Sheila Jackson Lee with a good idea???

[petegz28]

So this morning on the way to work I am listening to the local talking head sorta making fun of Lee for an idea she had for safety in schools. Truth be told she wasn't far off from what I think is a great idea.

Her idea:

Door to buzz into the school with bulletproof glass. = very acceptable
Steel doors on classrooms that drop down when an alarm goes off. = I have a slight variation on that.

My suggestion is replace classroom doors with steel doors. You can put wood veneer on it or whatever to make it appealing to the eye but nonetheless a steeldoor with a bulletproof glass window.

Then you install locks that are remotely activated. These are not uncommon. If an alarm is triggered the locks automatically engage thus securing the kids behind a locked steel door with bulletproof glass.

I think this is a very good idea and have to commend her for at least mentioning solutions and not saying "take guns away" in the same sentence.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Fight the good fight pass some nonsense laws that will accomplish nothing but hassle law abiding gun owners, and make idiots feel good about themselves~

As opposed to the NRA's solution of armed guards at schools? How does limitations on the number of rounds you can fire, hassle you?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

As opposed to the NRA's solution of armed guards at schools? How does limitations on the number of rounds you can fire, hassle you?

Because I already have guns with larger capacity. I am picking up a compact 40 cal tomorrow and it holds 12 rounds. I have not given anyone a reason to take them from me, and frankly anyone who wants to can kiss my ass~

[A Salt Weapon]

I stole this from another board I visit:
-------------------------------------

Did the framers of the U.S. Constitution intend for the 2nd to protect a citizens' right to keep & bear an "assault weapon"? I've heard so many libtards say "'they couldn't have meant military weapons that are rapid fire, designed to kill people, should be in private hands". Not true. That's exactly what they meant. I'll prove it.

In the time period that the BOR was written, there were 3 types of long guns. A shotgun (smoothbore, firing multiple small pellets for "gaming" - shooting birds & small game for food), a rifle (ala Kentucky long rifle... rifled barrel, firing single projectile with a good degree of accuracy, used for big game hunting), and musket (smoothbore, firing single projectile, poor accuracy, shorter barrel than rifle, but faster loading... used almost exclusively by military).

The gun of choice for military use was the musket. It was 3-4 times as fast to reload than the rifle. The barrel being a smoothbore, projectile fit wasn't as important as that of a rifle, where fit must be tight to engage rifling for accuracy. It was much easier (thus much faster) to ram a lead ball down the loose fitting, shorter, musket barrel. Accuracy wasn't important neither, because military doctrine in those days was volley fire by a line of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder... shooting at another line, also standing shoulder to shoulder... shooting back. Shots taken were bound to hit someone in the line, so the outcome of the battle was determined by who could fire the most shots in the least amount of time.. without flinching. Today that'd be called "spray & pray". Muskets were also the only firearms to have a bayonet fixture and a specific bayonet, meaning they were meant for hand to hand combat. Those bayonets weren't for sticking pigs.

The "assault weapon" of the colonial days was most definately the musket. The 2nd doesn't read "The Right to Bear Arms (except military muskets) Shall Not Be Infringed". Not being excluded, they were included. The musket had only one use in those days... rapid volley fire at other human beings, and hand to hand combat with other human beings. IOW, they were their "battle rifles". They weren't good for hunting. Shorter barrels (desired for rapid reloading) didn't burn all the powder resulting in lower velocity, and no rifling meant poor accuracy beyond 40-50yds. Hunting had nothing to do with the 2nd anyway, so rifles and shotguns used for hunting were NOT what they had in mind to protect, but were not excluded neither. They weren't afraid of "tyrannical deer" or "invading turkeys", so the 2nd was written to protect the private ownership of muskets... the battle rifles of the day.
Posted via Mobile Device

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

As opposed to the NRA's solution of armed guards at schools? How does limitations on the number of rounds you can fire, hassle you?

So let me get this straight....we can have armed guards at malls, theaters, grocery stores, etc., but not our schools?

WTF do you hate kids?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

I don't think any weapon should be able to fire more than six rounds before reloading. Sure, people are still going to shoot other people, but a lot of the assholes bent of statement massacres are emboldened by the fact they can expend lots of ammo without reloading. I can see no sane reason why a hunter, sport shooter or home defense owner needs more than six rounds.

Because we want them.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by petegz28

So let me get this straight....we can have armed guards at malls, theaters, grocery stores, etc., but not our schools?

WTF do you hate kids?

And the fact he is suggesting I and countless other law abiding citizens covert all of our perfectly legal guns to his new capacity limit. He does not see this a hassling law abiding citizens. These type of people amaze me with their stupidity on this issue~

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by frazod

Because maybe the guy trying to kill you and your family has seven or seventeen? Or thirty? You know, that criminal who doesn't give a crap about the law?

Idiot.

So, your theory is that there's someone who wants to kill you so bad, he's bringing multiple rounds to make sure he gets the job done right? I guess I'm having trouble envisioning the scenario.

Now, I think if you live in an isolated area where 911 would take a while to get to you, you have a legitimate gripe. Most home invasions are not there to try and kill someone and they usually aren't packing that heavy. Its this kind of paranoid thinking that is part of the gun culture we have today. Instead, criminals packing multiple rounds are making massacre statements or robbing banks. They aren't robbing your home and they aren't looking to pick you off walking down the street.

Well, then again, you do have a penchant for pissing people off. Maybe you do need multiple rounds.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

I stole this from another board I visit:
-------------------------------------

Did the framers of the U.S. Constitution intend for the 2nd to protect a citizens' right to keep & bear an "assault weapon"? I've heard so many libtards say "'they couldn't have meant military weapons that are rapid fire, designed to kill people, should be in private hands". Not true. That's exactly what they meant. I'll prove it.

In the time period that the BOR was written, there were 3 types of long guns. A shotgun (smoothbore, firing multiple small pellets for "gaming" - shooting birds & small game for food), a rifle (ala Kentucky long rifle... rifled barrel, firing single projectile with a good degree of accuracy, used for big game hunting), and musket (smoothbore, firing single projectile, poor accuracy, shorter barrel than rifle, but faster loading... used almost exclusively by military).

The gun of choice for military use was the musket. It was 3-4 times as fast to reload than the rifle. The barrel being a smoothbore, projectile fit wasn't as important as that of a rifle, where fit must be tight to engage rifling for accuracy. It was much easier (thus much faster) to ram a lead ball down the loose fitting, shorter, musket barrel. Accuracy wasn't important neither, because military doctrine in those days was volley fire by a line of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder... shooting at another line, also standing shoulder to shoulder... shooting back. Shots taken were bound to hit someone in the line, so the outcome of the battle was determined by who could fire the most shots in the least amount of time.. without flinching. Today that'd be called "spray & pray". Muskets were also the only firearms to have a bayonet fixture and a specific bayonet, meaning they were meant for hand to hand combat. Those bayonets weren't for sticking pigs.

The "assault weapon" of the colonial days was most definately the musket. The 2nd doesn't read "The Right to Bear Arms (except military muskets) Shall Not Be Infringed". Not being excluded, they were included. The musket had only one use in those days... rapid volley fire at other human beings, and hand to hand combat with other human beings. IOW, they were their "battle rifles". They weren't good for hunting. Shorter barrels (desired for rapid reloading) didn't burn all the powder resulting in lower velocity, and no rifling meant poor accuracy beyond 40-50yds. Hunting had nothing to do with the 2nd anyway, so rifles and shotguns used for hunting were NOT what they had in mind to protect, but were not excluded neither. They weren't afraid of "tyrannical deer" or "invading turkeys", so the 2nd was written to protect the private ownership of muskets... the battle rifles of the day.
Posted via Mobile Device

Well, obviously, anyone who starts with "libtards" is adept at making salient points without need to belittle the opponent, but let me take exception with his reasoning.

Nowhere does he mention, while quoting the 2nd Amendment the prefatory phrase "for a well regulated militia". Now, I know that the conservative leaning SC produced a couple of 5-4 decisions in the last decade to cement the NRA's position on this, but for a long time, this phrase was held by many to mean exactly what it says "a well regulated militia", a non standing state sponsored force to call to action when necessary.

For much of this period he describes, most militia members did not have rifles of any sort. For most, their "arms" was a club. Later, it was decreed that members of the militia had to maintain a particular firearm and other equipment.

That said, although interchangeable parts were common, mass production really didn't come about until the Civil War. Further, these weapons were a single shot, pack your own powder affair. While formidable in a line as you described, one man with a musket was not a serious threat to the population. One man with a thirty round automatic clip is.

What he has made is a false equivalency scenario. Its like saying the "wireless" and cell phones are virtually the same thing because they can transmit communications at a distance.

But, if he is for all guns being able to fire ammunition at a rate commensurate to the time period in which the 2nd Amendment was drafted, then I am all for it as well.

[RNR]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

So, your theory is that there's someone who wants to kill you so bad, he's bringing multiple rounds to make sure he gets the job done right? I guess I'm having trouble envisioning the scenario.

Now, I think if you live in an isolated area where 911 would take a while to get to you, you have a legitimate gripe. Most home invasions are not there to try and kill someone and they usually aren't packing that heavy. Its this kind of paranoid thinking that is part of the gun culture we have today. Instead, criminals packing multiple rounds are making massacre statements or robbing banks. They aren't robbing your home and they aren't looking to pick you off walking down the street.

Well, then again, you do have a penchant for pissing people off. Maybe you do need multiple rounds.

I don't care where you live if tragically you end up in in a situation where someone is in your house with bad intent 911 will not save you. Police do not prevent crimes they solve them. Also if someone enters my house unwelcome armed or not it will end very badly for them if I am home. I will call the police also and inform them to bring an ambulance~

[frazod]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

So, your theory is that there's someone who wants to kill you so bad, he's bringing multiple rounds to make sure he gets the job done right? I guess I'm having trouble envisioning the scenario.

Now, I think if you live in an isolated area where 911 would take a while to get to you, you have a legitimate gripe. Most home invasions are not there to try and kill someone and they usually aren't packing that heavy. Its this kind of paranoid thinking that is part of the gun culture we have today. Instead, criminals packing multiple rounds are making massacre statements or robbing banks. They aren't robbing your home and they aren't looking to pick you off walking down the street.

Well, then again, you do have a penchant for pissing people off. Maybe you do need multiple rounds.

Every post makes you look dumber. It doesn't matter where you live - do you know how many bad things can happen to you before the police show up, even if the station is just a couple of blocks away? Somebody has to call them first - then they have to be dispatched, then they have to get there, then assess the situation. Or do you think there's a cop on duty in front of your house? And if there was, he's outside and the bad guy's inside. You clowns act like criminals never break into people's homes, which happens every single day, then panic over isolated mass shootings.

At least you're consistent, though. You're dumb about EVERYTHING.

[A Salt Weapon]

Holy handgrenade: our founders never envisioned computers, social media, or television either, should we limit the right to free speech to spoken words or handwriting?
Posted via Mobile Device

[frazod]

Originally Posted by A Salt Weapon

Holy handgrenade: our founders never envisioned computers, social media, or television either, should we limit the right to free speech to spoken words or handwriting?
Posted via Mobile Device

God knows we'd all be better off if several people who post here were limited to quill pens and parchment.

[HolyHandgernade]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/...isk-ambiguity/

This morning, a press release dropped that seemed designed to create controversy, given its title: "Guns in the home provide greater health risk than benefit." The fact that it came from a relatively obscure journal—the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine is not indexed by the PubMed system, and has no impact factor—suggests it might be an attempt at getting some publicity. Studies on this topic are also extremely challenging, as it's difficult to control for cultural and economic differences between nations and US states.

The author of the review, David Hemenway, however, specializes in this area, and works at the Harvard School of Public Health. Hemenway has been termed an "anti-gun researcher" by the NRA, and writes with a clear perspective. Nevertheless, within the limited scope of the review, his conclusions make sense: people do stupid things when angry or depressed, and the presence of a gun helps make that stupidity fatal. In contrast, successful use of a gun in self-defense is far more rare, and challenging to get right, so the public health perspective will always be skewed.

Hemenway takes a very narrow focus on public health issues related to the presence of guns in the home. "The article does not examine some of the possible benefits (e.g., the fun of target practice) or costs (e.g., loss of hearing) of gun use." It also generally avoids dealing with the consequences of what happens once the gun leaves the home. Instead, it focuses on death, injury and intimidation, and balances that against the protective value provided by guns.

When it comes to violence, nearly every figure suggests that increased presence of guns correlates with higher levels of injury and death. Homicide rates among the US population between 15 and 24 years of age are 14 times higher than those in most other industrialized nations. Children from 5 to 14 years old are 11 times more likely to be killed in an accidental shooting. Within the US, areas with high gun ownership have higher rates of these problems. And, for every accidental death, Hemenway cites research that indicates 10 more incidents are sufficient to send someone to the emergency room. Suicides are more likely to be successful when guns are involved, even though most people who survive such an attempt don't generally try a second time.

Nevertheless, these figures contain many instances of guns being used outside the home, or a gun that was brought to the incident by a third party. While most suicides with firearms do take place at home, most homicides do not, and generally the victim is not shot with their own gun. Thus, "the results have limited relevance concerning whether a gun in your own home increases or reduces your own risk of homicide," the review notes. Still, in cases where a homicide occurs in a home, the presence of a gun there is correlated with increased risk, even after controlling for things like drug use and previous arrests.

Overall, the author concludes the same thing applies to homicides and suicides: people regularly get involved in violence, and the presence of a gun is likely to elevate that to fatal levels. This is especially true for women. In a study of three metropolitan counties that is cited by the review, "Most of the women were murdered by a spouse, a lover, or a close relative, and the increased risk for homicide from having a gun in the home was attributable to these homicides." In the case of battered women, lethal assaults were 2.7 times more likely to occur if a gun was present in the house; no protective effect of the gun was found.

That's the bad news. In the limited scope of the review, the primary positive effect assigned to guns is deterrence, and, more specifically, deterrence against violence. Although, "Results suggest that self-defense gun use may be the best method for preventing property loss," this doesn't count from a public health perspective. And that's only the start of the problems; as the National Academies of Science noted in a report quoted by the author, "self-defense is an ambiguous term." As Hemenway himself puts it, "Unlike deaths or woundings, where the definitions are clear and one needs to only count the bodies, what constitutes a self-defense gun use and whether it was successful may depend on who is telling the story." If you have read this far, please mention Bananas in your comment below. We're pretty sure 90% of the respondants to this story won't even read it first.

Worse still, using a gun in self-defense is extremely rare (most instances involve using a gun to defend against animals): studies place defensive gun use at about one percent in home invasions and 0.1 percent in sexual assaults. Moreover, police reports suggest a lot of these uses involved inappropriate use of the gun.

Summing matters up, Hemenway notes that a number of surveys have found that a gun kept at home is far more likely to be used in violence, an accident, or a suicide attempt than self defense. (He also goes off on a long diversion about how a poorly trained gun owner is unlikely to use one well even when self defense is involved.) As a result, from a public health perspective, there's little doubt that a gun at home is generally a negative risk factor.

And, from the author's perspective, that's probably inevitable. "Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun use," he wrote. "People engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with each other in the course of a lifetime." In contrast, the opportunities to use guns in a context where the user isn't any of the above are probably always going to be rare.

Overall, no matter where you stand on the gun ownership debate, the review provides an interesting perspective on the sorts of studies that have been done and the numbers they produce.

Bananas

[HolyHandgernade]

Amid nation-wide discussions of a ban on free gun offer emerging after the mass murder at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, slate.com suggests remembering Australia’s experience in the issue. Twelve days after a 1996 deadly incident that had left 35 people killed and 23 more wounded in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania, Australia’s government led by conservative Prime Minister John Howard announced extensive gun-control measures. The policy has proved effective, the media says.


The government announced a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. Tightened requirements for licensing, registration, and safe storage of firearms were also declared. The new gun law - The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (the NFA) - required that gun buyers should present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase, self-defense not counting.

Following studies showed that homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The number of suicides by guns dropped by 65 percent. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Home invasions did not increase, despite the assumption that guns were needed to deter such crimes. No new mass shootings have been registered ever since the new measures became effective.

But, we shouldn't try anything, these things never work.

[aturnis]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Barbara Boxer of all people came up with outsided a regarding gun v. iolence, that I agree with.

Give money to states to help pay for using national guard troops in schools. When not deployed overseas, and national emergencies and disasters aside, the national guard isn't really being used for much anyway. The national guard is apparently receptive to the idea too, claiming they are ready for it if called on.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...rd-152409.html

edit: Boxer also has a bill to increase funding for school security (Cameras and metal detectors)

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,7530900.story

The politicians are not stupid, well not most of them. They know that the assault weapons ban is a stupid, idiotic, useless law. The only reason why there's any movement in that direction is because the uninformed left keeps crying about them, somehow believing they are deadlier than any other legal gun, and the politicians are just responding to voters.

The AWB probably wont pass though, and most of the politicians are genuinely interested in doing something that might actually work, like this.

Next headline: 22 year old National Guards women gangbangs six youths at local high school.