More mass shootings

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

The second amendment will almost certainly eventually go away, sooner rather than later if reasonable gun restrictions aren't enacted.

I don't see how that is possible anytime soon. It would require someone to run and to be elected POTUS on that platform. Along with both a Senate and House that agreed. Then it would need ratification. Things will need to get much worse before any of those things can happen.

I have to think BIGUN is correct on that. There could be nibbling around the edges if the courts change their interpretation of the 2nd. But the 2nd is only slightly unclear, it has very few words. Maybe someday the "well trained militia" part will mean more than it does now. But I strongly suspect that will not happen unless there is blood in the streets and the "elites", read judiciary and government, feel threatened.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 232]

Quote

2. Banning assault style weapons - I simply don't understand how some can preach that banning doesn't work when it comes to marijuana and use the "look at how well that worked with alcohol" point of view thinks it will work here. Who decides what weapons get banned and how effective would that be? Someone intent on doing the kind of damage we've seen over the years is either, 1) not going to give a shit about what's banned, and 2) even if they could not get their hands on what's popular; would get something even more powerful that may not be banned.

Semi-auto high power rounds with large magazine capabilities.

Quote

3. Laws of banning have not only proven to not work. The original Gun-Free Zones Act was authored by Biden (Democrat); signed into law by Bush (Republican) overturned...

The point of the gun free zone was to give schools teeth against gun related crime. There's nothing that says it can't be amended to permit trained security personel (To include teachers, which most teachers think is idiotic).

Quote

5. Twelve days later, a conservative prime minister introduced the National Firearms Act, which banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Australia has no Constitutional provision to keep and bear arms.

Our own laws also restrict types of weapons such as machine guns. As I said in the other thread we have to come to grips with the fact that there's also an admission that some weapons can inflict too much damage and should not be available for civilian use, namely high rate of fire weapons which chamber high velocity rounds and allow high volume magazines.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[JoeWeber 2,299]

BIGUN

Morning, Joe.

You have a couple of salient points and a couple with which I respectfully disagree.

Quote

I don't have pistols because I believe very few people who don't practice regularly at the range, at night and lying on their bed after a few beers could hit their own feet in an emergency. Now, 9 .32 caliber bits of buckshot once or twice out of a short barrel with an open choke on the other hand.....

But I would accept regulation, background checks and even demonstrating proficiency (like a field sobriety test, for example) if it would save a single group of parents from what happened in Florida.

Don't know if you read far enough back that I not only agree with these points, but would advocate more training than just shooting 50 rds at a target from 25 yards, patting them on the butt and calling it good for the next 5 or 10 years (dependent on state renewal options).

I would actually advocate a Close Quarter Combat (CQB) course in a MOUT environment. Let people see how well they do in a timed event (adding stress), with multiple friendlies & bad guys. Let them see their strengths and weaknesses and perhaps they'll realize that a one time visit to the range ain't going to get it. Require different levels of certification. Personal defense only, Defense of others, etc. That encourage people to go to the range more than even once a year for re-qual.

***No one needs a military style assault weapon unless they have military assault style fantasies that need catering. To those who argue that hunting rifles operate the same way as AR-15's and there is no difference and yada, yada, yada, I say: then what's the problem with banning them? Get a Model 700 Remington.

This is where we'll have to disagree and because this is exactly what I was getting at in a couple of different threads. You just placed the exact same weapon in the hands of others what Whitman used in the University of Texas Massacre which Remington advertises as, "Top choice of elite military snipers, the Model 700 is un-equaled in tactical precision."

Joe, I'm just about to extricate myself from this discussion. Here's why I stepped in - I had hoped to capture some great ideas that were not too far extreme towards either side and package them up for sending to my State and National Representatives. A list of bullet items (no pun intended) of centrist perspectives that both sides could not necessarily embrace - but, would bring up talking points to move more towards a solution than an opposing, heels dug in, left/right perspective. Cause the same rhetoric from both sides will temper over time until nothing gets changed AND this too becomes a distant memory for everyone except those directly affected until the next one.

Points that are absolutes.

1. We are different than every other country and to our friends in Britain and Canada - we ain't you. Our 2nd amendment isn't going away. So, we have to keep that in mind as we move forward.

2. Banning assault style weapons - I simply don't understand how some can preach that banning doesn't work when it comes to marijuana and use the "look at how well that worked with alcohol" point of view thinks it will work here. Who decides what weapons get banned and how effective would that be? Someone intent on doing the kind of damage we've seen over the years is either, 1) not going to give a shit about what's banned, and 2) even if they could not get their hands on what's popular; would get something even more powerful that may not be banned.

3. Laws of banning have not only proven to not work. The original Gun-Free Zones Act was authored by Biden (Democrat); signed into law by Bush (Republican) overturned by the Supreme Court for the way it was written and again passed in its new & improved format and signed into law by Clinton in 1996. Since that time - it has been demonstrated the increase in school shootings has risen - we can't politely tuck that away. It's either a case worth studying and if ineffective; needs some overhaul. And, if it's effective; needs some overhaul. Hence, my proposition on Armed Campus Police Departments. And, then the question becomes, "How do we pay for it?" Well, in Oklahoma, we do it. Recently, there was an older kid walking up to an elementary school. Campus police mobilized by the onsite campus police officer; City police were called and mobilized and before he even got to the doors was absconded and within minutes - the parents were informed and the situation diffused. Again, before he even got to the doors. Turned out - he was bringing his kid sister's forgotten lunch. Again, before he even got to the doors.

4. In this country, we have a culture of "can't do." It's in this country's historical DNA. It's in our Constitution. There's a whole list of "can't do's" in it. Can't take away our right to own and bear arms, can't take our land, can't arrest for... can't take away our right to... Along with a multitude of "can'ts" interpreted by SCOTUS.. can't discriminate, can't...

5. After each mass shooting in the United States, many gun control advocates point to Australia, where a bipartisan coalition passed sweeping gun legislation that effectively ended mass shootings and dramatically reduced gun violence nationwide. More than 20 years ago, Australia had its own mass shooting, a devastating massacre in which a man with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire at a tourist destination on the Tasmanian peninsula killing 35 and injuring 23. Twelve days later, a conservative prime minister introduced the National Firearms Act, which banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Australia has no Constitutional provision to keep and bear arms.

But, the man who helped craft the National Firearms Act while serving in the Australian Parliament is now Australian ambassador to the U.S. - says that idea is "naive" when it comes to the U.S. Australia and the United States are completely different situations, and it goes back to each of our foundings. America was born from a culture of self-defense. Australia was born from a culture of “the government will protect me.” Australia wasn’t born as a result of a brutal war. We weren’t invaded. We weren’t attacked. We weren’t occupied. That makes an incredible difference, even today. Our histories are completely different. The U.S. had a horrendous civil war, with more casualties than every other war combined. We didn’t have that history. It really went to the core of what it means to defend your people."

In closing, I had hoped to pick the minds of those I respect in this forum to get some centrist solution suggestions. So far, all I have received is the same arguments against any proposal I've put out there with no real additions for consideration. I fear; we will again have the same conversation in the next two-three years if both sides don't come together for our nation's children.

Keith

Keith,

We agree on much. While the training regimen you suggest is fairly restrictive it is one I would take if we were working a deal. I would, in fact, take more restrictions.

I get your point regarding the Model 700 although for distance I prefer the Ruger M77 in 7MM.
Where I disagree is that by definition the Model 700 (I have one) is arguably worse in the hands of a Tower Murderer. I think Las Vegas put paid to that argument.

The thing is, these lunatics are a lot like slob duck hunters in that they shoot the flock not the duck. Whitman had to take the time to aim. Consequently rate of fire was a chief determinant in the outcome.

Thanks for the conversation regardless of any disagreements held. Good luck with your representatives.

And if anyone is interested, I'll walk the walk here. I'll trade my Ruger M77 in 7MM for an AR-15 which I will promptly turn over to the police.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

...with no real additions for consideration.

Any thoughts on requiring basic safety/proficiency/"know the law" training (along the lines of the firearms licence in Canada)?

If we stick with the proposition that anyone who is not a convicted felon or adjudicated insane by a court can obtain almost any type of weapon at will (maybe not full automatic, but you can buy devices that allow semiautomatic weapons to function similarly to full auto) without any demonstrated capacity to use those weapons in a safe manner, then nothing will change. We will be having this same discussion in a couple of months at best, if anyone has the energy or time to waste.

On the "mental health" side, who is going to decide whether or not some instagram or facebook post is sufficient to judge someone "mentally ill" and remove their 2nd amendment rights? What sort of due process would these people have? Kids do say all sorts of crap, very few actually mean anything by it. Do we want a system where you can be permanently disbarred from owning firearms, kicked out of school, maybe even be locked up for psychiatric evaluation based on an anonymous "tip" that you said something (whether or not you actually did)?

There are no easy choices here. Strongly pro-2nd amendment folks say it's all a mental health issue, where people are acting crazy because they watch the wrong movies, play the wrong video games, don't have enough God in their lives, have liberal parents, etc. How does that help us to reduce school shootings? Should the government censor movies and video games, force us to go to church (and of course the right kind of Government Approved (TM) church), take kids from homes where the parents aren't conservative Republicans? How much of our 1st amendment rights do we want to give up to protect an absolutist stance on the 2nd? How much do we want (or can we) restrict the 2nd to keep guns away from people who are unable to manage their anger, or who are so paranoid they see threats where none exist?

Back a few years ago Lawrocket used to eloquently present the libertarian perspective (I miss his contributions, though I often disagreed with him). If I recall correctly, that perspective was that any form of "prior restraint" (trying to prevent crimes before they occurred by punishing or limiting behavior/speech that might lead to the crime) would be completely unacceptable. Freedom is maximized when people are free to choose to do whatever they want, though of course they have to bear the consequences afterward. That perspective is very common, but unfortunately it leaves us in a place where nothing can be done before the fact, so all we can do is bury the dead and wash away the blood afterwards. Such is the cost of "freedom".

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[DJL 232]

Quote

On the "mental health" side, who is going to decide whether or not some instagram or facebook post is sufficient to judge someone "mentally ill" and remove their 2nd amendment rights? What sort of due process would these people have? Kids do say all sorts of crap, very few actually mean anything by it. Do we want a system where you can be permanently disbarred from owning firearms, kicked out of school, maybe even be locked up for psychiatric evaluation based on an anonymous "tip" that you said something (whether or not you actually did)?

Amen, brother. Kids do dumb shit and with this Florida shooter he STILL had not previously done anything that was criminal or crazy enough to get him carted off. The accumulation of all the warning signs was still only lead the police and profession psychiatrists who interviewed him that he had anger issues but I don't know the whole story.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[nolhtairt 0]

Apparently there was a threat of a school shooting in NH that was thwarted by a classmate of the guy that had made overtures of it happening in the near future. The two of them spent time together in a mental health camp in the recent past and were friends. She reported him to the police, who went to his place and found guns and ammo.

So, to go back to my old point a day or so ago, if you see or hear something, report it. Let the school and/or authorities check it out. Every little bit helps.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

DJL

Semi-auto high power rounds with large magazine capabilities.

You said a number of posts back that you weren't a 'gun guy' and were going to get some details wrong (paraphrased).

One common misconception is that these 'assault rifles' are 'high powered'.

They aren't. Not at all.

They actually shoot a very low powered (for a rifle) round. Part of the reason is that the recoil is far less on, say a .223/5.56 that on a .308/7.62x51. This allows faster follow-up shots and more controllable full auto (for the real military rifles). One other reason is that the smaller cartridge allows a soldier to carry a lot more ammunition at the same weight penalty. Something like 2:1 or so.

They also really aren't "high velocity" rounds either. Some loads push 3000 fps out of the longer barrels, which isn't slow by any means, but really high velocity stuff is well in excess of 3500 fps

This isn't to argue that they aren't effective rounds, or that they do a lot of damage, especially at closer ranges.

But the 223 has long been derided as a "mouse gun" caliber. It has been widely criticized for it's lack of penetration. Things that are decent 'cover' from 223 will easily be penetrated by a 308. Cover meaning stuff you can hide behind that will stop the bullet. Things like brick walls and trees provide cover from a 223, but not a 308.

And even a 308 really isn't "high powered" either. Hunters going after dangerous game (particularly African game) use real high powered rifles. Usually .375 or bigger. Stuff like .300 WinMag, .338 Lapua Mag, and the .400+ stuff (.458 WinMag, .416 Rigby, and some of the proprietary stuff) is seriously high powered.
They also have the noise and recoil levels that accompany that much power.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[DJL 232]

That "high power" phrase is what I got from reading the reports from the medical staff that worked on the victims, they noted the distinction between these victims and the typical gunshot victims they see which are from handguns. I'll see if I can dig up the article, the other one I found was more general about the differences. I've shot my entire life but no, I'm not into guns. I have a blackpowder rifle, 12 gauge, 16 gauge, and Remington .22 LR. In college we were issues M14's but I never shot it or the M16's that were also available to us. I was able to shoot a 50 Cal machine gun off the stern of a ship and that was fucking sweet. I have only an academic knowledge of the differences between the two that the M14 fired the .308 with was a slower but powerful round and the M16 fired the 5.56 which is a higher speed round that would bounce off branches and also bounce around inside the target (similar to Winchester .223).

From what you saying there's no point in saying "high power" because unless you're talking about my 22 then just about every rifle is high power.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

The thing is, these lunatics are a lot like slob duck hunters in that they shoot the flock not the duck.

Joe, Enjoyed it. We're actually not that far apart and if we were to sit down; I'm confident you and I could develop something better than what our reps in DC could pull off.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Back a few years ago Lawrocket used to eloquently present the libertarian perspective (I miss his contributions, though I often disagreed with him). If I recall correctly, that perspective was that any form of "prior restraint" (trying to prevent crimes before they occurred by punishing or limiting behavior/speech that might lead to the crime) would be completely unacceptable. Freedom is maximized when people are free to choose to do whatever they want, though of course they have to bear the consequences afterward. That perspective is very common, but unfortunately it leaves us in a place where nothing can be done before the fact, so all we can do is bury the dead and wash away the blood afterwards. Such is the cost of "freedom".

Yeah, Don. I miss LawRocket's contributions also. Made one think. I'm convinced there's a/some way before we get to the consequence phase. Cause, by then... children are dead. We have some great minds in the government. I'm sure someone, somewhere could develop a matrix of all the variables and develop if; then relationships that would get us closer than we've ever been to "a" preventative solution other than - Your Way Sucks, No Your Way.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Keith,

Quote

Our 2nd amendment isn't going away.

I disagree. Today, you are correct. Tomorrow, I think the national thinking will change on this.

From what I have read, when we passed the 18th amendment ( prohibition ), everyone thought it would be forever. 13 yrs later it was gone. The 2nd is not cut in stone.

I bought my first motor vehicle when I was 13 yrs old; I've been a car nut ever since. One of my kids wanted a driver's license as soon as possible. The other one did not. I fully expect that my two grandchildren will drive electric cars & only consider them as basic transportation.

Times change; we once cared very little about drunk drivers and the carnage that they enacted.

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,053]

Afternoon, Jerry.

With all due respect, I don't "think" the pendulum can swing that far. WE are going to have to shed the far left perspective of get rid of the 2nd Amendment to the far right perspective of the government has no right to know how many guns I have or where. Long journey; many steps proposition. If both sides can shake hands and agree the objective is... no children should die like that. Then, we have a start.

I've gone back through the thread and culled some perspectives as well as some sent in PMs. I'd like tonight to percolate go through those thoughts and formalize them in a new thread which I'll ask that we stay in topic.

Have great night,

Keith

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[wmw999 2,121]

Consider, Keith, how far the pendulum has swung in the last 50 years. Yes, 50 years ago kids could bring their guns to school in gun racks. But that was largely in rural areas where guns were generalized anyway, and, frankly, a much smaller percentage of kids had their own cars in those days.
The US is becoming more homogenized with mobility and communication changes. Some of the homogenization will affect both “sides” in this issue (sides is too two-dimensional a word, but it gets the idea across). But saying that the left is going to have to swing all the way over (which is what I think you wrote, though I may have misunderstood) is disingenuous. Do non-gun-lovers have the right not to be personally impacted by guns (as in being shot)?
Progressivism has increased the breadth of acceptable behavior in many dimensions. However, when that behavior crosses over into directly impacting others, as opposed to their simply having to tolerate its existence, then I think those others get a bigger vote. In other words, gay marriage might offend, but as long as they’re not forcing kids to marry same-sex partners, it’s really only that. Getting shot, or getting mugged, or getting raped, those are a little more direct.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

DJL

That "high power" phrase is what I got from reading the reports from the medical staff that worked on the victims, they noted the distinction between these victims and the typical gunshot victims they see which are from handguns. I'll see if I can dig up the article, the other one I found was more general about the differences. I've shot my entire life but no, I'm not into guns. I have a blackpowder rifle, 12 gauge, 16 gauge, and Remington .22 LR. In college we were issues M14's but I never shot it or the M16's that were also available to us. I was able to shoot a 50 Cal machine gun off the stern of a ship and that was fucking sweet. I have only an academic knowledge of the differences between the two that the M14 fired the .308 with was a slower but powerful round and the M16 fired the 5.56 which is a higher speed round that would bounce off branches and also bounce around inside the target (similar to Winchester .223).

From what you saying there's no point in saying "high power" because unless you're talking about my 22 then just about every rifle is high power.

Well, compared to pistol rounds, any centerfire rifle round is "high powered", and yes, the wounds are far more serious.

There are some rather dramatic effects that are created by the higher velocity of rifle bullets (pistols go somewhere between 900 and 1300 fps vs rifles well over 2000 fps). It's the physics where energy is a function of the square of velocity.
There's also the fact that very few civilian "bulletproof" vests will stop a rifle round. Again, the velocity gives the energy to penetrate them.

It just seems like those who are in favor of more gun control choose to over dramatize their statements by calling them "high powered" or "high caliber" rifles when they really aren't.

And for all practical purposes, .223 and 5.56 are the same round.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[billvon 2,400]

>The second amendment will almost certainly eventually go away, sooner rather than
>later if reasonable gun restrictions aren't enacted.

I don't think that's true at all. The Supreme Court has recognized that you can enact restrictions on gun use that do not conflict with the Second Amendment. There's just no need to make it "go away" nor is that a good goal.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

billvon

>The second amendment will almost certainly eventually go away, sooner rather than
>later if reasonable gun restrictions aren't enacted.

I don't think that's true at all. The Supreme Court has recognized that you can enact restrictions on gun use that do not conflict with the Second Amendment. There's just no need to make it "go away" nor is that a good goal.

To each and everyone, mod's not included given the collusion thing, who contributed to this dialogue thoughtfully, thank you. If ever there was a significant social issue that begged immediate solution this is it.

Speakers Corner has value. No doubt.

[jcd11235 0]

gowlerk

I don't see how that is possible anytime soon. It would require someone to run and to be elected POTUS on that platform. Along with both a Senate and House that agreed. Then it would need ratification. Things will need to get much worse before any of those things can happen.

Check the supremacy clause. It wouldn't require an amendment, only an international treaty. There is legal precedent for the workaround.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

billvon

>The second amendment will almost certainly eventually go away, sooner rather than
>later if reasonable gun restrictions aren't enacted.

I don't think that's true at all. The Supreme Court has recognized that you can enact restrictions on gun use that do not conflict with the Second Amendment. There's just no need to make it "go away" nor is that a good goal.

I'm not suggesting that it is a good goal. Something has to give, sooner or later. And the longer it takes, the more drastic the action will be. There will come a time, if the problem goes long enough unsolved, that the action will effectively be elimination of the 2nd amendment.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BIGUN 1,053]

wmw999

Consider, Keith, how far the pendulum has swung in the last 50 years. Yes, 50 years ago kids could bring their guns to school in gun racks. But that was largely in rural areas where guns were generalized anyway, and, frankly, a much smaller percentage of kids had their own cars in those days.
The US is becoming more homogenized with mobility and communication changes. Some of the homogenization will affect both “sides” in this issue (sides is too two-dimensional a word, but it gets the idea across). But saying that the left is going to have to swing all the way over (which is what I think you wrote, though I may have misunderstood) is disingenuous. Do non-gun-lovers have the right not to be personally impacted by guns (as in being shot)?
Progressivism has increased the breadth of acceptable behavior in many dimensions. However, when that behavior crosses over into directly impacting others, as opposed to their simply having to tolerate its existence, then I think those others get a bigger vote. In other words, gay marriage might offend, but as long as they’re not forcing kids to marry same-sex partners, it’s really only that. Getting shot, or getting mugged, or getting raped, those are a little more direct.

Wendy P.

Read as:

1. WE are going to have to shed the far left perspective of get rid of the 2nd Amendment to the
2. far right perspective of the government has no right to know how many guns I have or where.
3. Long journey; many steps proposition. If both sides can shake hands and agree the objective is...

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Consider how far the pendulum will swing when there's a generation or two of kids who grew up fearing a mass shooting at school or actually experienced or know someone who experienced a mass shooting at school and had to go through biannual "active shooter drills" at school...

are voters...

And all the folks who remember taking their Remington to school are dead and no longer voting...

I sometimes wonder if it would be sensible for gun rights advocates try looking into the future and consider whether it would actually make sense to bring in some reasonable middle ground of gun control legislation at this stage, before the nation reaches a decision for them that the 2nd amendment should itself be amended to a point where there really will be very significant controls on firearms ownership.

[DJL 232]

mr2mk1g

Consider how far the pendulum will swing when there's a generation or two of kids who grew up fearing a mass shooting at school or actually experienced or know someone who experienced a mass shooting at school and had to go through biannual "active shooter drills" at school...

are voters...

And all the folks who remember taking their Remington to school are dead and no longer voting...

I sometimes wonder if it would be sensible for gun rights advocates try looking into the future and consider whether it would actually make sense to bring in some reasonable middle ground of gun control legislation at this stage, before the nation reaches a decision for them that the 2nd amendment should itself be amended to a point where there really will be very significant controls on firearms ownership.

This is what I try to point out to my friends who are hardliners, that if they don't help to figure it out now then the decision will be made for them.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

This is what I try to point out to my friends who are hardliners, that if they don't help to figure it out now then the decision will be made for them.

You may try talking to a wall instead. These hardliners are not thoughtful people in general.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[wmw999 2,121]

Many are the same people who are rejecting the notion that some states will be "majority minority" in the foreseeable future. Or at least rejecting the notion that it matters, because guys like them will always hold the power.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DJL 232]

gowlerk

Quote

This is what I try to point out to my friends who are hardliners, that if they don't help to figure it out now then the decision will be made for them.

You may try talking to a wall instead. These hardliners are not thoughtful people in general.

Oh, I know that. These are the ones who feel that these shooting are an acceptable part of upholding the 2nd Amendment. The only change they seek is to allow teachers to carry since they blame "gun free zones" and slow police responses.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[rifleman 61]

Further to the insanity of teachers carrying guns, now Iowa allows the legally blind to have a carry permit:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/

I have nothing against blind people shooting on a range under the supervision of a range officer but a carry permit?

Atheism is a Non-Prophet Organisation