Castanet

Did my previous posts on my thoughts on guns vanish? Why jump on that one part of my post like that?

Anyways, it was directed at Glacier's previous post. It was referencing an earlier comment where I said I have heard no one say they want to ban guns. Most people that I know that are saying they would like to see stricter laws are gun owners themselves, my American friends included. If you want to ban one type of rifle, like the AR-15, you are not saying you want to ban guns. If you say you want to ban fully automatic weapons you are not saying you want to ban guns. The discussion should be about where the line is drawn and working out the details, not rhetoric about wanting to ban all guns because it's just not factual.

And what is the point in banning certain kinds of guns when a criminal can just go buy it very easily on the black market? Is there not already a ban on fully automatic weapons in the US?

Just because things are difficult doesn't mean you shouldn't try.

They are less likely to access those weapons if they are not as easily available, it's harm reduction. The guns in the most publicized shootings have been legally acquired (yes, the Mom owned the weapons in Newton but the son had access). I posted the difference in AR-15 laws in Canada and the US as one example. They are legal weapons in both countries yet treated very differently.

The AR15 is a semi-automatic, right?

So was my .22 on the farm.

It's a giggle that people who own guns don't want their particular firearm banned, just ones that they don't have... to me total ban or let it be last man standing. No one needs a gun for anything- target practice? You can hardly hit the toilet and park on the lines at lots. Hunting? Use a bow and arrow or a knife, or be manly- bare hands. Skeet shooting? If you like to see a lil disk blow up toss a CD in the air, then get it with a rock.

Some guns have a legitimate purpose, farmers protecting livestock, people who hunt for food (not just for fun or trophy), people who work in the bush and need protection from predators. If a person lived in a high crime neighborhood, you migh even make a case for protecting person (less so perhaps for protecting property). People don't need guns solely for target shooting, paint ball guns would accomplish about as much fun. People don't need guns that are capable of killing 26 people in a matter of minutes (except possibly swat or military). Even the 2nd amendment could be satisfied with ordinary weapons, it gives them the right to bear arms for a certain purpose, not unlimited types of arms for whatever purpose someone thinks of. Weren't they supposed to be to prevent the government from taking over? So other uses are not condoned by the 2nd amendment it seems. The Swiss have a standing militia but I don't think they allow this high capacity guns that seem to cause so much damage. Would it be a terrible imposition to limit the more dangerous high capacity types of weapons at least? I should think you could get most people to endorse some kind of restrictions if not an outright ban. The only discussion really needs to be on which guns, and which people.

Silverstarqueen wrote:Would it be a terrible imposition to limit the more dangerous high capacity types of weapons at least?

What is this high capacity type of a weapon are you talking about? Full auto guns have been outlawed decades ago, and semi auto rifles are not that different from hunting rifles.

I don't think that a ban on guns is a good idea in the context of North America. I do think it is logical to ban weapons that do not have legitimate purpose other than killing people.

How many shots does a hunter need between reloads? A responsible hunter plans to bag his game with one shot. Allow for a miss, allow for a misplaced shot, leaving one for a humane coup de grace, and one for reserve. I make that 4 rounds.

How many shots per minute does a hunter need? My guess is to deal with the above, 4 is plenty. That can be done easily with a lever action or pump action, and competently with a bolt action.

What were semi-automatic and automatic guns developed for? One purpose - to kill people.

I honestly can not think of a legitimate place for semi-automatic and automatic weapons outside of military and police work.

To me, a ban on semi-automatic guns would be a good balance.

Handguns? Well there are a few legitimate spots, but they are very sparse. The restrictions need to be severe, and limited to 6 shots (revolvers), no semi-autos. Pretty sure our current Canadian laws have it fairly close - except for the semi-auto part.

Add to that ammuntion that has no legitimate purpose. Like armor piercing, .50 cal etc.

That sort of thinking I believe strikes a reasonable balance, ensuring that sport uses and applications such as ranching are not unduly impacted.

Basically, ban public ownership of weapons that were designed with the primary purpose of people killing.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... et-Service

Some interesting news has broken in the wake of the latest push for gun control by President Obama and Senate Democrats: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.
The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

If you dismiss this by saying, "Of course they have armed guards -- they get Secret Service protection," then you've missed the larger point.

The larger point is that this is standard operating procedure for the school, period. And this is the reason people like NBC's David Gregory send their kids to Sidwell, they know their kids will be protected from the carnage that befell kids at a school where armed guards weren't used (and weren't even allowed).

Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own. His children sit under the protection guns afford, while the children of regular Americans are sacrificed.

You'll find most children of diplomats, high level executives, royalty, prominent newscasters, etc. send their child to this type of school. Imagine the demands that would be made if one of these children were kidnapped on the way home from school.

steelrules wrote: Shame on President Obama for seeking more gun control and for trying to prevent the parents of other school children from doing what he has clearly done for his own.

While I’ll admit my first reaction to having armed guards at schools was critical, there is no contradiction in installing armed guards at schools while seeking greater gun control over the general public (I still see no need for joe public to own assault rifles). Does anyone know what Obama’s position is on such a policy? Well, as noted here his children go to a school with armed guards so one might assume he is okay with the idea (just hopefully not volunteers).

http://forums.castanet.net/download/file.php?id=13139&mode=view

Don't you think that having an "Armed Guard" in a school could be counter productive?

If an assailant was to hit a guard from behind, with a baseball bat, and take that man's gun to kill other children would that NOT be considered a "Risk" rather than a "liability"?
Have we in our earnest for security now just caused a liability.

Put the armed guards in schools, and the next massacre will be at a hospital. Put guards at the hospital, and the next massacre will be at a local restaurant...I was walking through Orchard Park mall the other day and thought - boy, if I pulled out a shotgun right now the body count would be in dozens. Especially if I have a suppressor on it.

Armed guards even if highly trained are not a solution.

You never hear of a crazed lunatic shootin up a gun show do ya?
So yeah an armed citizenry is the answer.