Fishing, maybe? :dubious:
What money? No money is needed to simply allow teachers and administrators to carry. It would probably save money as it would be one less law that needed to be enforced.
I would guess that a non-zero portion of teachers and administrators would carry if allowed. And the bad guys won’t know who is carrying and who isn’t.
And I don’t have a cite for the redneck percentage at Wal-Mart. You could go there on the first of the month and observe. 
Just the sort of thing that would surely deter any reasonable person.
How do you find drug users? It’s basic police work, nothing more.
Do you really need to have it repeated to you? People with guns kill more innocents than people without guns. Yes, guns play a role. If you have no realistic or even thought-out proposal whatever to address the people problem, and you don’t, then you address the killings problem by something that *can *be done. Or else you are claiming that your own claimed “right” to own an AR-15 is more important than the right of 12,000 people per year to life. Yes, that seems insane. Because it fucking is insane.
OK, that is what you have to address the people problem. To create a distinction between good guys and bad guys. Fine, let’s explore that: Who are these “bad guys”, how do you distinguish them from “good guys”, and how do you propose to take their guns away? You might find it’s not so easy to define a distinction in such a way that places you comfortably and inarguably among the good guys, but this is your argument and you can defend it. Now: What is a “bad guy”? :dubious:
They were, and they haven’t stopped.
Please cite where 12,000 people per year are killed with AR-15s or even assult weapons.
Please cite where gun bans have reduced the number of homicides.
Even Feinstine admitted that the number of deaths by weapons covered in the AWB were about 34 per year.
Not that that many would be saved but that is the number of homicides committed with those types of weapons in total.
I’m certainly not referring only to those types of weapons.
Now, can you address the actual point or can’t you? Rights are in conflict here. How do you sanely put your claimed right (which remarkably exists only in the US) to own (insert your favored noun here) over the right to life itself?
Maybe it’s as simple as that. But is it really insane? The right to smoke cigaretts, drink alcohol, eat fat and sugar, etc, all seem to outweigh their even worse consequences.
It doesn’t only exist in the US and thank you for admitting you are for a complete ban.
But you are avoiding the fact, even with a across the board ban show me evidence that it will decrease the murder rate.
Australia type bans didn’t work do so, Mexico’s bans haven’t worked.
Can you not provide a cite that shows that banning lawful ownership of firearms reduces the mainly criminal on criminal murder rate?
Can we stop talking about what may or may not prevent mass shootings? Mass shootings are so infrequent that their death toll is insignificant in a country of hundreds of millions. All this talk about arming teachers is just as unnecessarily paranoid and reactionary as the talk of surrounding schools with armed guards or concertina wire or TSA checkpoints with millimeter wave scanners or land mines or whatever.
That, and we need to realize that nothing is going to prevent the lightning-strike madman mass shootings except getting rid of 1) all the semiautomatic weapons, or 2) all the mentally ill people who would do such a thing. The first item isn’t desirable (at least not for gun rights folks) and the second probably isn’t possible; but then I’m not a mental health professional so I’ll leave that question to those who are.
Since the discussion seems to be focusing on “assault weapons” like the AR-15, it should be noted that this is only true when you mean people with handguns. Because in fact, people without guns of any kind kill more innocents than people with rifles, assault weapons included.
You’ve overestimated by a couple orders of magnitude there. Nearly all of those deaths are from handguns, not semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. The popularly defined class of “assault weapons,” which includes the AR-15 and many similar rifles, has been involved in fewer than 400 deaths in the last eight or nine years. A much less sensational number, especially considering that, to put it in your words, I think my right to have a cocktail with dinner is more important than the right of thirty thousand or so per year to life.
If you want to talk about more regulation on handguns, then at least we’ll be talking about something that could conceivably make a difference to our considerable firearms violence death toll. I think we can have a reasonable discussion about that, and possibly even identify mutually acceptable compromises between gun rights and the public safety impact of handguns.
But please, let’s put “assault weapon” bans back on the shelf with the other pointless, paranoid, and reactionary ideas, like arming teachers and schoolchildren.
Wait a minute! I resemble that remark! Uh… wait…what?
BTW, crackers use whips, not guns.
Nowhere else is the claim made widely, or even at all.
Only because I do place a higher value on life itself.
I’m sure you can cite those “facts”.
How many of them *would *you consider significant? :dubious: Dear Lord.
The “assault weapons” discussion is in play only because a full cure for the problem cannot be practically achieved immediately. But there’s no reason not to discuss the full ramifications of the full issue.
The best way to avoid action on any matter is to insist on more study of the problem. The second-best way is to nitpick the details. The third-best way is to denigrate proposed actions with derogatory adjectives. Congratulations on invoking all three.
Let’s start with that 12,000 number and the types of firearms being used. It’s handguns, not AR-15s or all of the other assault weapons combined.
Looking at handguns, there are two types of owners. Group A includes those that purchased their guns legally through dealers or private parties, and Group B those who own stolen guns purchased from other than reputable outlets.
Can we agree that a large number of the homicides that make up that 12,000 number are committed by Group B and not Group A?
Can we agree that a large number of those homicides committed by Group B used illegally obtained handguns?
Can we further agree that if we truly want to take a dent out of that 12,000 number we start there?
Can we agree to the fact that there is both a “why” AND and a “how” for each of those homicides?
If we can agree on all of that, we can start the discussion, leaving emotions at the door.
What claim? A right to bear arms?
As for laws not having an effect, yes it has been documented in this and other threads, here is a post of mine in another thread.
Your turn, I will ask again for a cite or I will assume your claims are not based on facts but are purely fantastic.
If you can explain why you wish to draw the distinction there, and refuse to discuss murders obtained with legally-obtained guns, or the fact that most illegally-obtained guns were originally legal.
So, why?
Either its a fact or not. If you can’t get past that, whats the point?
it can do quite a bit. i assume people on both sides of the gun control issue want to know that legal guns are with their legal owners, and that police can track any illicit gun trade.
Not all facts are relevant. For some, invoking them is distracting or actually obfuscatory. That’s the point.
I’m not trying to do either.
The powers that be might get some sort of “assault weapon” legislation passed but we all know it wont do dick. I thought you were interested in discussing what could work, and along with that, something that might actually be embraced by enough gun owners to make passage likely.
If I read your post wrong, let me know. I’ll go back to watching football.
Like that unsubstantiated claim that restricting the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens has a significant effect on the homicide rate?
Or are you just going to keep going without providing any cites?