how right you are. why was the story of the off duty officer in the theater in San Antonio not more widely reported? she shot an armed man who had just killed his ex next door and than started to shoot up a theater. thank God she was there.

In terms of the overall murder rate vs. weapon used, the author makes the point.

The problem is, when you look at mass shooting incidents, semi-automatic firearms with multiple high capacity magazines are the common thread. Omaha Vaun Mar, Denver Theater, Oregon Shopping mall, Columbine, Sandyhook, Wisconsin Siek (sp?) temple; Wisconsin Douglas County, Virgina Tech, Arizona - the list goes on and on.

I am a life member of the NRA. I understand, and don't for a minute doubt there is a "slippery slope" of gun control, or that the ultimate goal of many in our country is the outright ban of all firearms held by civilians. I have absolutely no doubt about the intent of the enemies of the 2nd Ammendment.

But I am no longer willing to look upon these mass shootings, committed, yes, by people who are mentally unstable and who don't give a damn about any gun "law", and say, "well, that's too bad; I'm really sorry about that."

Just because we can't implement a perfect restraint against evil doesn't mean we shouldn't try to restrain evil at all. Just because there will always be criminals who kill with firearms doesn't mean we are powerless to mitigate the extent of their atrocities.

I certainly don't have all the answers - maybe I don't even have a single good one. But I cannot ignore that we have a problem with a definte pattern when it comes to mass shootings. The red thread is high volume magazines in semi-auto firearms, and no one can deny that.

There are many other avenues of action we can and should take, but I doubt we have the courage as a society: violence in media, music, video games & hollywood; broken families & too many single parents who have too little support from their churches, neighbors, schools, and extended family. A culture that accepts mediocrity and embraces consumption and has turned away from anything "difficult" to chase blindly after only what is "easy", "immediate", or "painless."

Someone once said that the solution to any social problem is to strengthen families, and that doing so renders all other solutions moot. I believe there's more than a grain of truth in that, and it's something anyone and any family can begin to work on immediately.

I do hope, in the mean time, however, that good ideas come to the forefront as to how these sort of mass shootings can be hindered, if not prevented, in the future.

friar

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:
In terms of the overall murder rate vs. weapon used, the author makes the point.

The problem is, when you look at mass shooting incidents, semi-automatic firearms with multiple high capacity magazines are the common thread. Omaha Vaun Mar, Denver Theater, Oregon Shopping mall, Columbine, Sandyhook, Wisconsin Siek (sp?) temple; Wisconsin Douglas County, Virgina Tech, Arizona - the list goes on and on.

I am a life member of the NRA. I understand, and don't for a minute doubt there is a "slippery slope" of gun control, or that the ultimate goal of many in our country is the outright ban of all firearms held by civilians. I have absolutely no doubt about the intent of the enemies of the 2nd Ammendment.

But I am no longer willing to look upon these mass shootings, committed, yes, by people who are mentally unstable and who don't give a damn about any gun "law", and say, "well, that's too bad; I'm really sorry about that."

Just because we can't implement a perfect restraint against evil doesn't mean we shouldn't try to restrain evil at all. Just because there will always be criminals who kill with firearms doesn't mean we are powerless to mitigate the extent of their atrocities.

I certainly don't have all the answers - maybe I don't even have a single good one. But I cannot ignore that we have a problem with a definte pattern when it comes to mass shootings. The red thread is high volume magazines in semi-auto firearms, and no one can deny that.

There are many other avenues of action we can and should take, but I doubt we have the courage as a society: violence in media, music, video games & hollywood; broken families & too many single parents who have too little support from their churches, neighbors, schools, and extended family. A culture that accepts mediocrity and embraces consumption and has turned away from anything "difficult" to chase blindly after only what is "easy", "immediate", or "painless."

Someone once said that the solution to any social problem is to strengthen families, and that doing so renders all other solutions moot. I believe there's more than a grain of truth in that, and it's something anyone and any family can begin to work on immediately.

I do hope, in the mean time, however, that good ideas come to the forefront as to how these sort of mass shootings can be hindered, if not prevented, in the future.

friar

I'm happy to see you are against a "semi-automatic firearms" and "high capacity magazine" ban.

Friarmeier,
You are right on many levels and i believe you have used common sense to develop your opinion.
Unfortunatly the majority of america has left commonn sense behind. I am sure are elected officials that we keep sending back time after time, will come up with a useless solution that restricts law abiding citzens rights. While doing little to solve the real problems we face.

Thunderhead, you are exactly right, and I agree 100% with what you right.

Sevastopol, I am not "against" semi-automatic firearms, no matter what their exterior appearance might be.

I am not necessarily against high-volume magazines, either, though they are clearly a common element in each of these mass shootings. To that end, I would be in favor of some type of "hinderance" aimed at curtailing madmen (we see no women committing these types of crimes), aimed at "stemming" the flow of mass violence committed against innocents.

The current bunch of liberal politicians that infect most of the Democratic Party are wholly partisan enemies of the 2nd ammendment. I understand that & agree with that wholeheartedly. What we need, then, is for sensible Republican & Democrat politicians to defend the 2nd ammendment rights of law abiding citizens, while making every effort to hinder madmen from committing such crimes.

I don't care how we hinder these madmen, but we must at least try. I don't care what method/methods we employ (I speak knowing there are many pitfalls & poisons to choose), but to do nothing is to say "I don't care about your family" in the face of their loved one being butchered.

We no longer have the luxury of refusing to see the common elements in these shootings: unstable/mentally deranged men; high-volume magazines; a general citizenry unarmed & unable to do anything but cower & hide & take casualties.

So, if anything, I'd argue for more people to be armed - concealed carry or openly worn - so that innocents would at least have a chance of being protected/saved by a Good Samaritan bystander. And that, by the way, is my stance in the congregations I've served: I've had men I've known to be trained & proficient & carrying concealed, sitting in my pews, for then I let the potential madman know there'll be hell to pay for him ASAP.

May the bastards burn in hell.

friar

quote:

What we need, then, is for sensible Republican & Democrat politicians to defend the 2nd ammendment rights of law abiding citizens, while making every effort to hinder madmen from committing such crimes

friarmeir:
With all due respect, I think that comment is the flaw in your argument. You are assuming that the politicians will take the high ground and work to protect the rights of everyone. From what we've seen, especially over the last 4 years is exactly the opposite. It's been "rule by executive order and to hell with what the common man wants." Hell, look at what the annoited one told Putin - "I'll have more leeway in my second term".
Ideally, I think your argument would stand ground but we happen to be ruled by self serving bastards, only interested in their re-election & power.
Regardless, I still respect your post & position.
Bear in Fairbanks

I agree %100 with you Bear, that is the flaw in my argument, and my great fear is that there never will be anyone in government willing or able to protect the 2nd ammendment rights of honest American citizens.

And that is maybe the thing that discourages me the most, because I think we could make reasonable headway & see fewer innocent people hurt/killed, if only we had reasonable politicians willing to do so.

One experience that will be forever & indellibly burned into my soul is the experience of a neighboring pastor when I served in Minnesota. One of his parishoners was a 19 year old woman who'd moved to Fargo-Moorhead for college. One night while walking from her job in the mall through the parking lot to her car, she was abducted by an illegal alien, raped, murdered, and butchered.

A friend in the newspaper business in the Twin Cities said that law enforcement told him it was THE MOST brutal rape they'd seen.

From that time on I made up my mind that the best thing to do is to fight tooth, nail, and claw against an assailant, never giving up, using whatever weapon available, even if it meant certain death. I am a full proponent of law-abiding citizens of voting age (18) or older having unfettered conceal-carry rights, of either semi-auto or revolver pistols.

I do recognize that my position would include restricting high-volume pistol magazines. My gut feeling is that 5 to 9 or 10 rounds from a modern pistol would be a deadly & effective deterrent; a back-up magazine would complete any resonable armament. If I'm in a fight where I need a 3rd magazine, it's time for me to run.

I know there are no water-tight arguments & that every position will be less than perfect. It's only that my heart & soul tell me we cannot continue to let innocents be murdered, raped, butchered, and gunned-down. Again, I'm not arguing against individual ownership of modern weapons - by upstanding citizens for any resonalbe purpose they might have. I am suggesting that we may stem the flow of innocent blood in mass shootings by some limitation of access (not necessarily a ban) of high capacity magazines.

I do believe that a much more robust & successful hinderance of these maniacs - far beyond any firearms based limitations - would be to stengthen families; but there are many difficulties with this line of action today in our country, and at best would take years to implement. Nonetheless, they are worth pursuing.

We also have the problem of how to compassionately & respectfully help the mentally ill. That's an area far beyond my layman's experience, though.

I certainly welcome ideas better than my own!

God bless,

friar

friarmeir, you are jumping over dollars to pick up dimes.

The 2nd Amendment is not about duck hunting. It is designed as a **final** check on an absolutist despotism, a last defense against tyranny. Once we surrender the **right** to own fully capable weapons of self defense, we submit ourselves to the mercy of a very uncertain future.

History shows a very unpleasant cycle of decay applied to all previous civilizations. Does anything in today's news give you the confidence to think we are immune to this process?

Are there costs associated with maintaining this freedom? Of course there are, but the price of surrendering our freedom will ultimately be even higher.

Analog, if you think I equate the 2nd ammendment with hunting, you've not read my posts above very carefully.

I am a careful student of history; perhaps moreso than most. I don't deny the threats some of you have highlighted on this thread or the other attendant one on the American Hunting board.

As for costs...our country has now come to the place where I am no longer willing to insist on my freedom if it means the deaths of innocent children.

Call it dimes, if you will. But both you and I will have to answer before God for the price others have had to pay.

I wish you the best,

friar

p.s. I would ask, what solution do others suggest? Does anyone believe there is any possible restraint against such killing of innocents? Many of you say "thats just the price of an unfettered 2nd ammendment", but do you really wish simply to look past such carnage?

If this happened in your community, what would you do?

If this happend to your family, what would you do?

I've heard a lot of critiques of my position - fair enough. But what will you bring to the table for consideration?

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:
...
; a general citizenry unarmed & unable to do anything but cower & hide & take casualties.

So, if anything, I'd argue for more people to be armed - concealed carry or openly worn - so that innocents would at least have a chance of being protected/saved by a Good Samaritan bystander.

friar

I've reduced your post down to the true problem - identified in red - as well as the solution - identified in blue - except that you missed the second true problem which is gun free zones as well as its solution which is elimination of all gun free zones without exception.

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:
...
; a general citizenry unarmed & unable to do anything but cower & hide & take casualties.

So, if anything, I'd argue for more people to be armed - concealed carry or openly worn - so that innocents would at least have a chance of being protected/saved by a Good Samaritan bystander.

friar

I've reduced your post down to the true problem - identified in red - as well as the solution - identified in blue - except that you missed the second true problem which is gun free zones as well as its solution which is elimination of all gun free zones without exception.

There you have it.

quote:

Originally posted by Sevastopol:

quote:

Originally posted by capoward:

quote:

Originally posted by friarmeier:
...
; a general citizenry unarmed & unable to do anything but cower & hide & take casualties.

So, if anything, I'd argue for more people to be armed - concealed carry or openly worn - so that innocents would at least have a chance of being protected/saved by a Good Samaritan bystander.

friar

I've reduced your post down to the true problem - identified in red - as well as the solution - identified in blue - except that you missed the second true problem which is gun free zones as well as its solution which is elimination of all gun free zones without exception.

There you have it.

Yes, that is exactly the kernel of my argument. Thank you!

friar

friarmeier-Your posts are not only well thought out but utilize logic and common sense in an approach to a topic that bitterly divides the country. And as you alluded to, there are no easy answers or quick panaceas, either.

There is no absolute answer because in the end you cannot control human nature. Armed folks albeit with swords, arrows, knives or stones have been killing unarmed people since time immemorial.

The common thread in all of these instances is they were committed by a non-law abiding citizen. The madman in China who stabbed multiple children didn't even have a gun. The madman in Norway killed 92 without a gun. In many of the recent U.S. cases the perpetrators were on meds or had just recently been taken of meds which are known to cause issues during withdrawal. So this is also a common thread.

High cap mag bans are not the answer. There is no objective way to set a capacity only subjective. Subjective is subject to whim. So let us say we set the limit at 10. Are you willing to admit that it is okay to kill 10 people but not okay to kill 12 or 13? Limiting the capacity to 10 will not stop the problem but as politicians the obvious answer will be that "we did not go far enough".

The principal at Sandy Hook had the opportunity to lunge at the perpetrator as his only means to stop him. I dare say he could have drawn, shot and stopped had he been armed.

Columbine had armed security. This guy shot at the perpetrators from 60 yards away from behind a car. This lends one to believe that his role was parking lot security i.e. prevention of auto break in or theft. He did what he could but his job was not to deny access to the school thereby protecting the occupants. His job was to deny access to cars in the parking lot. If his primary function was to deny access to the school itself then being in the parking lot 60 yards away does not negate the validity of security if he was not in his intended locale for whatever reason.

So what is the key to preventing armed people from hurting unarmed people? Equality. How many of these shooters turned their guns on themselves when someone else with a gun showed up? The proper application of properly armed and properly trained individuals is the answer. This could mean faculty, security, LEO or some combination.

Magazine restrictions or bans are not the answers. The Sandy Hook shooter had multiple guns. So buying one or two more guns would have prevented the spree? Why do you think Brinks arms their folks when they pick up and deliver money? Do you think Brinks will stop this practice if we ban or restrict high cap mags or assault weapons?

Magazine restrictions will never work, at least not on the criminal element. Consider how hard it would be for the police forces in America to track down and confiscate millions of untraceable objects roughly the size of a smart phone. The only "high capacity" magazines to be taken in will be those handed over by law abiding citizens, you know the ones that unless stolen would not be involved in a crime anyhow. So we will be left with millions of these "evil objects" in our society, although all in the hands of criminals now. Interesting article on the reltionship between magazine capacity an the VA tech shooting few years back http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G...d-2007-Mass-Shooting

As for giving up our rights to freedom to save lives, I would do it in a heartbeat, if me giving up my guns(which is more than one or two)to save the lives of the little ones at Sandy Hook I would do it in a minute, put em all in the smelter myself and never look back, but it simply does not work that way. We see all over the world countries that have strict gun control having significantly higher violent crime rates, South Africa having a ten times higher murder rate than the US despite having severe restrictions on private firearms ownership. As far as this goes, I can go back and several examples of countries with higher murder rates than the US with much stricter gun laws.

Interestingly lacking in this debate is any factual information about the use of "assault weapons" in crime in America, consider that less than 1/5th of one percent of all violent crimes involve an "assault weapon" and less than 1% of all gun crimes involve them, it's a wonder that such a small player on the crime scene gets so much attention. I have not even begun to speak of the atrocities committed again unarmed citizens through history that have cost tens of millions of lives young and old.

I do find it interesting though that while our government is always interested in restricting firearm ownership, every effort to create a mental health database is crushed due to privacy concerns, so the right of privacy of a person with mental health issues then trumps my constitutional right to bear arms??? Anyhow, just some random rumblings, as for anything I said, it can be confirmed with a quick internet search of violent crime rates or FBI crime statistics.

Eleeton & jcarr - I am listening. You make good points.

friar

quote:

The key to curbing the unlawful use of firearms is the stricter enforcement of existing laws. There are about 20,000 firearms laws already on the books in this country. To prevent crime, we must fully enforce those laws already on the books. I am disappointed to see the proposals currently being discussed by Members of Congress are merely an attempt to make people feel more secure without providing any real security. Someone who is truly intent on using a gun to commit a crime will find a way to obtain one regardless of what laws are imposed.

from Michael C. Burgess, M.D., Member of Congress as posted by W. Reich in Thread on Assault Weapons Ban

In the thread above, we find the other dilemma we face: Dr. Burgess states that it is impossible to prevent someone who is truly intent on committing a crime from obtaining a gun. I tend to agree. But only two sentances earlier he writes "to prevent crime, we must fully enforce those laws already on the books."

My question then, is: If it is impossible to prevent a criminal from obtaining a firearm, then how would fully enforcing existing laws prevent crime?

It's a classic catch 22, and we're just talking round & round.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just got my most recent snail-mail edition of The Week. It has a ton of articles about this issue. You can find an online edition here:

The Week

I'm going to sit back and listen for a while now. Time to think...

God bless & best wishes,

friar

Friar, one of the ways they can actually curb crime by enforcing the law is to prosecute known felons who falsify their ATF form 4437 in an effort to illegally purchase a firearm through white market outlets. In these cases of which there has been literally hundreds of thousands of attempts made and thwarted by the background check system the numbers of these criminals who have been prosecuted though has been virtually non existent. Now these cases are cut and dried, they filled out a form with what they knew to be false information to get a gun, now why on earth would they need a gun so bad as to take this risk??? To commit another crime! You have to wonder why would our government all but refuse to prosecute cut and dried cases which result in felony convictions and significant jail time?
http://media.al.com/live/photo...7f23a5d0998fc5b9.jpg
Looking at the attached graph you have to wonder why such a clearly anti gun administration would cut firearm crime prosecution rates by nearly half, possibly the same reason he helped smuggle guns into a foreign country, to put the 2nd Amendment on the chopping block?

As for the essences of your question Friar, no amount of laws will completely stop the criminal element from possessing firearms. Just can't happen, they are criminals after all. But by enforcing the laws we have on the books and not restricting access to firearms by honest law abiding citizens you can make crime far less enticing. I guess if trying to buy the gun will get you ten, and if you get it chances are someone in the store you try to rob will shoot your worthless ass, maybe you find a different way of getting what you want because the cost is too high.

If memory serves corectly in 2011 there were 71,000 rejections through the instant check system which translates to 71,000 felonious criminal acts. 77 were prosecuted or about 0.1%.

So a person who wasn't supposed to have a gun attempted to buy one that means they were trying to get one. Did they get one elsewhere this is not known. But if they were locked up for the felony they quite possibly were prevented from getting one elsewhere and or using it if they did.

Enforcing the existing laws does no necessarily mean that the same method of enforcement has to be used. Enforcing the speed limit can be by radar gun. clocking the speed with aircraft or ground markers. We currently endeavor to prohibit felons from obtaining guns by the instant check system. Couldn't we also enforce this law by putting a big red "F" on their driver's license or state issued ID? You have to produce ID to buy a gun and fill out the 4473. If such a means of enforcing the existing law were in place this would also help address the "gun show loophole" issue. This would not stop the problem but it would make enforcement of the existing law more effective. The burden of the law shouldn't be on the law abiding but rather on the criminal.

One thing people haven't brought up on this thread is the fact that these mass shooters had plenty of time to have killed all those people with clips holding a smaller amount of ammo. It only takes a second or two to drop one out and slip another one in. These people were involved for several minutes or more before any help arrived, so clip or magazine size would not have prevented these shootings. Also, it was a lady principal, not a guy, that tried to stop Lanza at Sandy Hook. Yes, if she had a gun it would very probably have turned out much different.

As you mention Topgun 30-06 that is the fallacy of a high cap mag ban. If we ban larger than 10 the problem will not go away. The next "logical" step will be that the ban work because they didn't go far enough not that their ban solution doesn't work.

I had only heard principal with no mention of gender. Thanks for the clarification.