Sandy Hook

Off-Topic 173 Replies

Originally posted by Rob K:

I think you would be very suprised (shocked!) at how many people around you are carrying guns.

You'd be wrong. Many of my investment properties are in Kennesaw, GA. Do a Google search on guns in Kennesaw, GA and you'll see why there is no surprise (and certainly no shock).

I know (statistically) how many people are carrying (based on public data) and I also will have open conversations with people I know (including my contractors) about who's carrying. I don't really care if someone is carrying or not (and they know that, so they have no reason to lie to me about it), but I prefer to know in case a situation arises.

And please don't start using Kennesaw as the poster-child for why everyone having a gun means no crime. I can name 10 other towns around Atlanta that don't have this law and that have tremendously low crime rates. As I've said numerous times in this thread, the statistical data is too complex to make blanket statements about how gun regulation will affect crime rates.

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

Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Randy F.:
I took Hunters Safety when I was fourteen. What I learned there was engrained in me and I have never forgotten.

I took English Lit when I was fourteen. I don't remember a thing.

I dont doubt that.

Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Randy F.:

Millions of people have taken gun safety courses as kids and I have to believe it has stuck with them as well.

Most 14 year olds took algebra, but 95% of the adults I know aren't very proficient at algebra.

Again, I dont doubt that.

Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Randy F.:

Would you tell us that we can only posess our guns on our own property?

It's not up to me. But, if it were, I'd tell you to take another class and a test if you wanted to carry in public. If you're not willing to take a class and a test, it must not be that important to you (at least that's my take).

Personally, I dont have a big problem taking a course. I do have a problem with the Feds feeling the political need to tell me, as an Alaskan, that I need more than my state requires of me to conceal carry. States have different requirements for conceal carry permits and some require no permit. I get it that training and testing would give you a warm and fuzzy, but what is your concern based on. Have you seen data that shows there are a significant number of accidental shootings or murders that are tied to conceal carry? Of course, those who commit murder with guns likely concealed them, but its quite obvious that they were already "proficient".

Im not sure how we got on subject of training and testing. I respect your opinion and if the law required, I would do it so that in the cases I choose to carry I could do so legally. My problem with the whole issue is with the political class and their need to justify their existence thru over-regulation. They cant pass a damn budget nor work within one, but they have all the time in the world to craft bills that dont even come close to addressing the real problems. It is based 100% on political ideology. [/ quote]

Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Randy F.:

Should we be required to spend our time and money on some newly required training and testing?

Yes, just like you need to spend your time and money to learn to drive, learn to be a real estate agent, learn to fly an airplane, etc.

You're correct, I might forget not to point my guns at people, whether loaded or not. Or I might forget that my guns need to be secure when kids are in my house. Or I might forget to carry revolver on an empty cylinder. Im sure the federal government can test the stupid out of me.

Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Randy F.:

New gun laws and regulations that adversely effect millions of responsible gun owners because of the actions of a few, is simply more unnecessary and ineffectual governmental intrusion into our lives.

I don't care if they're responsible gun owners. I want them to be proficient gun owners, and there is no way to know that without proficiency testing. 50,000 guns are stolen every year, and I'd be willing to bet many of them are used to commit crimes. In my opinion, if you let your gun get stolen, you're not a responsible gun owner. That's a lot of not-responsible gun owners out there.

im not sure what being proficient with a gun and having it stolen have to do with each other, but I dont disagree that many who have them stolen are not responsible gun owners.

Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Randy F.:

Carrying a gun into the Alaskan bush is no guarantee against being mauled by a bear, but the loss of the ability to legally do so would cost lives. The 44 I carry while bow hunting may not stop a charging brown bear but i should be able to legally carry it for the peace of mind it gives me.

I agree you should be able to carry it. Have I said otherwise? Just like you should be able to jump in your car and drive away if attacked by a bear. But in both situations -- carrying the gun and driving the car -- you should have to be trained and tested.

I don't see you arguing about having to take a test to drive a car. How is that different?

I grew up at a place and time where the vast majority of kids had fathers in the home and a huge number of them hunted. Our dads taught us the proper handling of firearms and we were required to take hunters safety if we wanted to hunt before the age of eighteen. It was a huge deal and we took it very seriously. Much more seriously than algebra, by the way. Times have changed and I do think it would be wise to require first time gun purchasers to have gone thru a training program as so many either grow up in the cities or without a parent to teach them. But I stand by my belief that redundancy in training is unnecessary.

Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Randy F.:

A large group of black teens routinely threw rocks at us as we entered and left one particular area. I was carrying back then and for the same reason i carry in the bush...

You carry in the Bush for the same reason? You get rocks thrown at you by black teens in the Bush?!?! (sorry, couldn't resist :)

No, that is not what I said. I said I carried when working in the core for the same reason i carry in the bush... Because of the potential for being attacked. But Im happy you were amused anyway!

Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Randy F.:

Peace of mind that if I was attacked, I at least had the oportunity to protect myself. Whether or not I should have been there in the first place is beside the point. In a free country, we should be able to go anywhere we want, and to feel safe doing so.

I agree completely. You have a right to go wherever you want and you have a right to protect yourself. I believe I have a right to know that if you're around me, you're well trained with your deadly weapon. If I found out you were driving your car untrained and without a license (that you needed to pass a test to get), I'd be concerned about that as well.

What's the difference?

Im more concerned about those who did pass their driving test and have a license. You know.... The ones who act like they are the only ones who have a right to be in the road, and the ones who drink and drive, and the ones who apply make-up, text, and breast feed while driving. At least those without a license tend to drive cautiously so as not to get busted!

J Scott I had never heard of that law, but I find it to be ridiculous. It's another gun law that I disagree with :)

Originally posted by Randy F.:

Personally, I dont have a big problem taking a course. I do have a problem with the Feds feeling the political need to tell me, as an Alaskan, that I need more than my state requires of me to conceal carry.

I can very much respect that. And I even noted above that I think it's BS that our current administration is using Sandy Hook as a political tool to try to push through more gun regulation (or at least I assume they will try).

I'm not a fan of regulation for the sake of regulation, and I'm certainly not a fan of knee jerk regulation. I'd love for some smart people who aren't politically motivated to study this for a couple years and make a recommendation that isn't based on my (likely flawed) common sense or anyone else's (likely flawed) common sense opinions.

If you want to discuss the politics of all this, we probably very much agree...


Have you seen data that shows there are a significant number of accidental shootings or murders that are tied to conceal carry? Of course, those who commit murder with guns likely concealed them, but its quite obvious that they were already "proficient".

I've seen data that indicates that many legal guns are stolen and used to commit crimes. I've also seen data that indicates that if you own a gun, you're more likely to die from it than be protected by it (even ignoring suicide, which I have no problem with).


Im sure the federal government can test the stupid out of me.

Because I took this out of context, let me remind anyone reading that I believe you said this sarcastically (just don't want anyone to think I'm trying to twist words).

And I completely agree with you...this is the big problem. There is no amount of regulation that will keep people from doing stupid stuff. I was there were. Personally, I think you keep people from doing stupid stuff by not giving them the option.

For example, I don't give me 2 year old a sharp knife even though he thinks he can cut his own food with it. That said, I respect that the government can't (and shouldn't) be treating citizens like 2-year olds...we have a Constitution that protects us from that.

But, I'd love to find a compromise that provides us our freedoms (as I've said lots of times, I'm NOT for banning guns) but also allows everyone else to feel secure (and be as secure as possible). It's a tough compromise to find.


im not sure what being proficient with a gun and having it stolen have to do with each other, but I dont disagree that many who have them stolen are not responsible gun owners.

If you're stupid enough to let your gun get stolen, you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun for several other reasons as well... :)


Times have changed and I do think it would be wise to require first time gun purchasers to have gone thru a training program as so many either grow up in the cities or without a parent to teach them. But I stand by my belief that redundancy in training is unnecessary.

I think we can agree on that...again, I'm not for regulation for regulation sake.

I actually don't think we're too far apart in our beliefs...

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

Originally posted by Rob K:
J Scott I had never heard of that law, but I find it to be ridiculous. It's another gun law that I disagree with :)

Agreed. Requiring guns is just as bad as banning them.

On the bright side, the law isn't enforced (as far as I know). We're considering moving there, so I certainly hope it's not... :)

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

I think you're definitely correct that no amount of data, statistics, studies, etc. will really help with this debate J. I am a majority of one when it comes to having the *right* to protect my family; be it in my house or elsewhere. Many, I suspect, have the same belief. I don't give a rat's a$$ what is in the greater good of society, who is deemed competent enough (via testing) to operate weapons, etc. What I care about is my personal liberty and the ability to defend myself. If statistically it raises (which I am not really sure that it does) the likelihood of bad things happening so-be-it. I don't think the responsible people should have to suffer because there are many non-responsible people and/or criminals out there.

It is hard to argue with a belief. I'm not sure that any amount of data can persuade someone to jettison their innate right to defend themselves even if it infringes on someone else's *feeling* of safety.

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

@J Scott

After my last post I saw your response to Bryan I think it was, and I got a good chuckle. Words on a page are difficult to judge when you know someone, so when you dont it is especially challenging!

I like a good debate as well. Im just not as adept at playing both sides of the issues tho... Im older an crustier than you are!

I dont know if you do the Facebook thing or not, but family members worked on me for a good spell and I relented. Between that and political blogs I spend time on, im accustomed to dealing with some real morons. Its pretty scary when you consider how out of touch with reality so many people are. And yes, I realize its all about perspective and I do question my own, but still...

Anyway, thanks for the banter. As Bryan noted in his last post, no matter the data or how strongly held our opinions are, we likely wont change anyone elses. While that is true, engaging others on the issues helps me to evaluate my own thinking and belief systems, and I do on ocassion adjust my views. I can hope that others have the capacity to put ego aside enough to allow their thinking to evolve as well. If there is one thing I do know, its that Ive got alot more to know. Ya know?

Originally posted by J Scott:
And those were trained cops randomly shooting bystanders! Imagine what untrained citizens with guns might do in a similar situation. I'd rather take my chances with the gunman.

You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. You will be at the gunman’s mercy. It is a myth that cops are always “highly trained.” Some departments have qualification only once a year. There are plenty of excellent CIVILIAN shooters and schools. The Gunsite Academy is one that comes to mind. Most people who have and carry guns enjoy training with them and one of the first rules of marksmanship is to know your target and be responsible for every round that leaves your firearm.

The best solution in school is to have armed teachers. Of course the first people to balk at that will be the teachers. It used to be in the times when our country was founded a “gentleman” could shoot his musket, ride a horse, hunt, speak Latin, perform calculations with mathematics, play an instrument and dance. We have lost our ruggedness and become soft.

Originally posted by Steve Might:

The best solution in school is to have armed teachers. Of course the first people to balk at that will be the teachers.

So, according to you (based on the two statements above), the "best solution" is to give guns to people who don't want guns?

If that's your best solution, I hate to see the worst solution...

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

Originally posted by J Scott:
So, according to you (based on the two statements above), the "best solution" is to give guns to people who don't want guns?

Did you read and comprehend everything I wrote? I don’t think so. It is from a tactical point that the best people to have the guns would be the teachers. However since most teachers (except for the heartier stock in our western states) would refuse it is simply not possible to have the ideal situation. As has been pointed out, even the most mentally ill murderer will not go into a police station and start shooting. IF we had armed teachers who were trained in correct tactics the death toll in these types of tragedies would be lower or even at zero since it would be a huge deterrent.

My main point is that many of us have become wimps. A true well rounded person should be comfortable with a gun and a book. Just like a good well rounded landlord should be able to do his taxes AND fix a toilet.

Originally posted by Steve Might:

My main point is that many of us have become wimps. A true well rounded person should be comfortable with a gun and a book. Just like a good well rounded landlord should be able to do his taxes AND fix a toilet.

If we lived in a world where most people were well-rounded, my guess is that that world wouldn't have nearly as many idiots running around with guns trying to kill large groups of people.

Btw, I'm guessing that many landlords do their own taxes and fix their own toilets...in my opinion, if they were well rounded, they would realize that they could make a lot more money by outsourcing this stuff to professionals and spend their time focusing on the tasks that earn them more money or enjoyment.

I guess we have different definitions of well-rounded...

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

Originally posted by J Scott:
If we lived in a world where most people were well-rounded, my guess is that that world wouldn't have nearly as many idiots running around with guns trying to kill large groups of people.

I agree, but you will always have an element of society that is cruel and criminal. I think these types would have more to fear if they were surrounded by people who can and will defend themselves and the innocent.

Originally posted by J Scott:
if they were well rounded, they would realize that they could make a lot more money by outsourcing this stuff

That sounds like what I call “guru speak.” That is when some so called expert writes that a landlord needs to “let the pros do it” while he spends his time “doing deals.” There is no reason that I as a landlord can’t save myself a $150.00 service call to replace a washer or put in a GFCI.

Originally posted by J Scott:
I guess we have different definitions of well-rounded...

The term seems pretty straight forward to me.

Originally posted by Steve Might:
Originally posted by J Scott:
...they would realize that they could make a lot more money by outsourcing this stuff

That sounds like what I call “guru speak.” That is when some so called expert writes that a landlord needs to “let the pros do it” while he spends his time “doing deals.”

Personally, I like to treat my real estate investing like a business. Not everyone does and there is nothing wrong with that. Clearly that's not something you're interested in, and that's your decision. To each his own.


There is no reason that I as a landlord can’t save myself a $150.00 service call to replace a washer or put in a GFCI.

If you're willing to do it yourself, that tells me that you're not insistent on using a licensed plumber or electrician to do these things. If that's the case, why not find a good handyman who can do it for $25 instead of paying $150 for a service call?

Once you realize that it's only $25 you're saving, you might have a different perspective. Or you may not...again, everyone is different.

Originally posted by Steve Might:
Originally posted by J Scott:
I guess we have different definitions of well-rounded...

The term seems pretty straight forward to me.

Seems pretty straightforward to me too. And yet we somehow still disagree.

Hence my comment that we seem to have different definitions.

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

Originally posted by J Scott:
Personally, I like to treat my real estate investing like a business.

Well I hope it’s a business that actually makes money. However I see you are a flipper. Landlords do tend to be more hands on.

Originally posted by J Scott:

Hence my comment that we seem to have different definitions.

As a well-rounded individual I seek to know accounting, finance, tax, renovating, maintenance, repairs, home inspection, AND yes shooting tight groups at the range.

Originally posted by Steve Might:

As a well-rounded individual I seek to know accounting, finance, tax, renovating, maintenance, repairs, home inspection, AND yes shooting tight groups at the range.

Agreed with all those things...other than repairs, I think I hit most of the list...even my firearm skills are at least average.

Sadly, my diaper changing skills are lacking, so my wife would tell you that I'm nowhere near well-rounded... :)

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

Well, another school shooting! Texas College, multiple people shot. Now, where were the "good guys with guns"? Now, this is Texas, where they think it's a good idea to carry cuns at school!

Okay, continue with your arguments, while more kids die for the rights of cowboys, for the crazies to acquire guns, guns to be sold to nuts or criminals and allowing those with mental problems to run the country side without any concerns.

I don't like regulations either, but living in a society, regulations and laws are necessary for the good of most......

4th college shooting this year!

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

Originally posted by Bill Gulley:
Well, another school shooting! Texas College, multiple people shot. Now, where were the "good guys with guns"?

A college campus is a GUN FREE ZONE. Only criminals can carry guns there. Good guys are not allowed to.

None of Obama's absurd proposals would prevent this. What is your solution?

Originally posted by J Scott:
... when the Soviet Union started banning firearms, gun-related homicide dropped to near zero.

Here is a quote from the first two pages of the study you posted:

"Since well before [1965], the Soviet Union possessed extremely stringent gun controls that were effectuated by a police state apparatus providing stringent enforcement. So successful was that regime that few Russian civilians now have firearms and very few murders involve them."

The report did indicate that removing guns didn't reduce homicides overall, even if it did reduce gun-related death. ...

J Scott -
Given the choice of the "stringent enforcement" by a police state apparatus and the current state of things - what would be your choice?

I would imagine that the Soviet-style police state would not be desirable to a majority of the population - of course, there is no study or data to support that imagining ...

Originally posted by Steve Babiak:

J Scott -
Given the choice of the "stringent enforcement" by a police state apparatus and the current state of things - what would be your choice?

Certainly, if it was either/or, I would choose not banning weapons.

But, there was nothing in my reading of that paragraph that indicated to me that the only way to limit gun ownership is through a police state. Perhaps that's true, but perhaps it's not.

If it's true, then I'm in 100% agreement with (I assume) everyone else here that I'd rather have lots of guns than have a police state. But again, I don't know that to be true.

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

Recall in 2004 there was a brutal school hostage incident in the town of Belsan which is in the Russian Federation. So even tight police control and oppressive gun laws will not work to stop these tragedies. As I said originally it takes a strong armed defense to stop another armed attacker. This means having armed TEACHERS who have the benefit of being on scene. Many school districts simply could not afford the armed guards solution.

Originally posted by J Scott:
If you're stupid enough to let your gun get stolen, you probably shouldn't be carrying a gun for several other reasons as well... :)

Geeze, don't put this guy in charge of rape counseling.

Tim Wieneke, Goodmen Property Inspections | [email protected] | 813‑574‑0155 | http://www.goodmenpi.com

Well, here in our little ole town in the Ozark hills, we have some thieves breaking into cars in shopping center parking lots in braod daylight, busting out windows and grabbing stuff jumping in thier car and taking off. The hillbillys here seem to think that a gun needds to be at the ready to fight bad guys, shoot down black helicopters and be ready for any armed confrontation. If that's the case and you carry it with rubber bands, when you get to the store and you can't take it in with you, even with a permit, then you need to lock it up. Seems like a big hassel to be ready for something that is highly unlikely to occur. And due to the hassel, thieves got away with a gun.

Right to carry, responsibility to secure it! I bet if people went to jail because they failed to secure a weapon more owners would secure thier guns.

Arming teachers is not just a bad idea, it's a really bad idea. Obviously people who think so have never been teachers. Everyone who has been to school might think they know what schools are like, that was the school you went to and how long ago was that? Where I am, kids are not as blantly bad as say some in Dallas or Chicago, but even here teachers have been attacked. Some 135 pound teacher is not going to keep a 200 pound kid from taking a gun away. I have known some teachers that couldn't operate a pencil sharpener or get a drawer open on thier desk. Gun training is a farse, everyone passes, I mean no one gets turned down going through a private gun trainning class, they may get additional assistance, but eventually everyone hits the target. To say everyone is proficient with a gun after these classes is not well informed about the motivation of the gun instructor being in business. Teachers are not cops, they don't go to school to be cops and just because there are some crazies who think everyone should be packing a gun, some teachers don't want to be around guns. Then, I'd be more concerned about my kids being in a building full of guns. Teachers can go nuts, they can be scared and pull a gun, a bullet fired doesn't stop at the bad guy, it can go through a wall and hit some kid. Absolutely not!!!! Now, there might be some small rural schools where a ex-military MP teachs and he may be just fine having been "properly" trained. In some instances in some places I might buy that, absolutely not in all schools and every teacher.

Beyond that, 80+% agree with background checks. No one should be selling guns to just anyone out of the trunk of a car.

I've not read all the posts, I got behind, but did anyone answer my question about gun restrictions, that no one has used a machine gun in any mass shooting, since they were banned! I guess that law works.

I'd also say that this issue is not that political as there are supporters in both parties to crack down with regulations, suggesting it's political is pretty much by those who want to make it political.

BTW, I see where the market value may have gone through the roof for my AR.

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

People seem to forever that the second amendment was put there SPECIFICALLY so we could fight against the government. America would not exist if we weren't able to Arm ourselves against England.

People seem to think that gun rights have something to do with hunting or sport and that's not why the 2nd is there

Originally posted by Bill Gulley:
Arming teachers is not just a bad idea, it's a really bad idea. Obviously people who think so have never been teachers. Everyone who has been to school might think they know what schools are like, that was the school you went to and how long ago was that? Where I am, kids are not as blantly bad as say some in Dallas or Chicago, but even here teachers have been attacked. Some 135 pound teacher is not going to keep a 200 pound kid from taking a gun away.

You're completely wrong Gulley. I was trained to be a high school teacher at Evangel University in your town and was a teacher in Springfield and Marshfield. I think it's a great idea. We use guns to protect our president, congressman, judges, banks, jewelry stores, etc... What do we use to protect our kids? We use a "gun free zone" and when there's a problem we call people with guns to come there. It's pure stupidity the way it's currently being operated.

Also, your statement on weight comparisons is ridiculous. A gun is the equalizer between a 135lb person and a 200 pound person.

Tim Wieneke, Goodmen Property Inspections | [email protected] | 813‑574‑0155 | http://www.goodmenpi.com

Originally posted by Tim W.:

A gun is the equalizer between a 135lb person and a 200 pound person.

So, you're suggesting that if a student attempts to take a gun from a teacher, the teacher should have the right to use the gun on the student? (that's how I interpreted your comment above.)

If not, how should a teacher defend him/herself from a large aggressive teenager with bad decision-making skills?

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