit when rifle is raised to shoulder and the hand placement.

Now on to picatinny rails VS weaver, here you show your lack of understanding, the difference is with the spacing in between the slots.

And by quoting a small sliver you've just quote-mined me and therefore misrepresented me. I'll thank you to not do it again.

As far as my "misunderstanding"... yeah, USCG Gunner's mate so I'm very familiar with the M4, which is part of the AR family unless you're going to contest that as well. Perhaps the hip thing was a misnomer, generally that denotes firing from a position other than from the shoulder, generally with the arm bent at 90 degrees. Not ideal but its better than not shooting back when under threat. And even if it's not ideal from the traditional hip-firing perspective, it is still designed for quick acquisition and engagement, not stable precision shots, hence the pistol grip and extended magazine among other features. It is a hallmark of, once again, firearms intended for modern combat.

As far as the "argument" regarding non-iron sights...yeah not going to justify that with an answer. Not worth the text space. And forgive me for not knowing the exact difference between picatinny rails vs weaver rails but since I'm only really familiar with the one system and have other things worth my attention rather than familiarizing myself with every single nuance of firearms accessories forgive my lack of knowledge when it comes to spacing.

See, I'm all for a good discussion on gun control but the problem is that those arguing for it often have no idea how guns work. Seriously, how can we have a mature discussion about something if half of the argument doesn't even know what they are? "They're scary and they can kill people and go 'taka-taka-taka' isn't really a good answer. As a result, even if they have the best of intentions what usually ends up happening is Feinstein's 1994 ineffective assault weapons ban.

The idea that an AR-15 could be fired quickly, or aimed, from "even the hip" is simply not true. Even Rambo couldn't pull it off, and if Rambo can't do it real life can't do it.

Lanza's AR-15's large magazines are interesting to use as a talking point, but as anyone whose been around guns will tell you: he was also carrying two pistols--a Glock 20 and a Sig Sauer P226--each of which can fire 15 rounds without reloading. Is the difference between reloading two pistols, or one rifle, that different? No, they aren't. Not with those two. It's a facile and, frankly, silly point to argue that the 'large' magazine for his AR was somehow significant in the killing. His magazine could have been ten rounds, or five, and by the reports we have that would not have done anything at all.

[AiliailiA]

I don't know much about the parts of a gun, the different types of gun, the history of guns, or any kind of terminology. I fired off some handguns at a range once, the instructor expressed surprise at how good my aim was and seemed suspicious that I wasn't a complete beginner. But I was. I'd never fired a gun before, apparently I was good at it ... and I walked away thinking "that was a good night out" but have never bothered doing it again. It was alright, but not like amazing.

Does that mean I can't sustain a mature and thoughtful discussion about gun control?

Fuck that. It's like saying I can't have an opinion on murder if I've never killed anyone. Or I can't have a discussion about drugs, unless I've been a junky and been through rehab. Six times.

Gun fanatics (a quite appropriate term for anyone who learns reams of information about gun makes, model, mods, ammo and history) can't repel debate about their hobby by requiring debaters to have detailed knowledge of how guns work, or the difference between one gun and another.

Yes, hobby. Anyone who needs to hunt to feed themselves is on welfare. They're taking from a common resource, and they should pay for the privilege. If they would starve without doing that, then the same advice to them as is so often offered to other welfare recipients: get a job.

I DO think it is necessary for legislators to learn those details of guns, before putting in place something like the assault weapons ban. From what I can see, that Bill is embarrassingly shallow in its definitions of banned characteristics. Could I have done better? Right here and now I probably couldn't, but if it was my job and my duty to make law, yes I would study up.

It is not necessary that the general public, whose votes ultimately decide this, be expert in guns. It's not necessary that they have ever fired a gun (I have btw, it was a fun night out but not something I'd pay money to do).

We can debate intelligently and with purpose WITHOUT knowing all those details. We don't have to have been at both ends of gun, to have some knowledge of the social effects of guns. We don't need to know all the details to vote intelligently nor to debate intelligently. Guns are tools of killing and we all have lives. It's our business even if we don't know all the details of how your precious little toy does its thing.

As if a vendor of arsenic-laced lollies was to dispute the effect of their lollies, like so:

"You say your child died by eating too many of my lollies, but you don't really understand the effect of arsenic on the human metabolism do you? I am an expert, with baccalaureate summa cum laude in Biochemistry, and a PhD in Toxicology, fifteen years in teaching Toxicology at a major university, and 30 articles published in peer-reviewed Toxicology journals. I have 200 citations in those journals. You have ... just an opinion. Your kid died, get over it."

We should just back off from debate about guns, because we're not expert in gun lore?

In your dreams. In your dreams, gun fanatic.

[Northern Dominus]

I don't know much about the parts of a gun, the different types of gun, the history of guns, or any kind of terminology. I fired off some handguns at a range once, the instructor expressed surprise at how good my aim was and seemed suspicious that I wasn't a complete beginner. But I was. I'd never fired a gun before, apparently I was good at it ... and I walked away thinking "that was a good night out" but have never bothered doing it again. It was alright, but not like amazing.

Does that mean I can't sustain a mature and thoughtful discussion about gun control?

Fuck that. It's like saying I can't have an opinion on murder if I've never killed anyone. Or I can't have a discussion about drugs, unless I've been a junky and been through rehab. Six times.

Gun fanatics (a quite appropriate term for anyone who learns reams of information about gun makes, model, mods, ammo and history) can't repel debate about their hobby by requiring debaters to have detailed knowledge of how guns work, or the difference between one gun and another.

Yes, hobby. Anyone who needs to hunt to feed themselves is on welfare. They're taking from a common resource, and they should pay for the privilege. If they would starve without doing that, then the same advice to them as is so often offered to other welfare recipients: get a job.

I DO think it is necessary for legislators to learn those details of guns, before putting in place something like the assault weapons ban. From what I can see, that Bill is embarrassingly shallow in its definitions of banned characteristics. Could I have done better? Right here and now I probably couldn't, but if it was my job and my duty to make law, yes I would study up.

It is not necessary that the general public, whose votes ultimately decide this, be expert in guns. It's not necessary that they have ever fired a gun (I have btw, it was a fun night out but not something I'd pay money to do).

We can debate intelligently and with purpose WITHOUT knowing all those details. We don't have to have been at both ends of gun, to have some knowledge of the social effects of guns. We don't need to know all the details to vote intelligently nor to debate intelligently. Guns are tools of killing and we all have lives. It's our business even if we don't know all the details of how your precious little toy does its thing.

As if a vendor of arsenic-laced lollies was to dispute the effect of their lollies, like so:

"You say your child died by eating too many of my lollies, but you don't really understand the effect of arsenic on the human metabolism do you? I am an expert, with baccalaureate summa cum laude in Biochemistry, and a PhD in Toxicology, fifteen years in teaching Toxicology at a major university, and 30 articles published in peer-reviewed Toxicology journals. I have 200 citations in those journals. You have ... just an opinion. Your kid died, get over it."

We should just back off from debate about guns, because we're not expert in gun lore?

In your dreams. In your dreams, gun fanatic.

To be fair, there are individuals who do collect firearms as examples of historical artifacts. For example one person might have a Smith and Wesson Model 3 revolver and a Winchester Model 1894 revolver because they're an amateur historian specializing in the old west, and those are two of the more "signature" cowboy firearms.
Another collector might be a war historian and have an example of every US service rifle from the Pennsylvania Long Rifle right up to a civilian version of the SCAR-H. Usually if someone is a serious collector and a historian the firearms won't be the centerpiece but part of a larger collection in general, and sometimes that collection gets taken on the road to help educate the public, firearms included.

That I have no problem with at all. Because in both of those cases usually the collector in common views the firearms not as entities in and of themselves but of tools, of devices used by brave and bold men and women. Nor do I have an issue with firearms collectors who do so because of the different innovations in engineering or metallurgy that some firearms represent. Again, the firearm in question isn't some sort of demi-being, but a device and treated accordingly.

However there are people out there that claim to be firearms collectors, but act in manners more akin to firearms hoarders. The mentality you described, and I know you're not the biggest fan of the term but it applies here, is indicative of the Cult of the Gun. The whole "Oh you don't understand" exclamation is about the same one I'd imagine people running off to join Jim Jones or David Koresh would have screamed at people with valid concerns as well. It's a symptom of valuing the firearm over the cowboy, or the soldier, or the police officer, or any other brave person to whom a firearm was a tool of the job, rather than some sort of holy symbol.

[Poorisolation]

See, I'm all for a good discussion on gun control but the problem is that those arguing for it often have no idea how guns work. Seriously, how can we have a mature discussion about something if half of the argument doesn't even know what they are? "They're scary and they can kill people and go 'taka-taka-taka' isn't really a good answer. As a result, even if they have the best of intentions what usually ends up happening is Feinstein's 1994 ineffective assault weapons ban.

Seriously how can you have an argument on the subject when this very same problem has come up in other industrialised nations and been addressed thus allowing for a comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of different types of gun control legislation?

I mean really? I mean how can you have an intelligent discussion when the effectiveness of the 1994 Feinstein legislation on "assault weapons" can only be compared with legislation from another country that has a white Anglo-Saxon, English speaking majority population under a federal system of government living in a range of communities from isolated rural populations to densely concentrated urban sprawls, that has a pre-colonial relic indigenous population of former pastoralists?

I mean where in the world, could you find a country that looks so much like America that since the 19th century a small but not insignificant number of Americans have chosen to emigrate to that large antipodean island...with kangaroos...duck billed platypuses but hey, I think even the NRA would struggle to argue that having weird critters makes an assault weapons' ban more effective than it might be otherwise...not that that will stop them I imagine the grasp of the leadership on sanity does at times seem tenuous but still the fact remains that there is sample population with a sample piece of legislation that closely resembles a similarly sized US population for comparison.

Hence it is easily possible to have an intelligent debate without everyone fully understanding the full functionality of a modern gas operated short stroke semi-automatic carbine firing intermediate rifle calibre ammunition. Which is a good thing as a large number of gun enthusiasts strike most trained professionals as barely being able to load a revolver without supervision.

Now the whole purpose of the offer to limit semi-automatic weapons to a ten round magazine is not actually being made by gun-haters. No rather it needs to be realised that this is a proposal that originated with gun lovers who recognise there is a problem. The aim of the chosen cut off point is to create a situation that maximises the difficulties of a single shooter attempting a spree killing but would still allow a group of armed and organised citizens, using the unmodified weapons from their own arms lockers to oppose at least the light infantry and police formations of hypothetical "Tyrannical Government".

The thing is that there is no possible piece of legislation nor any means of arming the entire population of a nation that will prevent All gun crime. Even within the tightly bonded, highly disciplined and often rigidly enclosed world of a military organisation misuse of firearms is unstoppable. What however you can do is limit the number of times this occurs. That is why, especially in America, it is referred to as gun control and not as gun prohibition.

Given the nature of the American landscape there are those, in cut off rural areas, who can legitimately argue that they receive greater protection from their weapons than danger from the same source. This does not by and large tend to be true for most urban dwellers, statistics from the US alone let alone when examined together with those of of other industrialised nations overwhelmingly demonstrate that a typical civilian is more likely to be killed or injured by their own weapon rather than someone else's. The next most dangerous subset of firearms to any given American are those held by family and friends, you do not have to search hard to find an instance of someone getting shot by a rifle or pistol or even shotgun that parent or child or lover was cleaning on the kitchen table.

Yet rather than take a far more draconian approach, easily backed by directly comparable real world statistics of fires arms use and effectiveness worldwide gun-control advocates have taken a rather (one might legitimately say extremely) restrained approach in calling for the curtailment of the availability of high capacity magazines. Would that stop all spree killings? Likely not, it is more intended to limit the lethality and frequency of such episodes by ensuring a shooter would spend more time reloading and less time shooting and would be more likely to desist in the first place due to the sheer inconvenience of having to stuff their pockets with quite so many separate mags. Yet at the same time it would allow persons who might chose to describe themselves as "liberty loving patriots" the means to hand to conduct targeted assassination or guerilla warfare against the future "Tyrannical Government" should it ever arise.

If you are reduced to describing such advocates as gun haters then you must really doubt the validity of your argument in ways that I cannot even begin to fully grasp.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

That's good for prevention and all, but the lack of that approach has already created a lot of criminals. The question now becomes how best to protect the innocent from them.

well they can start by not making more.

Yeah, but when there already are a lot of them, there is more need for, as the NRA puts it, good guys with guns.