BiggerPockets


Sandy Hook

Forum Powered By:

174 posts by 16 users

To participate in forum discussions, create a free account or login.

Bill G.

Real Estate Investor from Springfield, Missouri

Dec 24 '12, 06:36 AM


I'm a gun owner and I own "that" rifle and "those" magazines, but the Sandy Hook incident has changed my mind. It's not just guns, but guns are part of the picture and such needs to be addressed. I had teachers that had trouble with typewritters and memeograph (if you know what that is) machines and can't imagine them with a gun. Lampierre is on the fringe and a mouth piece for gun manufactures, IMO. I agree that if you can't hit a target in 10 shots you need to go to the range!

I do support the hunting, sport and personal protection issues of gun onwership, but the crazies who believe they need a gun to keep the government in line are simply nuts and living on another planet of paranoia. Like they are going to use any rifle against a Cobra with heat detection and firing a missle at you from 10 miles away, how insane!

What do you think will come of all this? I'll say the assualt weapons stay on the streets but the magazines will be limited to 10 rounds, whcih I support, no one needs 30 or 100 rounds for an AR-15. Consider that it takes about 2 seconds to drop a magazine and lock and load from the next one, but to do so you need to be very proficient, most mass shooters are not.

I'm also for closing the gun show loop hole, everyone needs to be checked out before buying a gun, all guns should be registered and tracked. If your gun ends up in a fellony, you need to go to jail, that's the only motivation I see to make gun owners more responsible, lock them up and that means from family members, let each qualify to get thier own! I realize an exception would need to be made in the event you locked up your guns but they were stolden, so long as they were well secured.

Mine have been locked, but now I'll carry the key on my key chain instead of leaving it in my dresser drawer. If it isn't with me, it's locked up.

Maybe vedio games should be treated like alcohol, 21 and if you give it to an under age minor, go to jail! Not all, but they'd just have to be rated.

Having congress cut off funding for mental health treatment issues can't be considered, having nuts means identifying them and treating them, at least keep tabs on them as we can't just lock them up.

Now, to get the popcorn!



J Scott Verified Moderator Donor

Real Estate Investor from Ellicott City, Maryland

Dec 24 '12, 11:35 AM


Hi Bill!



Medium_lishproplogoJ Scott, Lish Properties, LLC
E-Mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.123flip.com
CHECK OUT MY BIGGERPOCKETS BOOKS: http://www.biggerpockets.com/flippingbook


Bill G.

Real Estate Investor from Springfield, Missouri

Dec 24 '12, 03:15 PM


Hi J.Scott ya mean you got no opinion? LOL

This was more about just stating my thoughts on the incident, I know folks are on both sides of the issue and that's OK, I'm on thbut it was a dispicable act.

On a happier note.......

MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!



Steve Babiak

Real Estate Investor from Audubon, Pennsylvania

Dec 26 '12, 10:47 AM
3 votes


Originally posted by Bill Gulley:
... the crazies who believe they need a gun to keep the government in line ...

Sounds like those crazy forefathers from the American Revolutionary War ...



Steve Babiak, Redeeming Properties, LLC
Telephone: 6109082183
...


Bill G.

Real Estate Investor from Springfield, Missouri

Dec 26 '12, 12:16 PM


I kinda buy the argument that Jefferson didn't invision state of the art weapons but rather those necessary for self defense and hunting. If not, then justify a citizen having TOWs mounted on his Cobra attack gunship, perhaps a tank in every driveway.

I find the argument of being able to take up arms against the duly elected government a mute point, being able to carry out a treasonous act is rather silly since as soon as one does, they are then in violation of thier alegence and become an enemy of the state.

So, the old framers I don't believe ever invisioned much beyond muskets, I don't think farmers had cannons either, seems that was accepted and common sence.

I can't argue against having an asualt rifle since others have them, so untill they are all out of cirulation, I see some justification. Might note I didn't suggest taking any weapons away but additional management of those out there.

And the fireman who were recently shot, the gunman was a in violation ofexisting laws anyway. Bad guys will not comply with gun restrictions, IMO the only hope is just to make it harder for them to get them by any means.

Some say too that someone hell-bent on doing such evil could just as easily (or easier) make a bomb, but with that comes the chance they blow themselves up making the thing before it's effectively deployed, few shoot themselves with a gun illegally obtained.



Rob K

Real Estate Investor from Michigan

Dec 26 '12, 02:25 PM
1 vote


Originally posted by Bill Gulley:
So, the old framers I don't believe ever invisioned much beyond muskets, I don't think farmers had cannons either, seems that was accepted and common sence.

They also didn't envision "the press" being beyond newspapers and magazines either.



Bryan Hancock

Real Estate Investor from Round Rock, Texas

Dec 26 '12, 02:30 PM
3 votes


I'm sure all of the CRIMINALS who do horrendous things like this would follow those new gun control laws.



Medium_inner10_logo__updated_Bryan Hancock, Inner 10 Capital
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-577-0401
Website: http://www.inner10capital.com/deals
Our Recent Austin Business Journal Article - http://tinyurl.com/Inner10Capital


J Scott Verified Moderator Donor

Real Estate Investor from Ellicott City, Maryland

Dec 26 '12, 03:07 PM
1 vote


I'll say two things:

1. If you're going to use the argument that guns should be legal for the purpose of protecting ourselves from the government, then to be consistent, you should be in favor of legalizing the types of weapons that will actually protect us from the government (including the same weapons the government has). I don't know anyone who is in favor of that, therefore making the "protection from government" argument moot.

2. I'm in favor of legal gun ownership with restrictions. The problem today is that the restrictions are difficult to enforce. In a few years, technology will make those restrictions easier to enforce, and gun control won't be such a controversial topic, as we'll be able to have gun ownership that most consider pretty safe for the public. We just need the technology solution to catch up to the social problem.



Medium_lishproplogoJ Scott, Lish Properties, LLC
E-Mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.123flip.com
CHECK OUT MY BIGGERPOCKETS BOOKS: http://www.biggerpockets.com/flippingbook


Bryan Hancock

Real Estate Investor from Round Rock, Texas

Dec 26 '12, 04:57 PM
1 vote


Originally posted by J Scott:
I don't know anyone who is in favor of that, therefore making the "protection from government" argument moot.

If this was the case why would we still need foot soldiers when we go to war against other countries? This doesn't seems like a very well-thought-out argument to me J. If you're claiming that we'd need to give nuclear weapons to every citizen this is also not something that was provided for in the 2nd amendment.

Regardless of the origin of the law or any legal argument it makes zero sense to try to legislate this kind of thing out of existence. The criminals won't follow the law and thus all you're doing is making those with guns that would stop them during crazy episodes like this less safe.

Having armed folks at schools seems like a decent solution, but it is certainly not fail safe and it would be expensive. I don't know what the right solution is, but I do know that any sort of law to curb this would be foiled fairly easily by CRIMINALS that don't follow the law. Seems pretty straightforward to me.



Medium_inner10_logo__updated_Bryan Hancock, Inner 10 Capital
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-577-0401
Website: http://www.inner10capital.com/deals
Our Recent Austin Business Journal Article - http://tinyurl.com/Inner10Capital


Rob K

Real Estate Investor from Michigan

Dec 26 '12, 05:13 PM
1 vote


Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
Having armed folks at schools seems like a decent solution, but it is certainly not fail safe and it would be expensive. I don't know what the right solution is, but I do know that any sort of law to curb this would be foiled fairly easily by CRIMINALS that don't follow the law. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I carry a gun (almost) everywhere I go. There are too many gray areas. For example, it is illegal to carry a concealed handgun at a school or on school property. (Law abiding people follow this rule. Criminals don't). It is legal for a parent or guardian to be armed while picking up or dropping off their child in the parking lot. It is also legal to open carry in a school. (This would probably freak people out).

If I drop off my second grader or pick her up, I can legally have my gun on me. If I go to an after school event, I can't. There are two teachers at the school that are known for being gun enthusiasts. They both carry when they are not teaching. Why not allow them to carry while they are teaching? They are licensed to carry and have had proper training. We already trust our children to be with them all day. These teachers are currently not legally allowed to have the firearms in their vehicles while on school property.

I think we should offer all former military people who are teachers to also provide security. They could get extra training every summer, carry their guns at school, and get extra pay for doing so. If there's any type of school terrorism, they would be the first line of defense. Teachers in Israel carry guns and they don't have school shootings there. They have to deal with crazy terrorists all the time at shopping malls, but their schools are safe.

We all know that the police are absolutely useless at a school massacre. When Columbine was being shot up, the cops sat in the parking lot eating donuts and were too scared to go inside. We need better security on the inside.



Jon Holdman Moderator

SFR Investor from Wheat Ridge, Colorado

Dec 26 '12, 05:39 PM
1 vote


We all know that the police are absolutely useless at a school massacre. When Columbine was being shot up, the cops sat in the parking lot eating donuts and were too scared to go inside. We need better security on the inside.

Actually Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff Neil Gardner was assigned to Columbine, but wasn't at the school when those two worthless wastes of skin attacked. But he return to the school and did exchange shots with them.

One guard inside a high school isn't going to stop a nutcase. My kids high school (about 13 miles from Columbine) would have taken a half dozen guards to have had decent coverage of all the entrances and exits and its not as big as many schools.

How about an armed guard in every theater? Actually, most theaters I've been to around here do often have armed guards, at least at night.

Most malls have armed police present, too. Didn't stop that shooter.

No way will guards fix this. I don't know what will, but guards aren't the answer.



Jon Holdman, Flying Phoenix LLC


Bryan Hancock

Real Estate Investor from Round Rock, Texas

Dec 26 '12, 11:09 PM
1 vote


I'm not sure if this is on topic or not, but I found this study this evening:

Study On Banning Firearms

Before someone goes and throws a wet blanket on it this was done by Harvard and they don't really seem to have much of an agenda in the article. The summary is that the claims of more of fewer guns or more or less gun control doesn't really matter much.

The article explores what happened in England after the strict gun control laws were enacted and calls out how criminals DON'T follow the laws.

Summarily dismissing the effectiveness of guards by exploring 1-2 episodes doesn't seem fair to me. I don't think they could prevent access to the building and they probably can't prevent SOME people being killed. They could hopefully prevent the mass in the mass killings though. Absent armed guards that are trained properly or on-site teachers with permits being permitted to carry weapons I am not sure what could be done. It would probably be a significant deterrent if on-site personnel were allowed to carry weapons, but it would probably lead to other problems like students stealing them or teachers going nuts and shooting people at times. Then there would be a whole new national crisis over this problem.

I think part of the problem has to do with people that are nut-bags not having a place to be housed and treated too. This would certainly be expensive, but there is a stigma about mental health now and I don't think there is a great place for these folks to receive treatment. Some of the cases would not have been prevented by this, but perhaps a few of them would.

I don't think there is one right answer that is going to solve it all, but restricting access to guns is certainly not the answer. In fact, the article above speaks about a NEGATIVE correlation between gun control and violence. So controlling guns more has a slight negative value for what is trying to be accomplished.



Medium_inner10_logo__updated_Bryan Hancock, Inner 10 Capital
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-577-0401
Website: http://www.inner10capital.com/deals
Our Recent Austin Business Journal Article - http://tinyurl.com/Inner10Capital


Rob K

Real Estate Investor from Michigan

Dec 27 '12, 05:01 AM
1 vote


I'm more interested in seeing what kind of medication this shooter was on than the types of guns or magazines he was carrying. Americans use 80% of the prescription drugs in the world. We as a nation are WAY over medicated. The pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars to make you think you should treat the symptom instead of the problem.

I read somewhere that every school shooting has involved kids on Ritalin. This is a drug that no child should be prescribed under any circumstances. I'm not sure if this current shooter was on it, but I'm willing to bet he was on something.

The entire gun control debate is ridiculous. There are more guns in America than automobiles. How many cars do you see on any given day? That's how many guns are around also. Incidents like Columbine happened during the so called "assault weapons ban". It didn't stop it. We need to stop focusing on any type of gun ban and start focusing on punishing criminals. Our revolving door prison system does not work. I like chain gangs like in the movie Cool Hand Luke. It's one of the few pre 1970 movies that I really like.

Gun bans haven't worked. Even in England now, they have so many brutal stabbings that they had to ban pointy knives. I would rather be shot than stabbed multiple times.

Anyone who thinks any type of gun ban would work in this country isn't seeing the big picture. If you send the military door to door collecting guns, there would be more dead Marines in the first week than during the entire Vietnam War.



Bryan Hancock

Real Estate Investor from Round Rock, Texas

Dec 30 '12, 11:14 AM
2 votes


I figured some would benefit by readying the Bloomberg attack safety tips:

Bloomberg Attack Safety Tips

That should help you out the next time the madman is coming at you with a gun ;-)


Updated: 11:29AM, 12/30/2012

Should say "reading"

Edited Dec 30 2012, 11:29 by Bryan Hancock


Medium_inner10_logo__updated_Bryan Hancock, Inner 10 Capital
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-577-0401
Website: http://www.inner10capital.com/deals
Our Recent Austin Business Journal Article - http://tinyurl.com/Inner10Capital


Rob K

Real Estate Investor from Michigan

Dec 30 '12, 11:41 AM


This Run, Hide, Fight video is good for anyone who works in a large building:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0

You should also always have an escape route planned, whether it's knowing how many rows on an airplane to the emergency door, how many seats at the movie theater to the aisle, etc. I always profile everyone too.

I can't show this video to my kids because it's too violent, but if any knows of a version for kids to Run or Hide in a school, please post it. My kids know what gun shots sound like and they are very good at hiding. I told them to have a hiding place picked out in every room at school - classroom, library, art room, etc. - and to hide if they ever hear shots. At that point, they would be competing with their classmates for survival and most shooters move from room to room fast and pick easy targets. A well hidden child stands a better chance.

When I was a kid in the 80's, we just had to worry about the air rade warnings sounding if the Russians were attacking. It wasn't like this.



Randy F.

Contractor from Anchorage, Alaska

Dec 30 '12, 02:01 PM
2 votes


There are approximately one and a half times more deaths each year caused by alcohol related auto accidents than by murders with firearms. We have made penalties harsher but people continue to drive drunk. Prohibition didnt work. So, we just accept it as a part of life.

There are an estimated 200 million privately owned guns in this country. A total ban on the sale of guns would not prevent someone intent on committing murder from getting their hands on one. And limiting clips to ten rounds is going to make a difference? Really? And banning a semi-auto because it LOOKS like an automatic will make a difference? Really? Its all bandaids that career politicians wish to apply to address an out of touch, emotional response and to justify their own existence.

Nothing will change, and in fact will just get worse, unless the American people become willing to look in the mirror. Our kids are spending as much or more time playing video games than they do in school. The most popular games involve blowing people away. Our boys cant be boys anymore. They are labeled ADD and prescribed drugs to calm them down. Almost half of kids in this country will have lived in a single parent home by age 15. We are becoming increasingly desensitized by the sex, violence, and immorality we are bombarded with on a daily basis from the "entertainment" industry.

Every great society in history has crumbled. History repeats itself. Ours in headed in that direction.

How many specials are we seeing on identifying and helping troubled teens? Thats right. None. Lets just ban or regulate guns. Maybe then the troubled kids with just OD and save us the inconvenience of having to deal with these senseless acts.



J Scott Verified Moderator Donor

Real Estate Investor from Ellicott City, Maryland

Dec 31 '12, 10:28 AM


Originally posted by Randy F.:
We have made penalties harsher but people continue to drive drunk. Prohibition didnt work.

Huh? Do you have drunk driving statistics from during Prohibition? Or did you just make that up?

Regardless, your analogy is a bad one. Outlawing alcohol to reduce drunk driving death is more analogous to outlawing bullets to cut down on gun deaths. A better analogy would be the outlaw of vehicles. Do you think if we completely outlawed cars in this country, drunk driving deaths would decrease? I'm quite positive they would.

I'm not suggesting we do that (unlike guns, cars have purposes other than killing people), but the analogy holds. Get rid of cars, you reduce drunk driving deaths; get rid of guns, you reduce gun death. At least it makes sense that would be the result...and if you look at countries like Australia/Tanzania, you'll see that banning guns almost completely wiped out gun-related crime/murder.

Would shootings go to zero by outlawing guns? Of course not. SOME criminals will still get their hands on guns and use them violently. But, there are many criminals who commit their crimes in the heat of the moment, and if it takes considerable work to get a gun, it's reasonable to assume that many of them would calm down before they went through the trouble of finding one on the black market.

Currently, on average, you'll spend more time in prison for illegal drug related convictions than you will for illegal firearm convictions. Have a mandatory minimum sentence for illegally carrying a firearm and you're likely to see a reduction in the number of people who will carry them.

As for whether we should arm teachers...just wait for the first time there is a "friendly fire" death of a child because a teacher screwed up, panicked or went ape-**** (teachers can have mental illness too) -- the outrage would surely fuel the talk of banning guns completely.

Personally, I'm not against guns (I just went to the range the other night). I do believe people have the right to own guns in order to protect themselves, in THEIR OWN HOME. If someone walks into your home uninvited, shoot away. If you accidentally kill your family, or your kid finds your gun and kills himself, expect harsh punishment; but that's your right.

But, in a public place, and especially in schools, I don't want to have to worry that an average guy with a concealed carry permit might snap or get pissed off and pull a gun.

Btw, for all you Clint Eastwood types who think that armed citizens can stop idiot madmen, keep in mind that of the 100+ mass murders that have occurred in the U.S. in the past 10 years, not a single gunmen was killed by an armed private citizen taking him out.

Regardless, I'll go back to my point in my post above: guns aren't going away any time soon, and in the next few years, technology will play a big part in reducing illegal gun activity. We'll just have to deal with crazy idiots until then.



Medium_lishproplogoJ Scott, Lish Properties, LLC
E-Mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.123flip.com
CHECK OUT MY BIGGERPOCKETS BOOKS: http://www.biggerpockets.com/flippingbook


J Scott Verified Moderator Donor

Real Estate Investor from Ellicott City, Maryland

Dec 31 '12, 10:35 AM


Originally posted by Bryan Hancock:
Originally posted by J Scott:
I don't know anyone who is in favor of that, therefore making the "protection from government" argument moot.

If this was the case why would we still need foot soldiers when we go to war against other countries?

Public sentiment. When the government uses large-scale weaponry to fight wars, there is lots of collateral damage that generates lots of negative press, all which creates a more hostile and risky environment for our soldiers.

When our government decides to go after our private citizens, I can promise you that bad publicity won't be their primary concern.



Medium_lishproplogoJ Scott, Lish Properties, LLC
E-Mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.123flip.com
CHECK OUT MY BIGGERPOCKETS BOOKS: http://www.biggerpockets.com/flippingbook


Rob K

Real Estate Investor from Michigan

Dec 31 '12, 11:41 AM
1 vote


Originally posted by J Scott:
Btw, for all you Clint Eastwood types who think that armed citizens can stop idiot madmen, keep in mind that of the 100+ mass murders that have occurred in the U.S. in the past 10 years, not a single gunmen was killed by an armed private citizen taking him out.

Most (if not all) mass shootings occur in gun free zones. The criminals are p***ies and always look for week targets, kids being among the most defenseless. Schools are always gun free zones and therefore, you will not have any armed civilians. Connecticut has some very strict gun laws and people do not have the right to carry a gun.

I get a magazine every month with my NRA membership called America's 1st Freedom. In every issue, there are about two pages of documented stories of people using a firearm to save their life.



Bryan Hancock

Real Estate Investor from Round Rock, Texas

Dec 31 '12, 03:03 PM
2 votes


Originally posted by J Scott:
When our government decides to go after our private citizens, I can promise you that bad publicity won't be their primary concern.

Think about that for a minute J. If OUR gov-mint goes after OUR citizens why would they use nuclear or other options? Where would the THEY live? Are you saying they would nuke the very soil they intend to inhabit afterwards? Seems pretty silly to me.

If you look at the study done by Harvard above it has many pages of FACTS about what happens when countries try gun control measures. The study does not seem to support your assertion that it decreases killing by guns. In fact, it seems to indicate a slight opposite effect. It also indicates there is way more to the story than simply trying to get rid of the guns.


Edited Dec 31 2012, 15:09 by Bryan Hancock


Medium_inner10_logo__updated_Bryan Hancock, Inner 10 Capital
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-577-0401
Website: http://www.inner10capital.com/deals
Our Recent Austin Business Journal Article - http://tinyurl.com/Inner10Capital


To post a reply or start a new discussion, create a free account or login.

Manage Keyword Alerts

View All Forums