Doc

Frankly I know that the people noted are rabid fanatical gun control advocates that have spent decades doing whatever they can to eliminate guns. It is their life's ambition and they hope it to become a part of their legacy. Yes, I believe that they are perfectly willing and happy to exploit this tragedy for their own agenda. And as a matter of fact they have begun already. I am sure that they feel sorry for the lives lost, but will not hesitate for even a minute to exploit the situation for their own benefit and the furtherance of their ambitions and agenda. And the proof is in their immediate enthusiastic reactions. They are not wasting a minute of this opportunity and most likely had a response already prepared and a plan in place for this event even before it happened.

Great job! Is this still a work in progress or have you already submitted it to the teacher?

The sheriff's advice was spot-on. Stay away from this guy. We don't need to be reading about another tragic event caused by some irrational and out-of-control wacky neighbor going over the edge. STAY ... AWAY .... FROM .... HIM! Find another place to hunt. Seriously, you may have stepped onto a ticking time-bomb.

I made a comment about those who exploit the deaths of innocent children and others as opportunities to further their anti-gun agenda. And for some reason, you have identified yourself with them and taken offense at that statement. What does that say about you? Will you kindly just take just a second and answer that one question? What exactly is your point in defending these people? What is the connection between you and them? I frankly find that activity repulsive. Apparently you feel a need to defend that kind of thing. Why? Look, if you feel some need (for pages and pages) to defend those that look forward to seizing the opportunity to exploit tragedy, and even if you see yourself as one of them ..... knock your socks off. You have a right to that opinion. I didn't realize that any members here would align themselves with that despicable activity. I was apparently wrong. It is now clear that we do have some that think that exploiting dead children for advancement of a personal anti-gun agenda is a proper activity. Hey .... it takes all kinds. But, don't expect me to quietly condone such activity. Personally I find it disgusting.

It is nothing that I want to do. People are asking for suggestions and that is one thing that occurred to me. Simply put a barrier between them and crazies. If you think that security at schools is a bad idea, I simply have to disagree with you. If you have a better way to obtain a secure atmosphere for kids to learn in, I am listening. As far as your comparison to prisons, the chain link fencing is not to keep the kids in. That's a huge difference. It is to keep evil-doers with bombs, guns, etc from access to the walls of the schools or the people inside. The only freedom lost is the ability of someone to simply walk into a school and blow the place up or start spraying the classrooms with bullets or any other means of mayhem that they might have in mind. No, it's not a cure-all, nor is it any kind of impediment to those that have legitimate business inside school walls. And it is another layer of security that is not being taken advantage of anywhere but the toughest inner-city schools.

Unfortunately Wooley is probably right. By the time they get done fiddling with reporting rates and such, I doubt that that individual report will even make any difference in the final rounded off take numbers. I'm not sure about tagging it. I do like seeing that you are even considering it. It helps restore my faith in our hunter integrity. But I'll be honest, I am not sure what the actual legal requirement really is. You killed the animal, but you did not reduce it to your possession. So that is a legal detail that I have never gotten involved with, and I really don't know the answer.

Is this another one of those who consider themselves to be someone that I was talking about. What does that say about you? And don't be telling me to take a break. Just because you can't handle the truth or even any reasonable conversation, don't expect people to accomodate your shortcomings. Now, I assume you didn't even read the quote that you attached to your reply since it had absolutely nothing to do with what you responded to. If you are one of those people that I was talking about, don't be putting the blame for that off on me. That's simply your own self-made problem. If it appalls you that you are identifying with the kind of exploitive people that I was speaking of, maybe you had better take on a little self introspection and figure out why you believe I was talking about you. Think about that.

Seriously, as hunters and gun owners this reply is right on target. Once again we are about to come under serious mindless assault, and the only organization that stands between us and the antis is the NRA. That's how it's been for years. Warts and all, this organization has the clout to keep the irrational 2nd amendment enemies at bay. A task that none of us can do individually. They need our support. Yes it's time to put that small amount of money where our mouth is. Invest in what you believe in, or lose it.

Any of us that have a few years on us can make the same observation that we can't remember horrific actions like this back in our youth. And you know what, semi-automatic rifles were already invented back when I was a kid. Basicly there is not one significant feature of any of the guns produced since those more tranquil days that could be expected to have caused this change toward violence.... None! The only thing that has changed are the people and their attitudes toward life and the value of human beings. And yet we insist that the solutions will be found by doing something about guns. What convoluted thinking!

Maybe you should change that statement to: the gun owners are not willing to make any more concessions. History is littered with the failed brainchilds of the antis. Many which represent harrassments to legitimate gun owners rather than constructive restrictions aimed at real solutions. It is time to end this constant assault against gun owners. The problem of criminal violence can not be solved on the backs of law abiding gun owners. First because they don't work, and second it just plain is wrong and anti democratic in their approach. Yes, I think the the gun owners have conceded plenty over the years and it never is enough because it is the wrong end of the problem. It is designed to harness the law abiding and ignore the "slap-on-the-wrist" administration of existing laws. In other words, the efforts of the antis is focused on the law abiding while at the same time creating more permissiveness and loopholes for the law braekers. And then we sit around all "dumbfounded" that we are in the situation that we are in. The fact is that it is this kind of backward campaign against the law abiding that results in one more reason for keeping the reasonable access to weapons for self protection. The incremental path to private firearms removal has got to cease and work put toward criminal control where it belongs.

First of all, I don't believe there is anything in this thread that has not already been mentioned in the other thread. Second, we are all assuming that a lot of these things are not already being done. In the other thread, I was informed that mental health records are already a part of gun registration. Third, apparently we have some sort of background check for long guns already because a few weeks back I went to Gander Mountain and purchased a .270 bolt action and the salesman accessed a back-ground check site on his computer. Now what extent this check goes to is a mystery to me since I was not aware that long guns were subject to such a background check. So as far as I know there already is no reason for mentally deficient people to have any kind of legally purchased gun (pistol or long gun). Can they improve the system? .... maybe, I don't know. I'm assuming that when they designed the program, it most likely accessed all the background info that is available. So I'm not sure that there is really anything to be added there. expanding the background check to include family members who are not even involved in the application may very well have constitutional and privacy implications. As far as the societal improvements, I would guess that if there were a way of reversing the rot that is systemic in our society there probably would have been some movement in that area already. After all, the problems involved in those areas these days is hardly a secret and it has been known and understood for decades. Most of the barriers involve constitutional interpretations that fortunately keep the government at bay in terms of controlling our personal lives in a truly invasive fashion. So, I am as interested as anyone in a brain-storming session of ideas, but the only ideas that I ever see coming on this subject involve just one narrow segment, that being the elimination of guns or super restrictive regulations of law abiding gun owners. It's nice to call for unbiased discussion, but I have yet to see any new ideas. Of course creating multiple threads on the subject serves no function other than to water down the discussion. Yes, emotions run high on these kinds of discussions. There are people who are very deeply entrenched in their opinions because this is not a new debate. We can try to keep the passions contained, but don't expect miracles....lol.

Let's see, are we calling these rifles "black rifles", "assault rifles", or "paramilitary rifles"? Which one has the most evil connotation to it. How about semi-automatic rifle? That is probably the truest description. but then no one is interested in that emotionless description. It has no theatrical punch that is needed to whip up the maximum hatred .... lol.

I went down in the basement, and pulled the sheet off our Christmas tree and carried it upstairs. The lights were still on it from last year. When you put enough decorations and icicles on, you can't tell what the heck is underneath ..... lol.

Now, tell me that these professional anti gunners are not giddy over this piece of good fortune that has dropped into their laps. read that article that sits linked. These people are disgusting with their exploitation of this tragic event.

Well, I don't know how many times you have tried to quote my post and it seems to come out different everytime you do it. Let me help you out and put the quote in the real words that were used: "I keep getting the feeling that there are way too many people who welcome the news of each of these tragedies because each one serves as fuel for their anti-gun agendas. They seem to come out of the wood-work all re-invigorated and eager to take another chop out of that 2nd amendment that has caused them so much angst. They are always eager to exploit these things as ways to get their next shot of further gun control. They are content to place "feel-good" arguments against a chunk of steel. It saves them from expending intellectual energy toward the real causes and cures of the diseased society that has spawned the evil people that commit these atrocities." So all I can say is if you want to identify yourself as one of the people I am talking about, shame on you. Now you will note that I didn't say anything about people on this site, but yet there seems to be a couple here (yourself included) who are insistant on identifying with this thought. All I can say is what the heck is wrong with you that you would assume I am talking about you. Also, I have to ask ..... Am I talking about you? Are you one of these people? After all, you are the only one who really knows whether or not the shoe fits.

Sometimes I wonder if they really don't have some subliminal impacts on all of us. I remember a time when some of the crap that is depicted on those various CSI programs would have had me barfing right there on the couch. Now, yeah, it's disturbing and uncomfortable to watch, but I don't get that same gut reaction that I once would have. So, it is a desensitizing effect over long periods of time. Now it's true that it doesn't make me want to run right out and copy one of those acts, But I do wonder about kids that grow up with daily diets of that kind of gruesome non-stop crap. There are things happening on a regular basis these days that were completely unheard of not that long ago. There has to be some societal explanation for that. Is it the graphic violence portrayed on TV? ..... beats me. But just maybe ......

Strictly as a point of practicality, I am not sure that the background check can be made any more thorough. I'm not all that familiar with the "behind the scenes" activities that go into these things. It is hard to believe that now that they have such things routinely in place that the administrators of those systems have not already expanded the scope as far as they are legally allowed. I have no idea if that is even a problem because I don't know how many legally obtained guns are involved in crime. I know in this latest episode, the guns were not obtained by the perpetrator legally. background checks for family members ... I doubt that is even constitutional.

Well, certainly in schools, increased security could be improved. Was it here or on the other thread where somebody was talking about schools that had designated conceal and carry outfitted teachers. Maybe it's time to examine that zero tolerance policy that schools have against weapons on school property and actually develop extensive background checks and training programs and appoint designated teachers to become defenders in events of domestic terrorism and other such emergencies. We have various people in schools already that are tasked with various special duties during emergencies. I would add just one more category of safety monitor(s). Also, some rather secure chain link property boundary barriers with access restricted to one entrance that could be manned. I don't see anything wrong with that sort of thing. Anyone coming into school would have to get by that guy. We are mandated to send our children to school. Measures should be taken there to guarantee their safety.

You are right on, and don't think that that stuff is not taking it's toll on our society. Also, those CSI programs that get as graphic as possible when showing some of the crimes of the mentally ill I can just see some of these wackos drooling and taking notes. But here's the problem. First amendment speech protections do not allow any governmental corrections to that problem (and probably rightfully so). So the solution lies in the hands of the viewers. We have to each decide that those are not appropriate programs and deal with it with our channel selectors. I have already started. The answers to the violent games lies in the hands of the parents. They certainly have the right to demand that certain items not be brought into the house. It's time for parents to grow a set and start enforcing rules to their own homes. You find those games in the house, you destroy those games...... simple.

I have given the best answers that I can to someone who apparently is not interested in hearing any answers. I sincerely doubt that you are really reading my replies. That's understandable .... I've been accused of writing little mini-novels in an attempt to be clear .... lol. But seriously, it's obvious that your questions must have been rhetorical because you really don't seem to be willing to open your mind to any answers. I can't converse with someone who has that kind of closed mind. There's no point.

Great! I totally agree. And if you had stopped there and not hopped off into the banning campaign, I would have seconded your thought completely. We may be gun owners and hunters, but we also should be involved citizens. And when it comes to gun violence or any kind of violence, we should all be taking an active role. And contary to the beliefs of some, that active role does not necessarily always have to involve attacks or unnecessary tweaking of 2nd amendment rights just because it makes us feel good to do so.

You claim to understand that you "completely understood that it is not the weapon but the person behind it" and then filled the rest of your post with an attack on a particular style of rifle. And I thought I covered quite well why you should not be dealing in perceptions but start dealing in the technical realities. Get the emotional arguments out of your head. That's what the entire anti-gun advocates base all their campaign on. You are trying to fiddle around with an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so at least work with a few realities somewhere. I think I answered the question about the clips quite thoroughly also. Particularly about whether we need any certain kind of clip. Home defense is whatever the homeowner feels it should be. Whether he needs hi-cap clips or not really depends on what's coming at him, wouldn't you think? Not some arbitrary perception by someone who hopes that limiting the capacity will actually have some effect on crime. I think I answered that question about your so-called paramilitary weapons too. Again you are letting your perceptions and emotiomnal reactions make your decisions for you. There is no functional difference between your para -whatever rifles and the typical semi-auto rifle found in many homes. Are you going to ask that last question about all of the semi-auto weapons in many homes across the country? Do they all "serve any positive purpose"? Again, there is no functional difference. You want to ignore the technical realities of the similarities, but as I explained to you at great lengths before you cannot ignore facts in favor of perceptions and emotions.

Ok, where do we draw the line? Do we have studies to see which rifles have an evil enough appearance to incite violence? You do realize that it really is only appearance that separates the Ar (or "paramilitary rifles as you call them) style from the typical semi automatic sporting arms. The problem is that whenever I hear this kind of solution, I am reminded that these are purely subjective judgements that someone is making about what kinds of products that can be bought. The gun looks lethal in someone's opinion, so it should be banned. I have yet to hear any of the arguments from the ones that would ban specific guns that are based on anything but a subjective, emotional reaction to the appearance. It's never anything that is based on objective proveable features. So where do you draw the line? Who is it that has the right to make those decisions? What is the specific criteria to be used besides the unacceptable measures of appearance? You see, because the anti-gunners refuse to answer those questions, it becomes plain that they are not really interested in spot-banning a weapon here and there based on logical well thought out criteria, but rather have it in mind to incrementally do away with all firearms, starting with the ones that have a look about them that they don't like. If you really want to talk gunowners into getting behind some form of gun banning, you are going to have to come up with some better arguments than "gosh they look so evil". You are going to need some certified facts and figures, and "it looks mean" simply doesn't cut it. Also, the category gun that you might find so "scarey" simply has not turned out to be the gun of choice in these mass homicides, or any other category of armed crime. So how are you going to show any appreciable positive effect from banning them? You can't just say "trust me". Seriously, in order to sell any kind of policy, you have to have facts and reasonableness and some indication that you have taken your thoughts beyond the emotional and put in some real thought as to the likely effects of the policy. Nobody is going to get behind any bans that impact a constitutional amendment without some very serious preparation and very convincing data. The clips: First of all, it is hard to understand how someone could tell me what kind of firepower it takes to defend my family. There are some pacifist types who believe that armed defense has no place in this world. Throw yourself and your family on the mercy of whoever it is that is trying to do harm to you. Yeah ... right .... there's a real winner of an idea. My thought is that when it comes to defense of myself and loved ones, there is no limitation ... clip size, weapon capabilities, or whatever. I am and should be limited only by my own choices and perhaps the amount of disposable income I am willing to put into home defense. You want to talk me out of that, you have a real tough argument on your hands. But when someone thinks they should determine what kinds of defenses I should have, it sounds like they can prove just how many assailants or armed home invaders there will be should I ever find it necessary to defend my home. I sure can't make that prediction and I'm sure they can't either. That also sounds like they can guarantee the limits of the firepower of any attackers. I guess it is assumed that they will be playing by the rules .... lol. Second, I think you are over estimating how quickly a clip can be replaced. I can't really even say how effective limiting clip capacity would really be. But just because a clip is empty does not mean they are out of ammo .... lol. How long does it take to swap out clips. So again, here is another potential ploy to simply place a law, any law without any idea as to what the results will be. How many lives will a reduced capacity clip save per year. Anybody have any idea? Does anyone even care, or is it just another flailing attempt at legal gun-owner harrassment. If anyone is really all that seriously interested in recruiting supporters for any kind of gun banning or accessory limitations, you had better come armed with facts, figures, and solid estimates of lives saved because there is not a single believer in the 2nd amendment that is going to be moved by anything less.

I'm sure that these events feed future ones simply because of the excessive media coverage. That apparently is what a lot of these mental misfits are craving, and the media sure does give it to them. Everyone worries about what kind of unfortunate circumstance these poor shooters grew up with. Some day we will simply accept that evil exists and there doesn't always have to be some bleeding heart message behind these perpetrators. These guys do always seem to think they are some kind of victim, and they know that the excessive coverage will eventually turn toward the airing of their real or imagined life-grievances .... just like they want.

Who'd of thunk it? I always assumed that fire and ammo resulted in full-force detonation and a full-force projectile. Thanks for the video. That kind of set things straight. I do know that powder when exposed to flame will result in a flash of fire which if you were standing close enough could cause some personal damage. It also could assumedly ignite other building materials that might turn a small fire into a big one. These are probably things to consider when arranging powder storage areas. From this video, it does not sound like some iron strongbox would be appropriate since apparently confined powder does become explosive.