Originally Posted by MagnumPI (Post 3067989)

Why wouldn't it happen? UK did it. Germany did it at one point. Australia's done it. North Korea, even pulled it off. And they're dirt floor broke!

Originally Posted by pj67coll (Post 3067974)

That's the problem. Unless you have on on your person it's useless in a situation we are discussing. It would be like having police officers leave their guns in the car until they go and check out the situation and figure out if they need them or not. Ludicrous.

I used to carry a pistol on me for years before I left SA. It's no big deal frankly assuming you are responsible about it. The problem would be in finding the responsible people, and agreeing on weapon type and carrying method.

But then of course I'm sure there would still be such an outcry from much of the public that it could never happen anyway.

- Peter.

Originally Posted by dropnosky (Post 3067992)

Australia I think is the closest to us in terms of sheer number of firearms stockpiled, but they didn't ban them all, plus they don't have the 2nd amendment culture we have on top of that.

Its just not possible to do in this country, some kind of compromise is really the best that could happen. I use the opinions of this thread as an example.

Various people actually think its a workable idea to arm teachers ect and give them military training. I think thats totally impossible.

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 3067990)

Like I said, your mother is the one to coddle you, not I. Apparently, you're unable to take a good discussion without getting your feelings all hurt............your mother will help you with that.

If you really believe that I'm the mad internet hatter with no manners, you've really grown up in the dark. I've simply pointed out the errors in your ridiculous assertions which you continue to make.

So, you admit that he could kill plenty of people with a shotgun, but you assert that the number would have been reduced? You make two assumptions here:

1) That he cannot get an illegal handgun or semi-automatic rifle.

2) That he doesn't spend additional time in the facility killing people. AFAIK, he only spent about three minutes. He had a good ten minutes.

I conclude that your argument for a reduced body count due to the shotgun is weak, at best. You absolutely fail to reduce the number of incidents. You simply attempt to reduce the number of casualties. This fails to effectively solve the underlying problem.

Now, in your last paragraph, you reverse yourself and agree that tightening gun laws would not have any effect.

So, on the one hand, you want to tighten gun laws...........and on the opposite hand you agree that they won't have an effect, but you must do something so that's what you'll do.

Sorry, but I refer back to the original statements regarding what reactionary people will do when "something needs to be done of some kind".

Originally Posted by dropnosky (Post 3067998)

see? even you can actually be more polite when you care to try, thankyou.

Yes, my point about seeing no effect in gun control for several generations has to do with the saturation of weapons in this country, not a form of hypocrisy, try and understand that.

Unless you broke down the door of every single persons home and searched out every hidden weapon, you would never get them all. My own grandmother at 90+ has no less than 4 totally unregistered firearms in her home, 3 from WW2, and one from the 19th century, some kind of scatter gun. And we are not a big gun owning family, though I have owned 3 or 4 black powder guns over the years.

My point with this is that there needs to be time for available guns to become scarcer, to fall into disrepair, to be collected, ect. I think that process would take several generations. That 100 year old scatter gun has been leaning against the wall in an attic the entire time, remnant of the farm the house originally was, and according to my grandmother, she fired it as recently as 1970.

However, even a blanket law of some kind WOULD make a difference in the firearm murders in the country.

If all handguns were outlawed and required to be turned in, what about that 2 3rds of women killed by angry husbands during domestic disputes that would be less likely to be shot in a fit of passion?

Originally Posted by dropnosky (Post 3067998)

what about that 2 3rds of women killed by angry husbands during domestic disputes that would be less likely to be shot in a fit of passion?

Originally Posted by Dubyagee (Post 3068003)

Could you please cite an article or evidence of this repeated statement.

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3067885)

Those places were closing prior to Reagan's administration...nice try at making it a political problem, though.

Originally Posted by davidmash (Post 3067638)

Arming schools, malls, theaters or what have you should be the last resort. By the time the person with a gun is in a school it is too late. The children are at risk.

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 3067994)

Not quite ludicrous.

It might take one minute to get to the lockbox and retrieve the weapon. That's sufficient time to save some folks.

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 3068002)

I don't care to try..........and my "politeness" level to you is unchanged. Your perception or your backbone might have changed, however.

Your approach, if measured in generations, has merit for the specific type of domestic violence that you refer. Unfortunately, it fails for two specific reasons:

1) It would need to carry some significant strength whereby the number of legal weapons is significantly reduced throughout the country. As you know, under the current political climate, this is impossible.

2) It addresses the domestic violence with handguns that is quite prevalent in society today and seeks to reduce the casualties from that violence. It fails to address the random violence committed by one deranged individual who carefully planned an attack on a large group of sitting ducks.

Now, notice that the thread is all about the second paragraph, as noted above. It is not about the first paragraph.

Therefore, all I can suggest to you, is that you're right back where you started............no realistic plan to accomplish the goal..........and the need to "do something". Is that "polite" enough for you?

Originally Posted by Dubyagee (Post 3068003)

Could you please cite an article or evidence of this repeated statement.

Originally Posted by Brian Carlton (Post 3068004)

I believe the conclusion can be made that without the weapon, the husband cannot perform the shooting.

It's a valid argument.

Originally Posted by dropnosky (Post 3068010)

posted a link to a study done already, can't remember the page, but it was recent. had to do with domestic violence and the firearm.

Here it is again- (It didn't hyperlink, so you will have to cut and paste) EDIT- worked that time

VPC - Facts on Firearms and Domestic Violence