74 school shootings since Sandy Hook. More dead today.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Although Feinstein placed her emphasis primarily on the ban of the AR-15's, to me that is just the beginning of other weapons with similar criteria that may be the subject of future bans on firearms. Gun control is not nearly as important as asshole control, that's really the key to controlling gun violence. Confront the man, the guy who commits these crimes. He will always strive to find new ways to commit violent crime with or without gun control or gun banning. We already have laws in place which prohibit the possession, sale or access to firearms by convicted felons. America happens to be a country with a vast history of Gun Culture. America is also a country with a high level of violent crime. America also has for the most part a law abiding citizenry. Those individuals deserve to be empowered and protected and given the ultimate power and security to protect themselves. Where as those that have entered into the criminal sector are and should be restricted.

Jim

I am not Nostradamus so I am not in the habit of predicting the future based on the current time. You are obviously a person who believes in "give them an inch and they'll always want more".

You probably have the legal power to protect yourself in 99.99999% of those situations where you might need to do so. You can own all the firepower you need in your home to protect yourself and your family. You can carry a concealed handgun outside the home. But there are laws in place to protect non gun owners too. Such as establishing gun-free zones where it is deemed in the best interest of the majority.

[Allup-init]

I'm not Nostradamus either speed racer. But I do study history and never has a deranged killer ever turned away when he walked past a gun free zone sign. Again base your view of a law on it's effect on crime not it's intentions. EVERY SCHOOL SHOOTING HAS HAPPENED IN A GUN FREE ZONE.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

I base my view of a law on it's effects not its intentions. Every school shooting and bank robbery take place in gun free zones yet they still take place so your argument is null and void because your perceived safety isn't accomplished. Your business or house is private property and you can manage them as you see fit. In my home guns are encouraged and we both have the same number of firearms deaths. Zero. The law is pointless and unneeded.

Without such laws gun owners could carry their weapons wherever they so chose to do so. The one statistic that no one has any idea on is how many lives have been saved by having gun-free zones. Example being my work building. No one has ever been a homicide victim. Would there have been any homicides if the gun ban did not exist? I have no idea, but I'd hate to fire an employee knowing that he might be carrying.

You do realize that more people are killed in their homes by spouses, friends, family, etc. than are killed by home invasions:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gu...homicide-risk/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199310073291506

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2014/0...homicide-risk/

http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html

So you go right ahead and encourage guns in your home. Certainly your right. Me? No way.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

I'm not Nostradamus either speed racer. But I do study history and never has a deranged killer ever turned away when he walked past a gun free zone sign. Again base your view of a law on it's effect on crime not it's intentions. EVERY SCHOOL SHOOTING HAS HAPPENED IN A GUN FREE ZONE.

And how many lives have been saved by having gun free zones? No one can answer that question. You have absolutely no idea how effective gun free zones are or are not. We only hear about how ridiculous gun free zones are when a tragedy occurs. I have seen heated arguments in bars, which are gun free zones. I can only imagine what might happen if guns were allowed in the bars. Instead of a fight with punches thrown, someone would be dead.

Here's a scenario for you. Assume there is someone in a college class building shooting people similar to Virginia Tech. The difference is that students are allowed to carry concealed handguns. Police respond and encounter someone with a handgun who turns and aims the gun at them. Is this a student protecting himself or the criminal? Police have absolutely no way of knowing so they shoot the suspect. A split-second decision. Oops, he was a student.

I believe it was you who accused Assup of not giving an inch when it comes to gun control issues. What about you?

[Allup-init]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

[B]Without such laws gun owners could carry their weapons wherever they so chose to do so.

The people who don't carry their guns in gun free zones, that would if it were legal to do so, are not the people you have to worry about. We are not the ones shooting people daily. Your laws are targeting the wrong people and therefore HUGHLY INEFFECTIVE at stopping any real crime and are a burden on good decent people. Murder is illegal with a gun if it's in a gun free zone or not if someone is willing to murder a fucking road sign is the least of their concern. What ever happened to having a reasonable and common sense debate about this.

[Allup-init]

Speed racer I'm all for any law that has an actual effect or proper punishment on the misuse of guns. But to sit hear and act like a person who is willing to commit murder would some how abide by where it's legal to carry, what attachments his gun has, or the size of his magazine is complete fucking bullshit.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

The people who don't carry their guns in gun free zones, that would if it were legal to do so, are not the people you have to worry about. We are not the ones shooting people daily. Your laws are targeting the wrong people and therefore HUGHLY INEFFECTIVE at stopping any real crime and are a burden on good decent people. Murder is illegal with a gun if it's in a gun free zone or not if someone is willing to murder a fucking road sign is the least of their concern. What ever happened to having a reasonable and common sense debate about this.

I thought we were having a reasonable and common sense debate. People being killed in gun free zones are NOT a daily occurrence, although they seem to be happening much more frequently in recent years. I honestly don't worry about being the homicide victim of a madman in a gun free zone, or any other place for that matter. The odds of you (possibly, since I don't know your circumstances) or I being a homicide victim are so low that they are insignificant.

Exactly what laws that are on the books do you feel are a burden on good decent people?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

Speed racer I'm all for any law that has an actual effect or proper punishment on the misuse of guns. But to sit hear and act like a person who is willing to commit murder would some how abide by where it's legal to carry, what attachments his gun has, or the size of his magazine is complete fucking bullshit.

The majority of homicides in the U.S. are by someone the victim knows and, I read in an article which I can't find, in all likelihood the homicide is the killer's first crime. Some homicides are by people who are out to kill or who kill while committing another crime. Most homicides are by those who at the beginning of the day had absolutely no intention of committing a crime and commit the homicide because they have a gun. I'm sure you will not believe this and that is certainly your right.

There was an incident at an Austin strip club a few years ago. 2 guys got in an argument inside the club, which was obviously a gun free zone. No guns involved. The 2 guys left the club and one of them goes to his car and gets a gun and shoots the other. Gun free zone worked.

[Allup-init]

Well I would agree that felons shouldn't be able to have one but I don't believe a lot of "crimes" should be felonies so the laws would have to change before I agreed with that. I might agree with background checks but the whole system would have to be redone. As it is now it's ineffective and broken and to expand it without change would just make it worse. And any tax, registration, or permitting system is a burden.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

Well I would agree that felons shouldn't be able to have one but I don't believe a lot of "crimes" should be felonies so the laws would have to change before I agreed with that. I might agree with background checks but the whole system would have to be redone. As it is now it's ineffective and broken and to expand it without change would just make it worse. And any tax, registration, or permitting system is a burden.

From your response I am unsure exactly what CURRENT gun control laws you would want rescinded. What is or is not a felony is a different discussion. Maybe the requirement for a Concealed Handgun License is an excessive burden in your eyes???

BTW, I am not pushing for any additional gun control laws. I agree that prohibiting certain "assault weapons" probably is not the answer. I do not necessarily agree with all the gun laws on the books in Texas, nor do I support some of the changes being proposed, but I believe in following the law.

[Allup-init]

All nfa items are taxed and registered it's an unconstitutional burden. I live in ny possession of a pistol requires a permit and registration all of those are a burden. Where I can take my gun is a burden.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I am not Nostradamus so I am not in the habit of predicting the future based on the current time. You are obviously a person who believes in "give them an inch and they'll always want more".

You probably have the legal power to protect yourself in 99.99999% of those situations where you might need to do so. You can own all the firepower you need in your home to protect yourself and your family. You can carry a concealed handgun outside the home. But there are laws in place to protect non gun owners too. Such as establishing gun-free zones where it is deemed in the best interest of the majority.

If Iam not mistaken we have had this conversation before in reference to "Gun Free Zones" they are in place as a deterrent and serve a useful purpose and are not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Contrary to what we see in Westerns on T.V. even back in the 1890's patrons weren't permitted to wear their guns in a saloon, it was a gun free zone in a sense.

Jim

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

If Iam not mistaken we have had this conversation before in reference to "Gun Free Zones" they are in place as a deterrent and serve a useful purpose and are not an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Contrary to what we see in Westerns on T.V. even back in the 1890's patrons weren't permitted to wear their guns in a saloon, it was a gun free zone in a sense.

Jim

I would agree with everything you say with one exception. Some, if not many, people believe that not allowing guns in certain places deemed "gun free zones" is an infringement on their 2nd Amendment rights.

Iffy, care to comment??

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Allup-init

All nfa items are taxed and registered it's an unconstitutional burden. I live in ny possession of a pistol requires a permit and registration all of those are a burden. Where I can take my gun is a burden.

And NY has a homicide rate well below average for the U.S. I would like to think that the people who enact gun control laws, or do not enact gun control laws, do so with the goal of protecting the majority of people in the state. I live in Texas and I do not agree with all the laws regarding guns. But I accept them. I consider them to be a minor burden in my life.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

And NY has a homicide rate well below average for the U.S. I would like to think that the people who enact gun control laws, or do not enact gun control laws, do so with the goal of protecting the majority of people in the state. I live in Texas and I do not agree with all the laws regarding guns. But I accept them. I consider them to be a minor burden in my life.

New York City has been reporting a decline in their homicide rate. Typically NYC gets at least one murder a day it's under one a day now. The decline has nothing to do with gun control laws but rather Police behavior. Police in NYC are becoming more proactive instead of reactive. Apparently it's paying off for them.


Jim