What if?

[exzel]

What if?

Dateline 3/13/13

“Kids”

Uncle Stevie has revisited the gun issue again after reflection of the debate generated over his poignant piece “Guns.” This time he focuses simply on protecting school kids from future tragedies like Sandy Hook. Realizing that evil and violent mental health issues will be ever present, and nothing short of the government confiscating all guns in private hands will curb such events from happening in the future, the idea of training and arming willing and able teachers is the best course of action in protecting our school children from another such tragedy at our schools. You will need to purchase his new non-fiction kindle single essay “Kids” from Amazon for only $.98 to read his thoughts on the matter and what drove him to this surprising conclusion. All revenues from the purchase of the essay will be donated directly to an NRA fund committed to offering effective gun training and protection courses to teachers and school officials who serve as the immediate front line of defense in protecting our children in a school environment.

Regardless that the above paragraph is a piece of fiction on my part (or knowing ahead of time his feelings on the NRA), I ask one simple question… Would your reaction to purchasing the essay, primarily because the donations would go to the NRA, be any different from that of the offering of “Guns?”

[~Ally~]

Nope. I would buy it and read it. Once I purchase something it is no longer my money, what the recipient of that money then chooses to do with it is their own choice. Then again, I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where guns aren't viewed as tools that are no more dangerous than a spoon! :wink2:

Seriously though, allowing the politics, opinions and beliefs of a writer to influence whether or not you read their work is ridiculous. I have friends who differ from me in many ways, especially when it comes to religion. I believe in God, they don't. That doesn't mean I like them any less or refuse to have anything further to do with them. I don't understand why people are so offended that King actually had the audacity to voice an opinion. And so what if he charged for the essay? That's his choice, and up to us as readers to decided whether or not to buy it. It makes me laugh the amount of times I read about "freedom of speech" but then King expresses that right and people go boooohoooo. Ho~ho~ho!

[Sepia and Dust]

If I had an informed opinion on the NRA, I might or might not buy the piece. I don't see Tom Cruise movies because I don't want his church to see any of the profits, and I don't shop at Wal~Mart very often because I don't like the way they treat their employees. So, yeah, where my money's likely to wind up is something I think about.

[exzel]

Nope. I would buy it and read it. Once I purchase something it is no longer my money, what the recipient of that money then chooses to do with it is their own choice. Then again, I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where guns aren't viewed as tools that are no more dangerous than a spoon! :wink2:

Seriously though, allowing the politics, opinions and beliefs of a writer to influence whether or not you read their work is ridiculous. I have friends who differ from me in many ways, especially when it comes to religion. I believe in God, they don't. That doesn't mean I like them any less or refuse to have anything further to do with them. I don't understand why people are so offended that King actually had the audacity to voice an opinion. And so what if he charged for the essay? That's his choice, and up to us as readers to decided whether or not to buy it. It makes me laugh the amount of times I read about "freedom of speech" but then King expresses that right and people go boooohoooo. Ho~ho~ho!

Ally… you I believe!

But I’m not offended that King voiced an opinion, nor that he charged for the essay. I just don’t like having to donate to something I find to be on the extreme opposite end of the debate from where I stand, in order to read and discuss the essay. It just is counterproductive to starting the debate when neutrality is compromised IMO.

As an example… (to me anyway) it’s sort of like when my township was having discussions on density housing. They were proposing doing away with an ordnance that requires a minimum of one acre of land in order to build a house… for a large farm which was purchased by a developer. But in order to develop density housing, they would need to run public water and sewer, and in the process requiring any homeowner to tie into public water and sewer that reside along its pathway… at a cost to the homeowner of $10,000. But in order to voice my opinion at a “second” meeting on the subject, I first had to “donate” $10 to the legal fund for the township which would be utilized to fight lawsuits against having to tie into public water and sewer (long story). The anger over having to do this overshadowed any chance of reasonable discourse.

[Lily Sawyer]

I wouldn't buy it on principle, because I'm anti-NRA. I also wouldn't attempt to debate his opinion without having read the essay. I'd keep my mouth shut, and pass up the opportunity to debate until someone loaned me the essay to read. That way I could be informed and not have contributed to an organization I don't care for.

But until then, I'd stay silent about Mr. King's opinion or the piece of work.

[Shasta]

I would buy anything he wrote and he could do whatever he wanted with the money.

Because I have a long standing relationship with SK's writing I feel like I can trust him enough to do the right thing.

I feel the same about In 'N Out. I don't know what they do with their money but they are a 100% Christian business, which I don't agree with. But I have seen enough from them to think that they'll do the right thing with their money.

I don't trust Wal-Mart or Chik-Fil-A so I won't shop there. I think it just depends on the level of trust I have for the organization and the "relationship," if you will, that I have with them.

[Out of Order]

How come "Kids" is only 98 cents, but "Guns" is 99 cents?

You don't want to give the NRA anything else to get fired up about.......

[~Ally~]

But I’m not offended that King voiced an opinion, nor that he charged for the essay. I just don’t like having to donate to something I find to be on the extreme opposite end of the debate from where I stand, in order to read and discuss the essay. It just is counterproductive to starting the debate when neutrality is compromised IMO.

Ahh, but you didn't have to donate, I offered to loan you my copy. That would have been win~win for you ole boy! :wink2: I understand your perspective, though, knowing the money is going to a specific organisation that you and many others disagree with could seem counterproductive to creating an unbiased/rational debate. Depending what side of the fence you're on! However, I don't know hardly anything about The Brady Campaign, but it's my understanding they're about preventing gun violence and implementing reasonable gun laws. They aren't trying to ban all guns, so I don't see what's wrong with advocating for sensible laws to be enforced in the hope of saving lives in the future...or am I missing something regarding their agenda?

Pee Ess; did you pay the $10 to voice your opinion at the second meeting? I'm just curious. :smile2:

[91rewoT]

Can I buy them for my Nook, or are they only available for Kindle?

[~Ally~]

How come "Kids" is only 98 cents, but "Guns" is 99 cents?

You don't want to give the NRA anything else to get fired up about.......

Boom, boom!

You just made a funny. :y:

[Out of Order]

Boom, boom!

You just made a funny. :y:

:wink2:

[king family fan]

I would buy anything King writes. Great at his job. His opinion is his opinion. The money as to where it goes would not be of interest to me. As I would be spending it for y reading and that would be my concern , as I would be getting what i paid for.

[exzel]

How come "Kids" is only 98 cents, but "Guns" is 99 cents?

You don't want to give the NRA anything else to get fired up about.......

I dunno... perhaps half of my 2 cents worth. :tongue:

And love the metaphor. (I got a fever, and the only prescription is more metaphor!)

[exzel]

Ahh, but you didn't have to donate, I offered to loan you my copy. That would have been win~win for you ole boy! :wink2:
You’re right, but I just wouldn’t feel right not buying it.


I understand your perspective, though, knowing the money is going to a specific organisation that you and many others disagree with could seem counterproductive to creating an unbiased/rational debate. Depending what side of the fence you're on! However, I don't know hardly anything about The Brady Campaign, but it's my understanding they're about preventing gun violence and implementing reasonable gun laws. They aren't trying to ban all guns, so I don't see what's wrong with advocating for sensible laws to be enforced in the hope of saving lives in the future...or am I missing something regarding their agenda?
We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.
That is a quote from "Pete" Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc (It is now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)
Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989


Pee Ess; did you pay the $10 to voice your opinion at the second meeting? I'm just curious. :smile2:

LOL you cheeky gal you. After some protest, YES I did… just as I will buy the Gun essay. I finally felt the need to voice my opinion overshadowed my objection on principle… just as I expect it will with Guns.

[exzel]

Can I buy them for my Nook, or are they only available for Kindle?

Don't know about "Guns"... but the "Kids" piece is only available if you own one of those Spacephone devices used on Mongo. :tongue:

[Moderator]

Fortunately, I wouldn't have to face that moral dilemma but I get what you're saying. If I had to make a choice, I would either donate an equal or greater amount of money to an organization that is working toward restrictions, background checks, etc. or make damn sure that the fund the NRA set up did not include any funding for furthering their agenda of armed personnel in schools.

There are two separate issues I have with the current position of the leadership of the NRA, but both of them have to do with their (IMO) irresponsibility in bringing anything meaningful to the table.

First, they are being irresponsible in their unwillingness to accept their part in this multi-faceted issue. They have done nothing but blame everything else other than their own intractable position of continuing to create a culture that worships guns rather than accept that there could possibly be any solution beyond escalation by arming more and more people. IMO

Secondly, that arming personnel at schools (more on this later) is the only way that children can be kept safe is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous and lazy but it certainly does perpetuate the gun culture and further ensures their future and mission to "educate" Americans about the value of guns in our society. It still ignores the very issue that guns in the wrong hands ARE a problem. Don't ignore that or think that educating people on how to shoot a gun is being responsible and that's where it ends--DEAL WITH IT!!! From what I've gathered, Lanza had been educated on the proper use of guns but should not have had access to them.

While I am vehemently against arming personnel at schools, I would have no problem with money being used to train those who want it for self-defense, to retrofit schools to make them safer with such things as bullet proof glass, lobby designs that would make it more difficult to gain access to classrooms, etc. I do not believe that arming personnel could guarantee massacres such as have occurred to date would not happen again. Let's take a few scenarios--shooter gets in the door and knowing or even just suspecting there will be someone waiting for him has taken precautionary measures such as protective armor not to be killed before his goal is accomplished and is able to take out the person who is there to protect the kids and still gets into classrooms. Okay, so do we then have a backup further down the hallway? Good idea, but where is that gun? Hopefully locked away safely to prevent any accidents or having a student or someone else who shouldn't gain access, easily getting to it. Just how far down the hall do we put that person to make sure they'll have time to get to the gun and in the meantime, how many people got shot along the way?

Before you get too up in arms (sorry, couldn't help myself), I will repeat that the second amendment right to bear arms should be maintained but in no way shape or form should it be a carte blanche license for any citizen to have whatever weapon or accompanying ammunition they want. Restrictions on guns will not stop all violence perpetrated with guns but I refuse to believe the solution is throwing up our arms and saying, there's nothing we can do, we'll just have to live with it and continue to escalate by buying more and more of them and reinforce the fear-based mentality that has become so prevalent in the past decade or so. The cycle has to stop. We are better than that. Other nations have proven that they are able to do so. Are we admitting that we aren't capable of the same?

[~Ally~]

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.
That is a quote from "Pete" Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc (It is now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)
Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989

Tsk, tsk, tsk...methinks yer being naughty using an extremely outdated quote from a guy that's long since retired. Is that still what the campaign is hoping to achieve in the year 2013?


LOL you cheeky gal you. After some protest, YES I did… just as I will buy the Gun essay. I finally felt the need to voice my opinion overshadowed my objection on principle… just as I expect it will with Guns.

Just as I expected. :wink2: Sometimes we have to compromise in the hope of achieving what we would like.

[fushingfeef]

Would your reaction to purchasing the essay, primarily because the donations would go to the NRA, be any different from that of the offering of “Guns?”

I wouldn't buy it. Actually I haven't bought "Guns" yet either, but not for political reasons...I just haven't gotten around to it yet, but I might never get around to it. I like stories better than essays regardless.

If I really wanted to read your theoretical example essay, I might donate twice the amount to a polar opposite cause so I would feel less dirty about it!

[kingricefan]

Yes, I would still buy the essay. Why? Because, let's say I'm an alcoholic (and my name is Dan.:laugh:) and I want to read King books but I know that he drinks beer which I am vehemently against. Should I stop buying his books because I know some of my money is going towards his beer intake? NO! What he does with his money is his business.

[Todash]

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . [W]e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal.

That is a quote from "Pete" Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc (It is now known as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence)
Nelson "Pete" Shields became the organization's chairman in 1978 and retired in 1989

Wow, that is pretty extreme. While I would personally like to live in a society without handguns (all other things being equal), I don't think I could support outlawing handguns for US citizens as a whole. But of course, that was a quote from 1976, nearly four decades ago, a few years after his eldest son was murdered and long before the Brady Campaign was even in existence. And it's never been their official position as far as I can tell. Voting with your money is a time-honored tradition, but I think holding them responsible for a quote before they existed, before Handgun Control Inc. existed, even, a quote that does not seem to reflect their current goals or actions, seems a bit unfair. A lot can change in 37 years. That's a lifetime, TWO lifetimes, in politics.


LOL you cheeky gal you. After some protest, YES I did... just as I will buy the Gun essay. I finally felt the need to voice my opinion overshadowed my objection on principle... just as I expect it will with Guns.

I don't know the details, but that $10 fee sounds ... not entirely legal. You would think that towns would know not to do that kind of thing, but my family has been deeply involved in the government of small towns, and you would be amazed, AMAZED, at the crap they do. Basically the aldermen that run them often have very little knowledge of how government is supposed to work and tend to want to do a lot of things they shouldn't unless held in check. I'm mentioning this because if they try something similar again, you might want to check with a lawyer about it. If it turns out such fees are illegal, as I suspect they are, a simple "cease and desist" letter to the mayor should do the trick.

[Lily Sawyer]

I don't think I could support outlawing handguns for US citizens as a whole.

I could. In a SandyHookAuroraTucsonPhoenixChicagoBlacksburgColum bine second.

[GNTLGNT]

:wink2:

...to quote the estimable Foghorn Leghorn..."Boy's got a mouth like a cannon, always shootin' it off!"...

[exzel]

(I have to split this in two.)


Fortunately, I wouldn't have to face that moral dilemma but I get what you're saying. If I had to make a choice, I would either donate an equal or greater amount of money to an organization that is working toward restrictions, background checks, etc. or make damn sure that the fund the NRA set up did not include any funding for furthering their agenda of armed personnel in schools.
In the words of Professor Terguson in Back To School: Good answer! :laugh:


There are two separate issues I have with the current position of the leadership of the NRA, but both of them have to do with their (IMO) irresponsibility in bringing anything meaningful to the table.

First, they are being irresponsible in their unwillingness to accept their part in this multi-faceted issue. They have done nothing but blame everything else other than their own intractable position of continuing to create a culture that worships guns rather than accept that there could possibly be any solution beyond escalation by arming more and more people. IMO

Secondly, that arming personnel at schools (more on this later) is the only way that children can be kept safe is not only irresponsible, it is dangerous and lazy but it certainly does perpetuate the gun culture and further ensures their future and mission to "educate" Americans about the value of guns in our society. It still ignores the very issue that guns in the wrong hands ARE a problem. Don't ignore that or think that educating people on how to shoot a gun is being responsible and that's where it ends--DEAL WITH IT!!! From what I've gathered, Lanza had been educated on the proper use of guns but should not have had access to them.
You obviously know more about the leadership on the NRA than I do. Their reluctance to support background checks at gun shows is simply enough for me not to join the organization. Perhaps I should learn more about them. But I do agree with their idea that arming personnel at schools is the best course of action to protect our kids from the type of tragedy experience at the Sandy Hook school setting, and do not believe it to be irresponsible nor dangerous and lazy position. IMO (more on this later).

[exzel]

While I am vehemently against arming personnel at schools, I would have no problem with money being used to train those who want it for self-defense, to retrofit schools to make them safer with such things as bullet proof glass, lobby designs that would make it more difficult to gain access to classrooms, etc. I do not believe that arming personnel could guarantee massacres such as have occurred to date would not happen again. Let's take a few scenarios--shooter gets in the door and knowing or even just suspecting there will be someone waiting for him has taken precautionary measures such as protective armor not to be killed before his goal is accomplished and is able to take out the person who is there to protect the kids and still gets into classrooms. Okay, so do we then have a backup further down the hallway? Good idea, but where is that gun? Hopefully locked away safely to prevent any accidents or having a student or someone else who shouldn't gain access, easily getting to it. Just how far down the hall do we put that person to make sure they'll have time to get to the gun and in the meantime, how many people got shot along the way?
From what I have read, the single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate and violent response. Apparently as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, they often kill themselves or surrender the vast majority of times. Time is of the essence in these circumstances. An excellent response time for police would be in the 3 to 5 minute range. But that is excellent responsive times, and often these mass killers can have up to 20 minutes or more with nobody effectively fighting back. I’ve read that the average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by the police is 14. But the average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians is 2.5. Teachers, administration and school staff are already there, and therefore effective reaction response times can be measured in seconds instead of minutes. Yes, teachers aren’t trained cops or SWAT. They don’t need to be. They only speed bumps for the killer until authorities arrive. The longer a shooter has to operate, the more innocent people die. And if the shooter is dealing with an armed response they aren’t killing young, precious, and innocent kids. And arming school officials shouldn’t be mandatory. Make it voluntary with background checks and proper training. I believe a number of schools in Texas already allow trained teachers to carry handguns, and I haven’t read of any of the horrors you envision happening there. Perhaps we should be learning more about them. Also, more districts and states are considering it. But by no means do I believe armed and trained teachers be the only line of security at schools.

Here’s a thought... and don’t shoot it down right away (sorry couldn’t resist). Steve was a teacher, so he must be familiar with the climate and culture in schools (yeah I know it like a hundred years ago). He also owns handguns. Since he is passionate about the gun debate, perhaps he could take time out of his schedule and attend a CCW class geared towards training teachers and staff. If nothing else, and regardless of his viewpoint upon the outcome, he certainly would be able to write about the subject with authority. Who knows, he might just enjoy it.


Before you get too up in arms (sorry, couldn't help myself), I will repeat that the second amendment right to bear arms should be maintained but in no way shape or form should it be a carte blanche license for any citizen to have whatever weapon or accompanying ammunition they want.
Glad to hear it. I agree.


Restctions on guns will not stop all violence perpetrated with guns but I refuse to believe the solution is throwing up our arms and saying, there's nothing we can do, we'll just have to live with it and continue to escalate by buying more and more of them and reinforce the fear-based mentality that has become so prevalent in the past decade or so. The cycle has to stop. We are better than that. Other nations have proven that they are able to do so. Are we admitting that we aren't capable of the same?
Call me a pessimist, but no, I don’t believe we are. Not with the rights we enjoy. As a matter of fact I think those who commit heinous crimes and have little regard for human life is on the rise here. And therefore I believe the desire to protect ourselves in a manner that is sound, effective, responsible and legal should be utilized for those who wish to do so.

[exzel]

Is that still what the campaign is hoping to achieve in the year 2013?

Yes Ally, I believe that is their ultimate goal. If they would claim that as their mission statement they would be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail here. Does anybody honestly think if they would get the legislation they are currently seeking, that they will close up shop? No, they will seek more, and more and more.

And I believe the name change to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was more or less a ploy to sound less extreme and get more donations from the unsuspecting. And apparently it has worked.

[exzel]

I could. In a SandyHookAuroraTucsonPhoenixChicagoBlacksburgColum bine second.
I appreciate your honesty. Do you think a common ground can be reached, or are the differences too great for a compromise that would be satisfactory to both sides?

[Moderator]

I would be interested in seeing the sources you're citing regarding mass murders that have actually been stopped by civilians.

[exzel]

I would be interested in seeing the sources you're citing regarding mass murders that have actually been stopped by civilians.

I got the information here (but something tells me you already might have know that :wink2:). I did not authenticate the statistics, but looking at the author’s credentials -- which are extremely impressive IMO, I would say I believe what his statistics show. I’ve also heard him interviewed on the radio. Regardless of that fact, that is why I noted that “I read” the information, rather than stating it as absolute fact. But if you are skeptical, or y’all are in need of more research material up there in Bangorlandia, I’m sure a phone call from you or your boss to him would generate a wealth of information. And I think he’d take your call, especially on this matter… and whom in their right mind wouldn’t want to talk to Stephen King?

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

[Todash]

Yes Ally, I believe that is their ultimate goal. If they would claim that as their mission statement they would be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail here. Does anybody honestly think if they would get the legislation they are currently seeking, that they will close up shop? No, they will seek more, and more and more. Possibly, but they don't get to just make up legislation and get it passed. We have Congress (who want to be reelected) and a President (who must sign any legislation into law) and a judicial system (who must consider any challenges to any law that is passed). And if there does come a time when the Second Amendment is overturned--because that has been done before--that would require a Herculean effort and a major change in the overall social consciousness of this country. What I mean by that is this: if it's going to happen, it will happen when society as a whole deems it prudent. Each proposed change to the law should be examined on its own merit, because everything, literally everything, can be a "slippery slope."


And I believe the name change to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was more or less a ploy to sound less extreme and get more donations from the unsuspecting. And apparently it has worked.Duhn-duhn-DUHN. :eek2:

Or ... alternatively, they might be precisely what they say they are. Perhaps the name change was a sign that they wanted to be less extreme, or a focus on what is really important: preventing gun violence, regardless of the length of the firestick involved. (Quote from the website: "As the largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center are dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities. The Brady Campaign, the Million Mom March and the Brady Center believe that a safer America can be achieved without banning all guns.") I mean, I believe the NRA is an extreme organization, but I also believe they are basically honest about their intent (although not so honest, perhaps, about other issues).

I have to confess that it boggles my mind when one side, ANY side, without real evidence, uses as part of their rationale: "We don't believe your position is X. We believe your position is Y. And here is why Y is wrong." It's not possible to fight against that nor to come to any agreement. There is absolutely NO stand that the Brady Campaign could take that would make any difference whatsoever in the minds of its opponents, because you're not evaluating them on what they've done, their stated goals, or current legislation they're trying to champion. You're basically saying, without any compelling evidence that I can see, that they're lying about who they are. This implies that there are secret meetings taking place, there there is a whole set of documentation somewhere detailing the inner works of the hidden organization, that your side is honest and that the other side is a pack of lying liars just waiting to pounce on your freedoms.

[exzel]

This implies that there are secret meetings taking place, there there is a whole set of documentation somewhere detailing the inner works of the hidden organization, that your side is honest and that the other side is a pack of lying liars just waiting to pounce on your freedoms..

You don’t perchance mean something like some meeting, where the President of the United States suddenly shows up, and afterward publicly claming that the POTUS is committed to stealth gun control? :wink2:

[Moderator]

I got the information here (but something tells me you already might have know that :wink2:). I did not authenticate the statistics, but looking at the author’s credentials -- which are extremely impressive IMO, I would say I believe what his statistics show. I’ve also heard him interviewed on the radio. Regardless of that fact, that is why I noted that “I read” the information, rather than stating it as absolute fact. But if you are skeptical, or y’all are in need of more research material up there in Bangorlandia, I’m sure a phone call from you or your boss to him would generate a wealth of information. And I think he’d take your call, especially on this matter… and whom in their right mind wouldn’t want to talk to Stephen King?

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/ (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flarrycorreia.wordp ress.com%2F2012%2F12%2F20%2Fan-opinion-on-gun-control%2F)


Talking to Steve is just another day in Bangorlandia and I do my own research for these types of posts.

Yes, the author of the article certainly does seem to have posted a lot of credentials about himself. I'm just curious as to where all these mass murders have occurred that no one has heard about that he's somehow able to list as statistics. His points may resonate for you but this is where we'll have to part ways into the agreeing to disagree territory because I still think it's setting up a far more dangerous situation and environment for our children to think that guns and more guns in schools are the answer instead of dealing with the alternatives that are possible for future protection of not just our children, but all citizens. We need to change the attitudes and culture of our country in order to make any meaningful progress. Silly me, I thought we were capable of evolving. :glare:

[Sepia and Dust]

I still think it's setting up a far more dangerous situation and environment for our children to think that guns and more guns in schools are the answer

Amen!

[exzel]

Yes Ms. Mod this is territory that we need to just agree to disagree. And no, you're not being silly. You just seem to have a higher idealistic outlook on people here than I do.

[Moderator]

Yes Ms. Mod this is territory that we need to just agree to disagree. And no, you're not being silly. You just seem to have a higher idealistic outlook on people here than I do.

I'd like to think we can, or at the very least try to, raise the bar for meeting expectations rather than lowering it. :wink2:

[Lily Sawyer]

I appreciate your honesty. Do you think a common ground can be reached, or are the differences too great for a compromise that would be satisfactory to both sides?

I don't know, to be honest. My gut tells me that common ground can't be reached on that, and I won't personally lobby any time soon for the Second Amendment to be repealed.

Here's what I propose in the meantime:

1. All gun owners must register their guns and pay a fee for an operator's license. It will happen every year like car registration does.
2. All gun owners must prove they've passed a lengthy gun operations and safety class.

For example: a German driver’s license costs over $2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of *mandatory* professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory. P.S. - you get to pay for driver's ed, too; it is not offered in the secondary public school system. (from The German Way & More; http://www.german-way.com/driving.html) The Germans are arguably the best drivers in Europe because they take their driver's ed so seriously.

Ergo: if you take gun education seriously, you'll have better gun operators.

The jury's still out on what to do about the mentally ill. It would be a direct violation of doctor-patient confidentiality and HIPAA laws in all 50 states to make it mandatory for all psychiatrists and psychologists to register patients whom they think are potentially violent with a national database of some sort, not to mention a violation of civil rights. It paves an ugly path to all kinds of discriminatory acts and measures. I think it's important to find some kind of protective measure against people deemed potentially dangerous by professionals, but where that happy medium lies is anyone's guess at this point.

People who are judged to be a danger to themselves or others can almost always be forced to get treatment in the United States. The procedures vary from state to state. However, there are laws which protect mentally ill persons from being committed against their will. The procedure by which a person is involuntarily committed to an institution under a civil or criminal statute is subject to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Courts have maintained that such statutes must bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed. Those are slippery slopes and very precarious cases to defend, so we don't hear much about so-and-so celebrity being committed these days like we did back when Frances Farmer was being lobotomized. It's just that much more difficult to achieve.

I believe that high-capacity magazines and assault rifles should be banned. The fewer guns there are out there, the fewer tragedies. It's a numbers game, just like it is with drunk drivers on New Year's Eve.

I have no idea how to stop gun smuggling into the U.S., though. That would demand a higher number of ICE agents, law enforcement, and border patrol, I would imagine. It's not just at the borders, though; I'm sure there are lots of guns smuggled in to the U.S. via our ports.

[Out of Order]

...to quote the estimable Foghorn Leghorn..."Boy's got a mouth like a cannon, always shootin' it off!"...

Which is actually quite a trick in my case seeing that my foot is usually in it.........

[exzel]

Lily, thanks for your thoughts.

I’ll only address one for now, and one that is high on the agenda and in the minds of many… high capacity magazines. It just doesn’t make sense to me limiting them to 10 rounds. We keep hearing there is no need to have more than 10 rounds for defensive weapons. My question then becomes... why not then limit police to ten also? After all, aren’t their handguns defensive weapons?

I’ve read that statistically less than one out of four shots fired from handguns by trained police will hit their target in the kind of situation we are all talking about. Now the average citizen is nowhere as capable and accurate as a trained officer. Therefore statistically, out of 10 rounds, we can only expect no more than one or two hitting the intended target. That may not be enough to stop a serious and life-endangering threat. And if that’s the case you better hope to heaven there aren’t two assailants intended on doing harm.

[murderofcrows]

Ahhh yes, my sister told me she was reading this "Guns" essay by King, I cannot wait to read it. Being a full time student who is a single mom and returning adult(for the 2nd time) I have an opinion on gun control. What I have read here so far leads me to believe King & I agree on the subject. I am still not sure what to expect but as a constant ready am very ready to read his opinion on this.