so you think that armed teachers is a rational reaction? how about armored desks, and military training for all teaching staff?

how about brain scans for the whole population? does that sound like reasoned rational discussion? whats more reasoned and rational, evading the 2nd amendment issues at all and finding new ways to bring more weapons in as a threadbare sense of security, or actually discussing the differences between then and now, and how amendments can easily stand to be altered to reflect a much bigger country with different problems these days?

Totally agree on the patriot act.

note to self:

Arguing with Mr. Dropnosky is a complete waste of time and should not be continued because he believes, without any substantive data, that random acts of violence against unarmed civilians will go down if he introduces legislation to control the supply side of the weapons.

This is despite ample evidence that very tight handgun laws in NY and CT do not prevent these occurrences.

FWIW, I'm not a second amendment RWNJ and couldn't care less if Mr. Dropnosky legislates the automatic handgun out of existence. I cannot carry one anyway due the laws of this state.

About two miles from here a DB with an illegal handgun walked into a pharmacy on a Sunday morning and executed the pharmacist, a young woman at the register, and two customers because he needed some crystal meth. Ask Mr. Dropnosky how his new laws worked out for those folks.

At least 4 dead in Medford pharmacy shooting - NYPOST.com

Duh! Isn't it funny how it works that way? Both countries have a policy where virtually everyone serves in the military, gets training and proficiency. The bad guys in those countries know that doing something in the midst of all those guns and gunners will likely have serious and immediate consequences.

I remember seeing a young guy on a small motorcycle riding along next to me on the streets of Zurich with an UZI hanging on the back of the motorcycle.

In the airports of most of those countries it is VERY common to see police with a small, full automatic weopon on their person.

Along these lines, it's no coincidence that the crime rate has gone down since the widening trend toward concealed carry training and permits being issued in more and more states.

I'm disappointed in you Brian. You are normally a MUCH quicker study than this.

......LOL........excellent.:D

Go ahead and write your will to transfer the guns to the police. That way they will not come into your possession. The cops will either melt them down or sell them to their officers for $5 each.

If more people would turn their guns into the police, the streets would be much safer. Only LEOs need guns. And a safer world, is what we are all after, right?

It didn't, they are dead.

However, when timmy the put upon 17 year old goes ape and wants to off his classmates with his dads 45, only to find that its gone as part of Mr. Dropnosky's laws, and he doesn't know how to get a gun, so chooses some other method that results in less people killed or no deaths at all, maybe rules of the kind I am proposing would have some value to you.

No solution will solve all the problems Brian, but it might do you good to actually consider ideas even if reprehensible to you for their potential merits, even if not complete and total for all uses of weapons.

Thank you for proving my point.

If you'd bothered to notice, I haven't advocated ANY of the ideas you mentioned above, in this thread.

oh boy, reason and analysis has entered the room. If it isn't mr emotion and the good ol days himself, back to pin issues on the president in some way, mark my words. :rolleyes:

Ah I understand now. Yes it's possible I guess but that just goes to show the stupidity of the thousand foot rule, or any other like it for that matter. I work in a school district, so carrying a gun on me would be unworkable as I have to enter many of 14 schools on a daily basis.

I don't carry outside of school because I just don't see the need. I'd so so if I felt it was necessary but having grown up in a far more violent society than the US, namely South Africa, the level of crime to which I was accustomed was off the charts worse than what exists here, unless of course you are in the worst of the worst areas like Detroit for example.

I'm not unaware of the reality of crime or the utility of handguns for personal protection, I just don't see the need for one in my situation and would not be able to carry one effectively any way on account of my work.

- Peter.

I have noticed that, those are some of the points brought up in this thread several times, along with others like myself spouting unachievable gun restriction goals.

I asked if you agree, not if you wrote them. Sounds like you don't

Exactly.

The scenario that you indicated is realistic and, if you could eliminate all handguns, including dads target shooting .45, your proposed solution would have merit to eliminate the very narrow scenario that you stated above.

I've certainly considered your idea and the idea itself is not reprehensible to me. Because you're unable to read what I post and process it, I'll say it again.........this time in bold:

I couldn't care less if Mr. Dropnosky's laws resulted in the elimination of all automatic handguns because in this state, I cannot legally carry one anyway.

The problem with your proposal is that it is a pipe dream. It's about as unrealistic as you could possible get in this country. Nobody is going to go for anything that restricts their ability to own a firearm. You'd be lucky to get gun registration in place in every state of the union. So, I wish you'd kindly quit with these over the top recommendations that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Like I originally said............"you and your kind"............all kinds of proposals...........all of them basically worthless in this society.

The big point I was making that everyone seems to not be able to read, is that of all these mass shooting issues, the majority of the guns used were legally registered weapons from relatives or friends of the shooters that were stolen.

Stands to reason, that with those rounded up, you might see a difference in weapon accessibility for a suburbanite shooter, and either a change or heart, or a change in tactics. Would he still be able to kill people if he desires? Sure, what I advocate, is making it slightly less easy

I doubt the guns I would get would be of much use, two are japanese officer pistols, and the other a 45, but I would still be willing to turn them in, just the same.

How about the one where guns not in use are required to be stored in a certified gun safe? That might have stopped him.

As with some other topics with conservatives, you refuse to deal with them until it is too late and then you come out on the loosing end of the stick. Had you dealt with the issue before it hit critical mass perhaps you could have gotten out ahead of the issue.