Sandy Hook

Off-Topic 173 Replies

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!

Medium logoscopiccroppedblue2Bill Gulley, General Real Estate Academy | https://generalrealestateacademy.com

Hi Bill!

Medium lishproplogoJ Scott, Lish Properties, LLC | [email protected] | http://www.123flip.com

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!

Medium logoscopiccroppedblue2Bill Gulley, General Real Estate Academy | https://generalrealestateacademy.com

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 ...

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.

Medium logoscopiccroppedblue2Bill Gulley, General Real Estate Academy | https://generalrealestateacademy.com

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.

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

Medium realstarter2Bryan Hancock MBA, RealStarter | [email protected] | (512) 827‑9638 | https://www.realstarter.co/Home/BH

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 | [email protected] | http://www.123flip.com

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 realstarter2Bryan Hancock MBA, RealStarter | [email protected] | (512) 827‑9638 | https://www.realstarter.co/Home/BH

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.

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

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 realstarter2Bryan Hancock MBA, RealStarter | [email protected] | (512) 827‑9638 | https://www.realstarter.co/Home/BH

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.

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 almost 4 years ago

Should say "reading"

Medium realstarter2Bryan Hancock MBA, RealStarter | [email protected] | (512) 827‑9638 | https://www.realstarter.co/Home/BH

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.

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.

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 | [email protected] | http://www.123flip.com

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 | [email protected] | http://www.123flip.com

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.

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.

Medium realstarter2Bryan Hancock MBA, RealStarter | [email protected] | (512) 827‑9638 | https://www.realstarter.co/Home/BH

I recommend reading the "How to Analyze the News" article at the Joel Skousen web site. He has some other good reads there too, it's worth taking a look at.
I also like Dr. Steve Pieczenik's writings, he has an interesting podcast at the top of his website.
"Paul Craig Roberts" seems to have a grasp on reality, the "Agenda Driven news" from Dec.19th is good.
I stopped listening to network media a long time ago, got tired of all the shallow propaganda and just boring never ending nonsense.

Originally posted by J Scott:
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?

LOL! "Abrasive" is what you might use a little more of in your rehabs, NOT what you should BE when responding to a fellow BPers post!! :c)

Notice the "." after "drunk" and before "Prohibition"!! And being that I was offering my opinion, I do suppose I made 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.

Nothing at all wrong with my analogy, and I made no mention at all about outlawing alcohol to reduce drunk driving deaths. Prohibitionists believed that outlawing alcohol would lead to a decrease in crime. It did the opposite and there were significant increases in crime. Prohibition did not work for the purpose intended. Likewise, increased penalties have not stopped people from driving drunk and killing peoplewith their vehicles. I liken the anti-gun movement to the Prohibitionist Movement in that the outlawing of guns would not likely have the desired effect in keeping them out of the hands of criminals who use them to kill people.

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.

"unlike guns, cars have purposes other than killing people" ?? Really? How about trap, skeet and target shooting? Hunting? Dispatching halibut so you can pull the beasts into the boat with ya!? Then theres the little thing we call the Constitution! Although an actual conflict might bring about some killing with guns, the highest purpose of a "well armed militia" is it's effect as a deterent to a government intent on pissing on said Constitution. Which BTW, is happening EVERY DAY!

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.

This supposes that the criminal doesnt already have a gun. If he does... And i'd guess most do... Then any ban or regulation will really only effect the law abiding gun owner. It is not a moot point? We have millions of guns in this country. You cannot confiscate them all nor can they be legislated out of existence. The anti-gun movement that picks up steam every time a tradegy such as Sandy Hook takes place, is simply an emotional response that not only does not present logical solutions, it dominates the conversation which should focus on the breakdown of our society.

Government may regulate the type and use of arms, but they may not infringe upon our right to own them. My point is that all the regulation they can come up with will only be followed by law abiding citizens.

Is it logical to limit the rights enjoyed by the masses as a means to address the actions of a relatively small number of individuals... Especially considering that those measures may not keep the guns out of the hands of those individuals?

Where is the conversation about labeling and drugging our kids? Or about behaviors that should raise flags and alert us that troubled people need help? I'm not at all surprised that the Obama admin is using this as an excuse to go after guns. Bandaids is what our government is all about. Solutions? Not so much.

Happy New Year Cowboys! LOL

Okay, for those who research stats and studies, how many mass shootings have there been in the past 20 years with fully autoamtic weapons in the United States? Machine Guns?

I doubt you'll find any......why is that? Perhaps because they are highly restricted!

You can own a 50 cal machine gun, just get a FFA license and enough money to buy one. You can also own your own tank capable of firing but you'd need to make your own ammunition. The only weapons that are not in civilian/corporate hands are the really espensive stuff, like battleships, missels and fighter planes I guess.

Gun restrictions do work.

Mine are now under double locks, with one exception and that's a secret, no one but me knows where it is, I doubt the police could find it with x-raying the place.

Having lived in Europe I can tell you gun incidents are rare, they have shotguns for sport and hunting. Civilians don't carry handguns. They do have criminals but it is very hard for them to get thier hands on any gun.

But, using stats from Europe are not statistically valid as there are influences to and on the population samples that are significantly different, that is attitudes! I bet you'd need to talk to a thousand europeans to find one that has even similar gun right views as someone from Texas. They do not glamorize guns as we do, in our history, movies, TV or socially. I use to shoot skeet in team competition and even the sportsmen in europe have a totally different attitude, they are very responsible and keep guns as secured as possible at all times, probably because if thier gun gets out and is involved in criminal activity, they go to jail!

Around here, there are red necks with all kinds of rifles and shotguns on a gun rack in the back window of thier pickup! Do they just want to show them off? Is there a message there, don't mess with me? Are these guys our civilian protectors, the wannabies of law enforcement? It's cultural, americans raised around guns and the false sence of security perceived from having one. A gun owner here is 10 times more likely of having a gun incident shooting themselves or someone in thier household than shooting an intruder or defending themselves in a gun fight.

I agree that guns will always be out there, I really don't think any sane person advocates the taking of all guns, I don't.

While I don't see any real need for a 30 round magazine, since I own an AR-15 I have several.....loading is kind of a pain. I can still change out a 20 round (I don't have a 10 round, rather odd for the AR) in about two seconds. In the Army we taped them one upside down, just made it quicker instead of pulling it out of the ammo pack, you can tape three as well, that's 90 rounds, but you need to hold on to them and they get heavy. That just isn't needed at all in civilain life and taping mags, from what I understand is illegal here.

I'll stop ranting, point of gun restrictions is not so much about having some nut or criminal follow the law as it is about lawful owners controlling the guns out there. Next issue is mental health of owners and in the Sandy Hook incident a gun owner keeping guns secured away from someone who was known to have mental issues. If she had properly secured those weapons and kept the key locations secret from the family, there might be 26 people alive today.

If some nut can go to a gun show and buy a gun, that is a problem.

And there is more blood on the hands of the NRA influencing politicians than by those killed in military conflict. The NRA has kept the ATF from being allowed to communicate with terrorist lists, any mental hospital records, keeping any record of secondary market purchase and other tools that might be used to enforce current gun laws. Gun manufactures are more than willing to allow guns to float around unrestricted, used in criminal activity, and mass shootings as an acceptable collateral damage issue to thier profits. And while the NRA is disguised as a gun saftey and educational organization they are actually the mouthpiece of gun manufactures. They use paranoia and fear as thier marketing plan.

I agree that technology can help greatly. As to high tech guns, finger print technology, that would help ensure only the owner had access. An argument by those opposed would probably be from some fantasy event where the owner was incapacitated and a family memebr counldn't use the weapon to save lives. A real issue is the cost, the cost to add such technology and the cost to buy it, what manufacture wants to increase the price of thier product without providing a higher functional use or enjoyment, few gun owners are so responsible that they would be willing to pay more for a safety feature, IMO.

Wow, articles every month of a couple stories where a civilian with a gun prevented criminal activity or saved someone.....what is that, possibly a hundred issues a year compared to the thousands arising out of the lack of control, lack of owner responsibility and criminal use?

So, I revert to my original post where things need to change. IMO!

Medium logoscopiccroppedblue2Bill Gulley, General Real Estate Academy | https://generalrealestateacademy.com

BTW, one woman shot last night in critical condition in her home and some guy robbed two different gas stations with a rifle, just last night in this town. :) Oh, where were the gun toaters then?

And, to those who carry, if you are a target and the bad guy knows you carry, you dounderstand that you can be taken out at a 100 yards easily at any time, right? You won't even have the opportunity for you fantasy gun fight!

Medium logoscopiccroppedblue2Bill Gulley, General Real Estate Academy | https://generalrealestateacademy.com

Originally posted by Bill G.:
Gun restrictions do work.

Uh....no they don't. There is a multi-page STUDY with FACTS above that shows they don't OBJECTIVELY.

Look, I"m not a "gun nut" and I am sure my position is influenced some by my culture and where I live. I do know how to read studies with facts in them though. Ya know....data and evidence instead of opinions and innuendo.

If you're going to say that restrictions do work then please supply real data instead of opinions. Note that the study cited shows that cultural items do, in fact, influence things heavily. I'm not sure how we change the glamorization of guns in our country, but passing gun control measures won't help with keeping absolutely insane people from plotting attacks for months, getting guns or other weapons, and doing bad things any more than banning explosive materials helps with keeping nuts in other countries from blowing themselves up in crowed areas. How is this not patently obvious?

Medium realstarter2Bryan Hancock MBA, RealStarter | [email protected] | (512) 827‑9638 | https://www.realstarter.co/Home/BH