More Guns Bought after Obama was re-elected (?)

I like Edgey's radical proposal. Compulsory security.

In fact it's on my proposed list of solutions that do not involve banning firearms.

First, let me ask if anyone's ever been murdered with a Barrett .50. They cost $5k or more, and they cost $8 per round to shoot, and they are five feet long and weigh 20+ lbs. The world's worst murder weapon. I have never heard of one being used in a crime.

And why would we ban something that's never even been used in a crime? That's spooking at our own shadow, just dumb. They banned full auto machine guns in the US in 1934. Some were used in crimes in the Bonnie/Clyde days, in the Capone days, etc. They are banned because they were USED. It was proven that people could not be trusted with that much firepower. Who has used a fifty cal to murder anyone or commit crimes?

Anyways, here's my solution to school shootings and mall shootings. We know the shooters choose a place where there are lots of innocent people who have no means of protecting themselves. The signs say so. "Gun Free Zone". Might as well say "mass murders not interrupted here, fire away".

Shooters go there because when they start shooting, THEY are in charge, and they know they have until they hear the sirens to off themselves. In Newtown, it took TWENTY MINUTES for cops to arrive.

Armed air marshals have pretty much eliminated hijackings. Nobody knows who they are or even if there is one on board, but the threat of them has ended the whole business. Why do we not have armed guards in schools? Malls? We have them in BANKS for God's sake.. aren't our kids more important than our money?

Get RID of the stupid GUN FREE ZONES. Instead, put responsible people, who have experience (military, police) with weapons and can pass LE type exams with them, into those places. If a teacher says yes, put a fingerprint safe in his top desk drawer with a loaded pistol in it. Only he can open the safe, and he can do it in three seconds. If he hears gunshots down the hall, he can sit and wait with barrel trained on his door and when the shooter gets there he dies.

Once shooters understand the dynamic has changed, they will stop showing up at these places. Holmes went to that theater in Aurora, bypassing two other movie theaters closer to his home, because THAT theatre had the stupid GUN FREE ZONE sign outside it.

They are crazy but not stupid.

The other part of my solution is, make gun owners LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS DONE WITH THEIR GUNS. after the first two or three people go to prison for a long time because they let someone take their gun and commit a crime with it, gun owners will act in their own self interest and find ways to prevent their dangerous personal property from being stolen, by family or by strangers. Owning guns is a serious responsibility, so PUNISH people who are irresponsible in that way.

Neither one of the solutions I propose involves government banning anything. It isn't necessary. What we need to ban is the whole business of pretending guns are dangerous in the hands of good, decent, law abiding people. THey are not. It is the person, not the gun. So arm the good people, compel them to secure their weapons from theft, let the public know the gun free zone is extinct, and see if these assaults on innocent people continue. I'd bet they don't. Everyone acts in their own self interest, even crazy mass murderers.

Does anybody remember that, before Newtown, there was a mall shooting out west? Nobody's talking about it anymore, and here's why--

The shooter had killed two people when he was CONFRONTED BY A LEGAL GUN OWNER. He had a pistol aimed at him. The shooter then used his very next shot to kill himself. Clearly he did not want to be in a shootout, be wounded, risk NOT dying, and end up in jail. He had dozens of rounds left. Didn't even TRY the shootout. Just killed himself.

Once the gun free zone is ended, knuckleheads won't find places where they can kill dozens without being fired upon. Mass shooting and suicide will then go to zero.

By the way, the highest number of mass shootings was in the 1920s, and they are not statistically on the rise. NEWS coverage of them is much more massive, but shootings themselves are not.

And since 1950, with one exception (gabby giffords), every mass shooting of 3 or more people in America has been in a gun free zone, a place, a town, a state, etc. Gun Free Zones ATTRACT MASS KILLERS. Get rid of them.

My lefty friends all fear the "wild west" scenario. But in Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, etc., there are guns in the pockets or purses of every 20 or so people. The public is armed. There are no shootouts. The shootouts are in southside Chicago, where guns are BANNED, and where by the end of the year 500 people will have been murdered, most school age, most with guns. Banning guns BRINGS crazies with guns. Arming the public REPELS crazies with guns. It is statistical fact.

If you want to ban guns, it's easy. Repeal the second amendment. There is a constitutional process to do that. If you do not undertake that process, you are not legally permitted to ban guns. It is "infringing on the right". But repeal is a standard procedure. It only requires significant majorities of lawmakers in states and in Congress. I doubt I'll see those majorities in my lifetime. But I believe I will see bans increasing, unconstitutional unlawful bans that fingerwagging moralists will say are for the good of the country. Meanwhile, with guns banned, our crime will soar to UK-like heights, plenty more victims, plenty more murders, plenty less safety, and everyone will say how it's much better now with no guns. Doesn't make any sense to me. More guns brings less crime. Less guns brings MORE crime. Just hold the owners legally responsible for what is done with their guns, and arm the qualified security people and put them in schools and malls, and the problem is, statistically, dealt with.

I like your thinking Dave. What you said is 100% spot on.

Dave, the NRA and it's fringe relatives have been an amazing source of misinformation, statistical manipulation, manipulation, manipulation and manipulation. Most of the rest of the world is really tired of hearing it at this point. One need add nothing more than the 2d to rob themselves of credibility. It's a ridiculous argument reserved for obfuscation. It's arguing not advocating and looks silly to informed people free of Kool-Aid.

The other thing is when you defend against something not on the table to argue against something that is, at best it's not rational thought and at worst it's a manipulation. Either way it's not credible. Nobody is seriously proposing banning guns, of course that's not possible. The issues involve reasonable controls like clip size, background checks and assault weapons. The kooks out there can still feel happy. That is assuming they can pass background and mental testing. I admit I have my doubts.

Third thing when that many words are required to state a case, well, it's a circle vs. a straight line.

Fortunately kooks are about to get cut off at the knees, even the NRA realizes that and is trying to contain the damage.

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, the NRA and it's fringe relatives have been an amazing source of misinformation, statistical manipulation, manipulation, manipulation and manipulation. Most of the rest of the world is really tired of hearing it at this point. One need add nothing more than the 2d to rob themselves of credibility. It's a ridiculous argument reserved for obfuscation. It's arguing not advocating and looks silly to informed people free of Kool-Aid.

The other thing is when you defend against something not on the table to argue against something that is, at best it's not rational thought and at worst it's a manipulation. Either way it's not credible. Nobody is seriously proposing banning guns, of course that's not possible. The issues involve reasonable controls like clip size, background checks and assault weapons. The kooks out there can still feel happy. That is assuming they can pass background and mental testing. I admit I have my doubts.

Third thing when that many words are required to state a case, well, it's a circle vs. a straight line.

Fortunately kooks are about to get cut off at the knees, even the NRA realizes that and is trying to contain the damage.

first you'll have to identify what things I have said that came from the NRA. I'm not a member and don't much care for them. I don't get their emails and I hang up on them when they call for donations.

I use many words because I have many points to make, and I make each of them in as few words as possible without failing to properly explain what I mean. It is inaccurate to suppose that a lot of words means a position of weakness. The position is what it is. Clip size is related to self defense. These days we hear a lot about big gangs that pull people out of their cars or chase them down in the street and beat them to death or near it. If 20 guys are coming at me to do that, and I pull out my 5-round Glock, I'm gonna feel pretty silly after I shoot just enough of them to let the rest know I"m out of ammo, and they'll have something to say about their friends getting shot. it is just now, in our age, that the larger mag is looking more and more like self defense against things that really happen, things that people really do to you.

anyhoo, screw the NRA. :-) btw what points have I made that are a) manipulative of stats and b) from the NRA? I do my own thinking, find my own facts, come to my own conclusions. I am on NOBODY's email list. Except this one, for some reason. ;-)

Big Dave wrote:I like Edgey's radical proposal. Compulsory security.

In fact it's on my proposed list of solutions that do not involve banning firearms.

First, let me ask if anyone's ever been murdered with a Barrett .50. They cost $5k or more, and they cost $8 per round to shoot, and they are five feet long and weigh 20+ lbs. The world's worst murder weapon. I have never heard of one being used in a crime.

And why would we ban something that's never even been used in a crime? That's spooking at our own shadow, just dumb. They banned full auto machine guns in the US in 1934. Some were used in crimes in the Bonnie/Clyde days, in the Capone days, etc. They are banned because they were USED. It was proven that people could not be trusted with that much firepower. Who has used a fifty cal to murder anyone or commit crimes?

Anyways, here's my solution to school shootings and mall shootings. We know the shooters choose a place where there are lots of innocent people who have no means of protecting themselves. The signs say so. "Gun Free Zone". Might as well say "mass murders not interrupted here, fire away".

Shooters go there because when they start shooting, THEY are in charge, and they know they have until they hear the sirens to off themselves. In Newtown, it took TWENTY MINUTES for cops to arrive.

Armed air marshals have pretty much eliminated hijackings. Nobody knows who they are or even if there is one on board, but the threat of them has ended the whole business. Why do we not have armed guards in schools? Malls? We have them in BANKS for God's sake.. aren't our kids more important than our money?

Get RID of the stupid GUN FREE ZONES. Instead, put responsible people, who have experience (military, police) with weapons and can pass LE type exams with them, into those places. If a teacher says yes, put a fingerprint safe in his top desk drawer with a loaded pistol in it. Only he can open the safe, and he can do it in three seconds. If he hears gunshots down the hall, he can sit and wait with barrel trained on his door and when the shooter gets there he dies.

Once shooters understand the dynamic has changed, they will stop showing up at these places. Holmes went to that theater in Aurora, bypassing two other movie theaters closer to his home, because THAT theatre had the stupid GUN FREE ZONE sign outside it.

They are crazy but not stupid.

The other part of my solution is, make gun owners LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IS DONE WITH THEIR GUNS. after the first two or three people go to prison for a long time because they let someone take their gun and commit a crime with it, gun owners will act in their own self interest and find ways to prevent their dangerous personal property from being stolen, by family or by strangers. Owning guns is a serious responsibility, so PUNISH people who are irresponsible in that way.

Neither one of the solutions I propose involves government banning anything. It isn't necessary. What we need to ban is the whole business of pretending guns are dangerous in the hands of good, decent, law abiding people. THey are not. It is the person, not the gun. So arm the good people, compel them to secure their weapons from theft, let the public know the gun free zone is extinct, and see if these assaults on innocent people continue. I'd bet they don't. Everyone acts in their own self interest, even crazy mass murderers.

Does anybody remember that, before Newtown, there was a mall shooting out west? Nobody's talking about it anymore, and here's why--

The shooter had killed two people when he was CONFRONTED BY A LEGAL GUN OWNER. He had a pistol aimed at him. The shooter then used his very next shot to kill himself. Clearly he did not want to be in a shootout, be wounded, risk NOT dying, and end up in jail. He had dozens of rounds left. Didn't even TRY the shootout. Just killed himself.

Once the gun free zone is ended, knuckleheads won't find places where they can kill dozens without being fired upon. Mass shooting and suicide will then go to zero.

By the way, the highest number of mass shootings was in the 1920s, and they are not statistically on the rise. NEWS coverage of them is much more massive, but shootings themselves are not.

And since 1950, with one exception (gabby giffords), every mass shooting of 3 or more people in America has been in a gun free zone, a place, a town, a state, etc. Gun Free Zones ATTRACT MASS KILLERS. Get rid of them.

My lefty friends all fear the "wild west" scenario. But in Texas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, etc., there are guns in the pockets or purses of every 20 or so people. The public is armed. There are no shootouts. The shootouts are in southside Chicago, where guns are BANNED, and where by the end of the year 500 people will have been murdered, most school age, most with guns. Banning guns BRINGS crazies with guns. Arming the public REPELS crazies with guns. It is statistical fact.

If you want to ban guns, it's easy. Repeal the second amendment. There is a constitutional process to do that. If you do not undertake that process, you are not legally permitted to ban guns. It is "infringing on the right". But repeal is a standard procedure. It only requires significant majorities of lawmakers in states and in Congress. I doubt I'll see those majorities in my lifetime. But I believe I will see bans increasing, unconstitutional unlawful bans that fingerwagging moralists will say are for the good of the country. Meanwhile, with guns banned, our crime will soar to UK-like heights, plenty more victims, plenty more murders, plenty less safety, and everyone will say how it's much better now with no guns. Doesn't make any sense to me. More guns brings less crime. Less guns brings MORE crime. Just hold the owners legally responsible for what is done with their guns, and arm the qualified security people and put them in schools and malls, and the problem is, statistically, dealt with.

I agree with a lot that you have written. The 50 cal is just an example of a weapon that serves no real purpose except to assassinate someone. It's what the gun is designed for and I don't see the purpose for it in a society. It's the reason I post it in these conversations. It just shows how ridiculous the pro gun argument is. You yourself mentioned all of its negatives. Then why have it?

You did misrepresent the murders here in oregon. A person with a concealed weapon, who happens to be a security guard and is trying to be a cop, did pull his gun and take a position behind a column. He aimed at the shooter but didn't fire for fear of hitting innocent people running away from the scene. The mass shooter's gun jammed and he ran. He took his life in a fire exit. The police haven't disclosed any other information, like rather the off duty security guard caused the shooter to run. BTW - in this case the cops were there in record time and were closing in on the gunner. Sirens were going off everywhere by the time he took his life.

I have no problem putting security guards out there. Certainly we have plenty of retired cops that would be happy to do part time work at an elementary school. I also think there should be many approaches to securing different places. Obviously a rural area needs responses quickly and may have to be self sufficient. Maybe even a off duty volunteers like you have for rural fire.

But also it's time to look at our laws. In these situations seconds matter and having to reload more often seems like a no brainer to me.

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, the NRA and it's fringe relatives have been an amazing source of misinformation, statistical manipulation, manipulation, manipulation and manipulation. Most of the rest of the world is really tired of hearing it at this point. One need add nothing more than the 2d to rob themselves of credibility. It's a ridiculous argument reserved for obfuscation. It's arguing not advocating and looks silly to informed people free of Kool-Aid.

The other thing is when you defend against something not on the table to argue against something that is, at best it's not rational thought and at worst it's a manipulation. Either way it's not credible. Nobody is seriously proposing banning guns, of course that's not possible. The issues involve reasonable controls like clip size, background checks and assault weapons. The kooks out there can still feel happy. That is assuming they can pass background and mental testing. I admit I have my doubts.

Third thing when that many words are required to state a case, well, it's a circle vs. a straight line.

Fortunately kooks are about to get cut off at the knees, even the NRA realizes that and is trying to contain the damage.

first you'll have to identify what things I have said that came from the NRA. I'm not a member and don't much care for them. I don't get their emails and I hang up on them when they call for donations.

I use many words because I have many points to make, and I make each of them in as few words as possible without failing to properly explain what I mean. It is inaccurate to suppose that a lot of words means a position of weakness. The position is what it is. Clip size is related to self defense. These days we hear a lot about big gangs that pull people out of their cars or chase them down in the street and beat them to death or near it. If 20 guys are coming at me to do that, and I pull out my 5-round Glock, I'm gonna feel pretty silly after I shoot just enough of them to let the rest know I"m out of ammo, and they'll have something to say about their friends getting shot. it is just now, in our age, that the larger mag is looking more and more like self defense against things that really happen, things that people really do to you.

anyhoo, screw the NRA. :-) btw what points have I made that are a) manipulative of stats and b) from the NRA? I do my own thinking, find my own facts, come to my own conclusions. I am on NOBODY's email list. Except this one, for some reason. ;-)

Here, in a "nutshell" is all you need to know although there's so much more. Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

Poe4soul wrote:In these situations seconds matter and having to reload more often seems like a no brainer to me.

until you're defending yourself. Then, if you have time before the bad guys reach you or your family, you will wonder which lamebrain bureaucrat made you run out of bullets before the fight was over.

As to the Barrett, "why have it?" can be asked of any car that exceeds the speed limit, any meal above the minimum required calories, even a second pair of shoes. My question is "why not have it if you want it and can pay for it?"

Having a Barrett should NOT be up to government bureaucrats. If someone wants one, some other guy who is trying to make a living and employ people and pay taxes by selling guns should be able to sell the gun. It's called FREEDOM. IT means FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT COMPULSION to do or not do something. When it doesn't matter -- and owning a gun that's never been used to murder anyone or commit any crime is the DEFINITION of "doesn't matter" -- the government should have NOTHING to say about it.

I fear too many of us these days are defaulting too much liberty to government. The bureaucrats and taskmasters tend to take what they're given and then some. Not a good trend. Government plays a limited role in human life, if it's set up properly, as the Constitution set up ours. When we defer to it too much, it becomes habit. Unless government has a good reason to do something, it should not just do it by default.

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Poe4soul wrote:

You did misrepresent the murders here in oregon. A person with a concealed weapon, who happens to be a security guard and is trying to be a cop, did pull his gun and take a position behind a column. He aimed at the shooter but didn't fire for fear of hitting innocent people running away from the scene. The mass shooter's gun jammed and he ran. He took his life in a fire exit. The police haven't disclosed any other information, like rather the off duty security guard caused the shooter to run. BTW - in this case the cops were there in record time and were closing in on the gunner. Sirens were going off everywhere by the time he took his life.

I said a guy with a legal gun pointed it at the shooter. I said the shooter took his own life with the next shot. I didn't misrepresent anything.

I knew that the man had decided not to fire, but that did not alter the result, so I didn't mention it because I didn't want anyone to say I was using too many words. :-)

I did not know he was off duty sec guard or a wannabe cop, had not seen that. As to cops showing up fast and closing in on the killer, he could have killed another twenty people in the time he had left. He chose to off himself instead of continue and take the chance of not dying, as I said. He saw the man with the gun and knew he could be shot by that man. It altered the outcome, as I said, for the better. no misrepresentation. If his gun was jammed how did he kill himself? the guy with the pistol said the shooter was smacking his rifle, obviously fighting a jam, but it was not permanently jammed or he'd not have been able to shoot himself.

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

Lorenzzo wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

Then these guys will cross the pond. :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

at the risk of using too many words, I'll repeat that police officers report the number one murder weapon in America is the baseball bat.

Big Dave wrote:I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

This slippery slope argument is always easy to make since it requires no substantiation of facts. I keep hearing the gun protectors say, "take these guns away, and then the government will eventually take all guns away. This is the first step of a tyrannical empire." Really? The US government's going to morph from its current 21st century democracy into 17th century England? Current-day reliance on the second amendment is foolish considering its original intent is so far removed from 2012 society and technology. Those guys were concerned with protecting themselves from threat of government with muskets when the government had......muskets. Now we're still relying on this second amendment justification of assault rifles when the government has tanks, rockets, and nuclear weapons at its disposal. Good luck with that AR-15, bunker boy.

Playa Hata wrote:

Big Dave wrote:I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

This slippery slope argument is always easy to make since it requires no substantiation of facts. I keep hearing the gun protectors say, "take these guns away, and then the government will eventually take all guns away. This is the first step of a tyrannical empire." Really? The US government's going to morph from its current 21st century democracy into 17th century England? Current-day reliance on the second amendment is foolish considering its original intent is so far removed from 2012 society and technology. Those guys were concerned with protecting themselves from threat of government with muskets when the government had......muskets. Now we're still relying on this second amendment justification of assault rifles when the government has tanks, rockets, and nuclear weapons at its disposal. Good luck with that AR-15, bunker boy.

yep, all those tanks and bunker busters they sell in private deals at gun shows really do make me nervous. :-) and I don't have an AR. I know a guy, though, and I should have a few cluster bombs by midnight tomorrow. :-)

p.s. check England. They're down to .22s and shotguns and air pistols and now they're talking about banning long pointy kitchen knives. The "substantiation of facts" thing comes into play. :-)

Where is Batman when we need him?

FamousDavis wrote:Where is Batman when we need him?

You called?

Golfaholic wrote:

FamousDavis wrote:Where is Batman when we need him?

You called?

Thank goodness, your there. This is Commissioner Gordon. There's a masked guy at Gotham City Bank with a baseball bat. He's taken hostages. Come quick.

Big Dave wrote:p.s. check England. They're down to .22s and shotguns and air pistols and now they're talking about banning long pointy kitchen knives. The "substantiation of facts" thing comes into play. :-)

And I'm sure they have paranoid delusionals that think it's only a matter of time before the government takes away all their rights.

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

Then these guys will cross the pond. :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

at the risk of using too many words, I'll repeat that police officers report the number one murder weapon in America is the baseball bat.

Those elementary school teachers could have taken that 130 boy if he was armed with a bat. Duh!

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

Then these guys will cross the pond. :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

at the risk of using too many words, I'll repeat that police officers report the number one murder weapon in America is the baseball bat.

Those elementary school teachers could have taken that 130 boy if he was armed with a bat. Duh!

No, we're talking about paranoid delusions here, he would have brought a cannon or maybe a nuclear missile. Look, guns don't kill people, people do. Yes that's stupid so don't expect the defense of that to not be stupid.

Also, if anything is changed limiting the use of clip size or attack weapons, all of a sudden 100 million psychotic gun wackos will lose the right to vote, the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby will disappear and pretty soon they'll be taking guns out of everyone's cold dead fingers.

BTW, the world's about to end today, the sky's falling and we're under attack. Once one goes down the psychotic fear road, everything from one's own shadow to corn flakes is scary and lethal. Whoa!!! I thought someone just broke into my house and tried to take my guns away!!!! That was close!!! I think it was the government. Whoa, I think 20 gang members just pulled up, gotta go and load my AK-47-s!!!

Damn, I was gonna thump my bible today but now it looks like I'll have to sit here armed and ready.

Lorenzzo wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

Then these guys will cross the pond. :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

at the risk of using too many words, I'll repeat that police officers report the number one murder weapon in America is the baseball bat.

Those elementary school teachers could have taken that 130 boy if he was armed with a bat. Duh!

No, we're talking about paranoid delusions here, he would have brought a cannon or maybe a nuclear missile. Look, guns don't kill people, people do. Yes that's stupid so don't expect the defense of that to not be stupid.

Also, if anything is changed limiting the use of clip size or attack weapons, all of a sudden 100 million psychotic gun wackos will lose the right to vote, the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby will disappear and pretty soon they'll be taking guns out of everyone's cold dead fingers.

BTW, the world's about to end today, the sky's falling and we're under attack. Once one goes down the psychotic fear road, everything from one's own shadow to corn flakes is scary and lethal. Whoa!!! I thought someone just broke into my house and tried to take my guns away!!!! That was close!!! I think it was the government. Whoa, I think 20 gang members just pulled up, gotta go and load my AK-47-s!!!

Damn, I was gonna thump my bible today but now it looks like I'll have to sit here armed and ready.

I understand what you're saying, but Dave isn't a bad dude. We are a huge country, and his ideas about guns may very well work in Texas or Oklahoma. They don't fit for most of the country.
To take it a step further, and actually respond to Dave's hypothetical situation of 20 gang members simultaneously car jacking his ride. I'd rather have the guy in the car die than have another massacre. And it really is a choice. These mass shootings occur with semi auto weapons with huge magazines. If their 2 uses are to protect a law abiding citizen against 10+ bad guys (I think this happened to Steven Seagall a couple times), and murder multiple innocents, I'm for banning them.

Horseballs wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

Then these guys will cross the pond. :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

at the risk of using too many words, I'll repeat that police officers report the number one murder weapon in America is the baseball bat.

Those elementary school teachers could have taken that 130 boy if he was armed with a bat. Duh!

No, we're talking about paranoid delusions here, he would have brought a cannon or maybe a nuclear missile. Look, guns don't kill people, people do. Yes that's stupid so don't expect the defense of that to not be stupid.

Also, if anything is changed limiting the use of clip size or attack weapons, all of a sudden 100 million psychotic gun wackos will lose the right to vote, the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby will disappear and pretty soon they'll be taking guns out of everyone's cold dead fingers.

BTW, the world's about to end today, the sky's falling and we're under attack. Once one goes down the psychotic fear road, everything from one's own shadow to corn flakes is scary and lethal. Whoa!!! I thought someone just broke into my house and tried to take my guns away!!!! That was close!!! I think it was the government. Whoa, I think 20 gang members just pulled up, gotta go and load my AK-47-s!!!

Damn, I was gonna thump my bible today but now it looks like I'll have to sit here armed and ready.

I understand what you're saying, but Dave isn't a bad dude. We are a huge country, and his ideas about guns may very well work in Texas or Oklahoma. They don't fit for most of the country.
To take it a step further, and actually respond to Dave's hypothetical situation of 20 gang members simultaneously car jacking his ride. I'd rather have the guy in the car die than have another massacre. And it really is a choice. These mass shootings occur with semi auto weapons with huge magazines. If their 2 uses are to protect a law abiding citizen against 10+ bad guys (I think this happened to Steven Seagall a couple times), and murder multiple innocents, I'm for banning them.

I agree Dave's not a bad guy, I'm only pointing out the degree of paranoid delusion you find in this, whether Oklahoma, Texas or here in California. Because it's something societal affecting millions of voters, paranoid schizophrenia mental illness gets treated as though it's in the bounds of normal when from a psychiatric standpoint it's clinically irrational and psychotic. These people need mental health attention not derision.

Sure some people can bootstrap themselves out of mental illness, but most can't. I think as a concession after assault weapons sales are banned we create safe houses for these people and give them proper mental health treatment. I'm being compassionate here. Guns are the least of these people's problems.

I'll go further. I'm going to personally donate 1,000 aluminum pie plates these people can wear so the government can't steal their brain waves. It's because I care.

Lorenzzo wrote:

Horseballs wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

Then these guys will cross the pond. :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

at the risk of using too many words, I'll repeat that police officers report the number one murder weapon in America is the baseball bat.

Those elementary school teachers could have taken that 130 boy if he was armed with a bat. Duh!

No, we're talking about paranoid delusions here, he would have brought a cannon or maybe a nuclear missile. Look, guns don't kill people, people do. Yes that's stupid so don't expect the defense of that to not be stupid.

Also, if anything is changed limiting the use of clip size or attack weapons, all of a sudden 100 million psychotic gun wackos will lose the right to vote, the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby will disappear and pretty soon they'll be taking guns out of everyone's cold dead fingers.

BTW, the world's about to end today, the sky's falling and we're under attack. Once one goes down the psychotic fear road, everything from one's own shadow to corn flakes is scary and lethal. Whoa!!! I thought someone just broke into my house and tried to take my guns away!!!! That was close!!! I think it was the government. Whoa, I think 20 gang members just pulled up, gotta go and load my AK-47-s!!!

Damn, I was gonna thump my bible today but now it looks like I'll have to sit here armed and ready.

I understand what you're saying, but Dave isn't a bad dude. We are a huge country, and his ideas about guns may very well work in Texas or Oklahoma. They don't fit for most of the country.
To take it a step further, and actually respond to Dave's hypothetical situation of 20 gang members simultaneously car jacking his ride. I'd rather have the guy in the car die than have another massacre. And it really is a choice. These mass shootings occur with semi auto weapons with huge magazines. If their 2 uses are to protect a law abiding citizen against 10+ bad guys (I think this happened to Steven Seagall a couple times), and murder multiple innocents, I'm for banning them.

I agree Dave's not a bad guy, I'm only pointing out the degree of paranoid delusion you find in this, whether Oklahoma, Texas or here in California. Because it's something societal affecting millions of voters, paranoid schizophrenia mental illness gets treated as though it's in the bounds of normal when from a psychiatric standpoint it's clinically irrational and psychotic. These people need mental health attention not derision.

Sure some people can bootstrap themselves out of mental illness, but most can't. I think as a concession after assault weapons sales are banned we create safe houses for these people and give them proper mental health treatment. I'm being compassionate here. Guns are the least of these people's problems.

I'll go further. I'm going to personally donate 1,000 aluminum pie plates these people can wear so the government can't steal their brain waves. It's because I care.

I had this discussion with my marketing consultant yesterday. Her father was a psychiatrist and noted the change over the past 30 or so years. Because of her father, she's had exposure to many people running non-profit's to help people with mental illnesses. She was telling me the county in the past 10-15 years would release people from the state mental hospitals to inns and hotels in the downtown area and pay for their rooms and treatments during transition. Here's the rub. The van would drop them off at the north end of downtown at the train depot. Many of these ill patients would have to walk 20 or so blocks to an inn or hotel. Most were still very confused and were barely capable of putting their underwear and pants on in the right order. Many would just end up on the street for days before they were picked up. Your talking bipolar schizophrenia type patients. And to think, these are one of two groups of people that have decent access to mental health care.

Our medical society in the US treats mental health like self help. It just doesn't work very well for people with antisocial disorders. Couple that with all the technology that aids these antisocial disorders and you have a real problem.

Poe4soul wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Horseballs wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

Then these guys will cross the pond. :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

at the risk of using too many words, I'll repeat that police officers report the number one murder weapon in America is the baseball bat.

Those elementary school teachers could have taken that 130 boy if he was armed with a bat. Duh!

No, we're talking about paranoid delusions here, he would have brought a cannon or maybe a nuclear missile. Look, guns don't kill people, people do. Yes that's stupid so don't expect the defense of that to not be stupid.

Also, if anything is changed limiting the use of clip size or attack weapons, all of a sudden 100 million psychotic gun wackos will lose the right to vote, the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby will disappear and pretty soon they'll be taking guns out of everyone's cold dead fingers.

BTW, the world's about to end today, the sky's falling and we're under attack. Once one goes down the psychotic fear road, everything from one's own shadow to corn flakes is scary and lethal. Whoa!!! I thought someone just broke into my house and tried to take my guns away!!!! That was close!!! I think it was the government. Whoa, I think 20 gang members just pulled up, gotta go and load my AK-47-s!!!

Damn, I was gonna thump my bible today but now it looks like I'll have to sit here armed and ready.

I understand what you're saying, but Dave isn't a bad dude. We are a huge country, and his ideas about guns may very well work in Texas or Oklahoma. They don't fit for most of the country.
To take it a step further, and actually respond to Dave's hypothetical situation of 20 gang members simultaneously car jacking his ride. I'd rather have the guy in the car die than have another massacre. And it really is a choice. These mass shootings occur with semi auto weapons with huge magazines. If their 2 uses are to protect a law abiding citizen against 10+ bad guys (I think this happened to Steven Seagall a couple times), and murder multiple innocents, I'm for banning them.

I agree Dave's not a bad guy, I'm only pointing out the degree of paranoid delusion you find in this, whether Oklahoma, Texas or here in California. Because it's something societal affecting millions of voters, paranoid schizophrenia mental illness gets treated as though it's in the bounds of normal when from a psychiatric standpoint it's clinically irrational and psychotic. These people need mental health attention not derision.

Sure some people can bootstrap themselves out of mental illness, but most can't. I think as a concession after assault weapons sales are banned we create safe houses for these people and give them proper mental health treatment. I'm being compassionate here. Guns are the least of these people's problems.

I'll go further. I'm going to personally donate 1,000 aluminum pie plates these people can wear so the government can't steal their brain waves. It's because I care.

I had this discussion with my marketing consultant yesterday. Her father was a psychiatrist and noted the change over the past 30 or so years. Because of her father, she's had exposure to many people running non-profit's to help people with mental illnesses. She was telling me the county in the past 10-15 years would release people from the state mental hospitals to inns and hotels in the downtown area and pay for their rooms and treatments during transition. Here's the rub. The van would drop them off at the north end of downtown at the train depot. Many of these ill patients would have to walk 20 or so blocks to an inn or hotel. Most were still very confused and were barely capable of putting their underwear and pants on in the right order. Many would just end up on the street for days before they were picked up. Your talking bipolar schizophrenia type patients. And to think, these are one of two groups of people that have decent access to mental health care.

Our medical society in the US treats mental health like self help. It just doesn't work very well for people with antisocial disorders. Couple that with all the technology that aids these antisocial disorders and you have a real problem.

It's hard to accept for those of us who can actualize and adapt that there are people who without the help of others are stuck. You and I simply set goals and then just go after them. To people like us, things aren't mysterious or inaccessible. Most people aren't that capable and I feel compassion for them.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but last week a man in China went on a rampage at a school with a knife and stabbed 23 people. Guess how many people died. Zero.

Lorenzzo wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Horseballs wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Poe4soul wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:

Big Dave wrote:

Lorenzzo wrote:Dave, when you enter the world of reason, I'd be glad to debate you.

My friend, I hope and pray that you are right and I am crazy. If that is true, it means one less bad thing that could happen to me or you, and it means my investment in hi cap Glock mags will eventually wither away in rust and plastic dust and I'll lose every nickel I put into them. :-) And when you outlive me because you drink all that red wine, you can toast the memory of your old crazy GR pal who saw gangs behind every dumpster waiting to attack him.

Excuse me while I check that alleyway one more time. ;-)

Well, the gun thing is based in fear. Who's to say where the boundary between rationale and irrational fear is but I think I understand the gun culture, have guns, target shoot, etc. and the gun crowd is well past that boundary. Guns and religion are for many people one and the same in terms of how they see things.

Does making policy around the chance that one of us gets attacked by 20 guys make sense? This is where I hope there are better alternatives as to dealing with one's own problems. Many of us who are gun owners would like to see things rebalanced. It will be interesting to see what happens. The gun lobby is well oiled and has defeated many candidates in the past. On the other hand, vote against and you're exposed.

Anyways, it's out of our hands. It'll either happen now or no later than a few more tragedies. Either way it's coming.

I think you're right. And it won't stop at "reasonable limits", it will just slow down and then continue at slow speed. A few more tragedies, with perhaps 12 people instead of 20 dying, then a ten shot mag will be too much, they'll go to five, then to revolvers only, then to bolt action single shot, they'll reduce power and size of ammo down to .22LR, and eventually nobody will be using guns for self defense because it will be pointless to do so.

Then these guys will cross the pond. :-) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4581871.stm

at the risk of using too many words, I'll repeat that police officers report the number one murder weapon in America is the baseball bat.

Those elementary school teachers could have taken that 130 boy if he was armed with a bat. Duh!

No, we're talking about paranoid delusions here, he would have brought a cannon or maybe a nuclear missile. Look, guns don't kill people, people do. Yes that's stupid so don't expect the defense of that to not be stupid.

Also, if anything is changed limiting the use of clip size or attack weapons, all of a sudden 100 million psychotic gun wackos will lose the right to vote, the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby will disappear and pretty soon they'll be taking guns out of everyone's cold dead fingers.

BTW, the world's about to end today, the sky's falling and we're under attack. Once one goes down the psychotic fear road, everything from one's own shadow to corn flakes is scary and lethal. Whoa!!! I thought someone just broke into my house and tried to take my guns away!!!! That was close!!! I think it was the government. Whoa, I think 20 gang members just pulled up, gotta go and load my AK-47-s!!!

Damn, I was gonna thump my bible today but now it looks like I'll have to sit here armed and ready.

I understand what you're saying, but Dave isn't a bad dude. We are a huge country, and his ideas about guns may very well work in Texas or Oklahoma. They don't fit for most of the country.
To take it a step further, and actually respond to Dave's hypothetical situation of 20 gang members simultaneously car jacking his ride. I'd rather have the guy in the car die than have another massacre. And it really is a choice. These mass shootings occur with semi auto weapons with huge magazines. If their 2 uses are to protect a law abiding citizen against 10+ bad guys (I think this happened to Steven Seagall a couple times), and murder multiple innocents, I'm for banning them.

I agree Dave's not a bad guy, I'm only pointing out the degree of paranoid delusion you find in this, whether Oklahoma, Texas or here in California. Because it's something societal affecting millions of voters, paranoid schizophrenia mental illness gets treated as though it's in the bounds of normal when from a psychiatric standpoint it's clinically irrational and psychotic. These people need mental health attention not derision.

Sure some people can bootstrap themselves out of mental illness, but most can't. I think as a concession after assault weapons sales are banned we create safe houses for these people and give them proper mental health treatment. I'm being compassionate here. Guns are the least of these people's problems.

I'll go further. I'm going to personally donate 1,000 aluminum pie plates these people can wear so the government can't steal their brain waves. It's because I care.

I had this discussion with my marketing consultant yesterday. Her father was a psychiatrist and noted the change over the past 30 or so years. Because of her father, she's had exposure to many people running non-profit's to help people with mental illnesses. She was telling me the county in the past 10-15 years would release people from the state mental hospitals to inns and hotels in the downtown area and pay for their rooms and treatments during transition. Here's the rub. The van would drop them off at the north end of downtown at the train depot. Many of these ill patients would have to walk 20 or so blocks to an inn or hotel. Most were still very confused and were barely capable of putting their underwear and pants on in the right order. Many would just end up on the street for days before they were picked up. Your talking bipolar schizophrenia type patients. And to think, these are one of two groups of people that have decent access to mental health care.

Our medical society in the US treats mental health like self help. It just doesn't work very well for people with antisocial disorders. Couple that with all the technology that aids these antisocial disorders and you have a real problem.

It's hard to accept for those of us who can actualize and adapt that there are people who without the help of others are stuck. You and I simply set goals and then just go after them. To people like us, things aren't mysterious or inaccessible. Most people aren't that capable and I feel compassion for them.

This talk of mental illness reminds me of this youtube