Repair-It

You ask the question with several unsupported assumptions.

Chief among them is the assumption that that gun ownership is simply a “hobby”, and of no more importance. Somewhere between 500,000 and 2,000,000 cases where guns are used to successfully defend against rape, murder, violent assault, etc. are recorded each year … I don’t think this constitutes a casual “hobbyist” use of such arms. Given this fact, your “hobby” assertion is simply without merit.

Your second assumption is that by limiting “hobbyist” use of firearms, that the lives of kids will be saved. Are any of these mass-shooting incidents perpetrated by NRA members, hunters, competition shooters? Has even a single person with a CCW permit shot up a school or workplace? The answer is no of course … not a single one. In that respect, your assumption in this case is counterfactual.

Regarding the AR-15, I can only assume that you are similarly misinformed. This is understandable if you have never taken the time to study the issue independently of sensationalist reports. There is nothing “special” about an AR-15 (aside from its popularity) from a Ruger “ranch rifle” or scores of other firearms which don’t get that made-up, scary “assault rifle” label. We outright banned the sale of AR-15 and similar rifles in the USA from the mid-eighties through the mid-nineties … to no effect, as studied and reported by the National Institute of Justice.

Given the above, a rational person might conclude that firearms are not the problem. I will leave you to decide if you’d like to pursue more rational approaches to the problem.

Nikolas Cruz purchased a Smith & Wesson MP15 from Sunrise Tactical Supply of Coral Springs, Florida in February 2017. He passed the required federal background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). According to reports, Cruz had also purchased other firearms, including an AK-47-style rifle, since he had turned 18, the legal age for purchasing rifles or shotguns that was affirmed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, which has been in effect for nearly 50 years.

Cruz had a history of violent behavior and had been expelled from school. While he was in school, he was a member of the U.S.military’s Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (JROTC), a school-approved program.

As a JROTC member, Cruz used air rifles to train at a range partially funded by a grant from the National Rifle Association’s NRA Foundation, a non-political, non-profit part of the NRA that provides grants for firearm safety training and marksmanship. Contrary to some statements in the press, the NRA Foundation does not indoctrinate participants in NRA propaganda. In fact, it is forbidden by federal law from doing so.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation received information about Cruz but failed to act on it.

I am not sure just how many red flags needed to be raised but I am sure that the AR-15 was a very minor one.

In fact, tell me how changing the age to purchase an AR-15 or banning the estimated 20 million military-style firearms currently owned by civilians would have been the determining factor in the killings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School?

There are more than 12 million Americans in the 18–20 age group. Out of all the mass shootings since 1982, a total of three of them have committed mass shootings with legally acquired AR- or AK-style firearms. That’s 0.000024% of the demographic.

Out of 100 perpetrators of mass shootings or spree killings in the U.S. over the past 35 years, 35 have used some type of military-style rifle or rifle with similar characteristics, such as the Ruger Mini-14 rifle. This total also includes handguns like the MAC-10. So out of that estimated 20 million, 35 have been used to commit horrible crimes like the shootings in Parkland, Florida. That’s about 0.00018%.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 16,529 murders in 2016. Of that number 652 were committed with all types of rifle and shotgun combined. That’s 3.9% of all murders. Compare that to 1,713 murders committed with knives, 1,881 killings with clubs and other instruments and 743 committed with bare hands or feet.

So what impact do you honestly expect any measures to restrict AR-15s to actually have?

If we tell you to quit standing on the bodies of children and young people, how do you justify asking peaceful, law-abiding owners to give up what is the most popular sporting rifle in the U.S. today? The fact that an infinitesimally small number of them are used in horrible acts? 2017 saw multiple acts of homicide employing vehicles in the U.S. This wasn’t the first year for them. Should we ask owners of Dodge Challengers and Ford F-Series pickups to give them up in the name of pubic safety?

The ratio of Dodge Challengers used in vicious attacks to the total number of post-2008 Challengers owned is much higher than it is for AR-15s. And a Dodge Challenger Hellcat or Demon is far more powerful in relationship to other cars than an AR-15 is to other sporting rifles. Considering that James Fields, the person who drove his Challenger into the group of demonstrators, killing one and injuring 19, was 20 years old, perhaps we should require buyers of Challengers to be 21 or older?

While the media and gun control advocates have tried to portray the AR-15 as some sort of evil, high-powered killing machine, the truth is actually quite different.

The AR-15, just like the Army’s M16, is chambered for an intermediate-caliber round. It is actually the least-powerful cartridge ever adopted by the U.S. military in the smokeless powder era. Its ballistics, especially its terminal ballistics, are what makes it a superior round for modern military applications and small-game hunting.

The AR-15 is the result of advancements in firearm and materials technology. It has reduced recoil, thanks to its longer buffer spring, and has a more ergonomic pistol grip, rather than the traditional rifle grip, which is incorporated into the stock.

The AR-15, and its larger sibling, the AR-10, are adaptable to a wide variety of calibers suitable for small and medium game. Often, all that’s need to change calibers on an AR-15 is a new upper and (sometimes) a different magazine.

The AR-15 is even used by hunters in other countries. It’s manufactured by gun companies in Germany and Italy. At one point, the government of the Czech Republic offered to subsidize the purchase of an AR-15-type rifle for people willing to kill a certain number of feral pigs each year. The wild pigs were causing a lot of damage to crops. That’s also true in the U.S., when wild pigs like the javelina are problem and the AR-15 is the preferred hunting weapon.

Due to its more modern design, the AR-15 can be offered with adjustable stocks. This allows the rifle to be more closely fitted to shooters of different sizes. This also an advantage for shooters with some physical disabilities.

These attributes are also one of the reasons for the AR platform’s wide use in shooting competitions, such as three-gun, which is enjoyed by more than 300,000 Americans each year.

Forends enclose the barrel, preventing burns to the shooter’s hand.

The detachable magazine is nothing new. The Remington Model 8 of 1911, the successor to the Remington Automatic Rifle of 1906, had a detachable box magazine holding five or ten cartridges and 20-round versions of the magazine were available by special order. The Model 8 found great favor with American sportsmen and hunters decades before the first semi-automatic rifle was adopted by the U.S. Army in 1937. The Model 8 ws also popular with police. Texas Ranger Frank Hamer used a Model 8 when he ambushed Bonnie and Clyde and the FBI acquired some following the Kansas City Massacre.

All of the other spotting features used to identify this “evil black rifle” are cosmetic. Flash hiders, forend grips, bayonet lugs, etc., have nothing to do with the rifle’s mechanical function or effectiveness.

So you’re asking why Americans don’t wish to “limit” their sport or why they might be unwilling give up their AR-15s? What do you offer in return? A safety benefit? Gun control has never been shown to be an effective guarantor of public safety.

What if some disturbed person decides to use an M1 carbine? The U.S. government has sold tens of thousands of them to American civilians since the end of World War II and the Korean War and they have been used in mass shootings more than once. Shooters have also used Ruger 10/22 semi-automatic rifles, popular guns chambered for the .22 Long Rifle cartridge in some shootings.

So does the shooting hobby have a place for the AR-15? Absolutely! So does the home defense hobby.

So your question-that-is-not-really-a-question is actually meaningless. It’s simply a demand that we swallow the same hogwash that you have swallowed and are now throwing back up.

Why should we adopt your position when there is not a shred of evidence that supports it - and a mountain of evidence that doesn’t?

Sincere thanks to Peter Mancini for correcting my statement about Nikolas Cruz and a white supremacist group. Later developments showed that the story was a plant and had no basis in fact. My answer has been edited to reflect this.

Richard Patton wanted to know the percentage of the total number of “assault weapons” currently owned by American citizens compared to the number of rifles actually used in mass shootings. There are an estimated 20 million such rifles in circulation, including an estimated five to ten million AR-15s and their clones. Totaling up the number of such rifles, including those like the M1 Carbine, that number is 40, making the percentage is 0.0002%. That figure of 40 includes each individual shooter involved, even if the rifle was shared. For the AR-15 itself, with 20 users, the percentage would be somewhere between 0.0002% and 0.0004%.

Before we get into this, let me state that I have daughter who is about to enter college and is more precious to me than my next breath. I can’t imagine what these parents are going through and every time I try, my heart stops.

Your question implies that the gun is the problem. It is not. More people are killed by knives and blunt weapons than rifles in the US, by an enormous margin.

Absolute data is hard to come by, but the FBI and CDC statistics are the best data sets available at this time. Please be aware that the data used by the FBI is gathered by hand, not automatically and has a category for “unknown” firearms that accounts for about 30% of the total murders in 2016 (Table 12)

Also be aware that the CDC data (CDC WONDER) is focused on “causes of death” and the FBI on criminal acts including murder. This is important in that the FBI data cited therefore lacks the totality of gun death accounting. There is also disparity as the data sets are always aligned for the same periods.

The FBI statistics cited are for 2016 and show a total of 11,004 firearm murders. The CDC data that I’ve decided to use was from 2014 but wasn’t published until 2016 and it cited 33,594 deaths. The CDC data indicates that approximately 64% of firearm injury deaths accounted were from suicide. Different data sets for different use cases, but still creates a good bit of effort to stitch it all together.

Back to the FBI statistics, they absolutely make the case that the AR-15 rifle, or ANY rifle, was used in only 3.4% of firearm murders, and is much less likely to be used to kill someone than a handgun. Shotguns come in slightly lower at 2.3% just in case you were curious.

In fact, FBI statistic show that violent death by knife or other weapon is 10X more likely than dying by a rifle.

The other misleading statistic that the popular press and their talking heads like to use to stir up their viewers is the spin on deaths of children by gun. Like the previous data sets you have to dig in and use multiple sources. The “children” term is often used to describe persons under the age of 25. Digging deeper you find that (suicides excluded) the majority of these “children” are already career criminals by the time they are 18 and are immersed in a culture of violence and death and all too often find both.

It is interesting that although these type of magazine fed weapons have been around since World War II (for over 80 years) these types of tragedies only started AFTER we starting tearing down the mental healthcare apparatus that had been in place up until the mid to late 1960’s.

Take away the guns and these disturbed persons will just get more creative.

I think that Americans are tired of trading their freedoms for a perception of safety.

I would LOVE to tell everyone that getting rid of these guns would make the problem of insane criminals go away, but it just isn’t true. But aside from those misinformed persons that believe that the government can protect them from all evil deeds, most Americans reserve the right to defend themselves.

Before American’s are going to give up guns, the government is going to have to prove it can actually do that impossible job for us.

Honor and respect to all of our Military, Active Duty or Veteran, Law Enforcement and First Responder’s, stay true and hold the line.

If you are a Veteran and are planning to leave the service or have already gotten out, please check out my book on Amazon “Get Out and Thrive!”, its one purpose is to help you and those like you make a successful transition back into civilian life. Best luck.

Not at all. I’ve owned firearms my entire life. My father, grandfather, etc. all did.
None of use had any issues with any children getting hurt.
I’m a USAF veteran. My father is a US Army veteran and a former LEO. My grandfathers were both US Army veterans.
If anything, firearms were used to save the lives of children.

Explain what limits you think would actually save lives? The CDC produced a report in 2013 claiming that at least 500,000 uses of firearm defense occurs annually. I can’t imagine how much higher the death toll would be without firearms. The National Academies Press

The biggest problem with this conversation is this: all of the characteristics that truly make the AR-15 a lethal weapon are present in all modern semi-automatic firearms.

They fire at 1 round per trigger pull. So does any other semi-automatic pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc.

They are higher power*. No, not really. They are higher than some. Lower than others. Almost all hunting rifles fire a higher power cartridge, meaning if you were to use any hunting rifles in a shooting, the AR-15 would be the little guy. The round from an AR-15 has a higher kinetic energy than a pistol round, but any hollow point round will do comparable damage or worse than a higher velocity rifle round.

I wonder sometimes if questions like these simply come from people who are stuck in a vicious cycle of “I don’t trust the police, but I don’t trust the people when things go bad so I have to trust the police” and thus get on the bandwagon on trying to ban something they truly haven’t taken the time to parse out the arguments and understand them.

Is it so hard for American gun owners to limit their gun hobby to save a life of a kid?

No, not hard at all. I’ve fired more than 70,000 rounds in my lifetime, none of which harmed a kid or an adult. There are estimated to be 80–110 million American gun owners just like me.

Exactly what other limits do you think would help?

Does your hobby really need to include weapons like AR-15?

Yes, and I feel no need to justify that answer. If you think an AR-15 is any more or less dangerous than any other firearm, you are ignorant. If you think the AR-15 has any responsibility for the actions of a human, you are a fool. If you think I’m giving mine up, you’re crazy… unless you have a M1A in 6.5 creedmoor for trade.

I would happily give up every weapon I own, including knives, forks, spoons, and baseball bats to save the life of any child. If it were only that easy!

Why do you think giving up my AR-15 will save the life of a child? Do you really think it is possible and feasible to collect every weapon in the USA, even if all law abiding citizens gladly lined up to bring their weapons in?

The fact that we have outlawed Meth, and now rationed any drug with pseudoephedrine in it, has done nothing to curb the appetite for, and sales of this drug in our country, should be evidence enough that this type of response every time there is a school shooting is moronic.

Are you really that naive?

If it wasn’t an AR-15, it would have been something else.

Making machine guns illegal has done little to prevent criminals from using machine guns.

If we took all guns away from law abiding citizens, only the bad guys and cops would have them. Does that really sound like a good idea? Does a police state sound nice?

The only thing that would have saved some of these kids lives, would have been an immediate armed response.

Weapons are tools, no more, no less. In the hands of the good, they are a powerful deterrent to criminal activity. In the hands of the bad, they are tools of destruction. They are neither good, nor evil, people however, are good, and evil. To believe anything different is irrational, irresponsible, and dangerous.

Violent movies and video games are far more dangerous as we desensitize our children to violence and gore, and degrade the value of human life. We would be far more accurate blaming Hollywood and the video game industry for the deaths of these children than blaming the NRA or the gun industry, or simply guns.

Can we not hold these social influencers accountable? Can we not hold them liable for degrading the sanctity of life? Can we not cut out this cancer before it is too late? We use video games to train our soldiers; we know this technology is effective in preparing soldiers for battle. What are we training our children to do? How are we training them to act?

I don’t disagree that the world without guns would be a better place, but I will wait for the world to disarm; I sure won’t be the first to line up and turn mine in.

When it comes to mass shootings at schools specifically there are three levels of risk.

guns getting into the hands of psychos
psychos with said gun getting onto school property
once psycho is on school property, he can’t be stopped
What I don’t understand is the idea of taking weapons away from 10 million people to keep them out of the hands of 20 psychos. Mitigating the risk at the 2nd level is far more practical and less expensive than the 1st or 3rd levels.

Not to mention that disarming the populace of those weapons would be impossible. If Australians only turned in 1/3rd of their semi auto rifles in the gun buy back program back in the 90s then I’m sure fewer Americans would. Don’t forget that most states don’t have a registry, and ones that do often don’t keep them updated. The federal government records gun sales according to serial number but there’s no registry.

Not to mention that laws that prohibit weapons like the AR-15 don’t help. The following are the mass shooting statistics of the US and Europe compared.UPDATED: Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe - Crime Prevention Research Center

From 2009 to 2015 more people died in Europe to mass shootings than the United States. When you weight in population, Europe has almost double non-lethal injuries, The US has about 50% more lethal injuries. These are with guns, Europe has far more bombings than the United States.

But really? back to my first point. Its cheaper, and more effective to stop the psychos with the guns from entering the school grounds than to attempt to buy back or seize the weapons you want to prohibit.

That’s not to mention that 92% of gun related deaths are due to handguns. People freak out and get emotional when there’s a shooting at a school, but that same number of kids die every day from handguns in cities around the nation and where’s the outrage? Are you racist? Most school age kids and young adults that die from handguns are black.

Dozens of black kids die every week from handguns in the cities, and no one bats an eye. Then when some maniac shoots a school full of white kids everyone loses their minds!

What I didn’t like about the opinion article attached to the question is that its suggests that if you don’t want the exact same policies and desire the same solutions then you have no heart and you don’t care about the children dying your souless monster! Really? I have to agree to your policy proscription to qualify to have human sympathy. That suggestion is just sick. You can try that tactic, but all you’ll do is guilt trip those without minds for good policy to your side. You’ll only add to the emotion and outrage rather than add to the the discussion.

You can blame the NRA, who contribute 1/30th of the amount of money labor unions to political campaigns and yet claim that they have control of our politicians. You can blame those who own guns for supporting the right to own said guns. You need to blame the killer. He made a choice. He wasn’t crazy, he wasn’t insane. He did make a choice. He is the only one to blame.

But we can do more. The cops and FBI saw the signs but they didn’t have the authority to do anything about it. The sheriff said he felt something bad would happen but his hands were tied. The man hadn’t committed a crime and thus the police couldn’t do anything. The FBI also didn’t have the proper protocols in place.

You can place security guards or police at the school. I went to a high school of 4k kids and we had one police officer. He was assigned to the school. He walked the halls, talked with the students, and he was a part of our school. If we had two, that really wouldn’t cost much more money. Add metal detectors to the school. We may not be able to do this to every school but I should satisfy those who scream “do something!” Even though they haven’t a clue themselves as to what to do.

I’m not going to talk about arming the teachers or students. That’s a mixed bag. However having police or security with guns, even the big scary looking ones would help. There was a knife attack in a Paris metro terminal and it was over in 80 seconds when two patrolling soldiers shot him dead.

I have all the human sympathy anyone could for the children and adults who died in Parkland. The truth about gun violence is already known to those who own them. This cycle of violence exists everywhere in the world regardless of the laws, regardless of the policies. Its obvious that those who don’t understand guns are not going to waste this crisis, and they’ll milk it as much as they can. In the end, The only one to blame is the killer.

Giving up MY guns would not save the life of a kid, because MY guns are never going to take the life of a kid. MY guns are safely locked away and hidden from the public. MY mind is mentally stable, and MY intentions to kill a kid are nonexistent. So you explain to me why MY guns should be taken away.

Giving up MY guns would not save a kid’s life. Keeping MY guns will not lead to the death of a child. Your slippery slope argument is invalid.

And would you like to know why exactly MY hobby needs to includes weapons like the AR-15? The AR-15 scares politicians; it keeps them in check, which is exactly why we have the second amendment. The second amendment does not protect a hobby (target shooting) or a sport (hunting), it protects our right as people to protect ourselves from threats, whether those threats be as crude as a doped up mugger in the streets, or as convoluted as a corrupt government.

The very fact that politicians are trying so very hard to do away with the AR-15 and other such rifles is the exact reason that I, and countless others, will NEVER give them up.

To close, I will pose a question to YOU: Is it so hard for non-gun owners to limit their ignorance to save the life of a kid? Do schools really need to be gun-free shooting galleries for criminals that disregard the law and bring their guns there anyway?

Would drivers — not just in the U.S., but anywhere — be willing to have a device installed in their phone that simply shuts the phone off when it knows you’re in the driver’s seat of a vehicle going over 10 mph?

Not a chance. People will just lie and say “I’m a responsible person. Don’t take my phone away! It’s not hurting anybody!”

Meanwhile, distracted drivers in the U.S. slaughter 9 people a day on average — including innocent bystanders and children.

Drivers using their phones, doing everything from checking GoogleMaps to watching porn and masturbating on the highway cause about 1.6 million crashes a year in America, leading to over 300,000 injuries and a lot of deaths. Rates are similar in every country with cars and cellphone service.

“Why don’t AR-15 owners give up their guns?”

It’s a legitimate question. I don’t like AR-15s, either.

But the answer is: for the same reasons people don’t give up their porn and Facebook hobbies while driving on the highway.

For the same reasons people in San Francisco don’t bathe every 2 or 3 days instead of seven or more times a week — an act that would have a positive environmental impact in a dry state like California.

The answer is: “Because my poop doesn’t stink.”

That’s basic human behavior — regardless of politics.

A guy eating a bowl of cereal in his car because he’s late to work (I’ve done this) or a teenage girl texting and taking selfies are massively more dangerous, statistically, than AR-15s.

Statistically, everybody should be scared to death of teenage girls, even if you’re just out riding your bike or going down to the grocery store. Teenage girls kill a lot of people on American roads: they text while driving.

So do people of all ages: my 66-year-old mother has turned into a teenage girl since she got her first iPhone a year ago.

Yet we get more anxiety from flying. There hasn’t been a major airplane crash in the U.S. since 2009, but we’re more scared of flying than driving. Nine people a day don’t die in airplane crashes.

If news headlines were responsible, every few days you’d read something like: “CRAZY YUPPIE WOMAN IN SUV KILLS 5 CHILDREN WITH A CELLPHONE” — this stuff happens — or “MAN SLAUGHTERS AMISH FAMILY IN INDIANA WHEN HE DRIVES INTO THEIR BUGGY WHILE TEXTING” — a real story.

You’d never get on the road again.

Where’s the rage, the walkouts, the national movement for a ban on cellphones? Oh, that’s right. My poop doesn’t stink.

I’m not a member of the NRA, and I didn’t vote for Donald Trump.

AR-15s are scary weapons, but the fixation on them is pretty overblown.

The overwhelming number of gun deaths, including school shootings, are committed with hand guns, not AR-15s. Plus at least 20% of gun deaths [I've been corrected here: it's 60%] in the U.S. are caused by gun owners putting a weapon to their own head.

Hand guns are deadly.

Cigarettes are deadly.

Cell phones (the new cigarettes) are deadly.

Cars are really, really deadly — and used irresponsibly every minute of every day.

Alcohol is extremely deadly (and a notorious hobby): BRING BACK PROHIBITION? To say “Limit your drinking and take proper precautions to save the life of a kid” is awesome and responsible. To take booze — a deadly drug — away from everybody because a lot of people abuse it (more than the number of people who abuse AR-15s) just isn’t going to happen.

“Is it so hard for American gun owners to limit their gun hobby to save a life of a kid? Does your hobby really need to include weapons like AR-15?”

FYI, naked emotional appeals do not a convincing argument make.

Trying to shame someone into agreeing with you by claiming they are causing the deaths of children is, ironically, an argument that could only come from the mind of a child. Also, deriding a Constitutional right as a mere “hobby” only paints you as an unreasonable partisan unwilling to listen to the arguments of the other side.

For the record, no, it doesn’t need to include weapons like the AR-15. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to let you take it away from me.

“Rights” are not decided based on “need”. If I have a right to something, it doesn’t matter if I “need” to use it or not.

Nobody “needs” to practice a religion. Indeed, many would argue that religion is the cause of untold death and suffering throughout the world and throughout history. Yet we ALL have a right to practice (or not practice) a religion if we so choose.

Why would my inclusion of an AR-15 in my gun collection cost a kid his life? Are they using child slaves to manufacturer rifles? It only takes a single bullet, knife, car, loose handrail, or unchewed piece of lunch meat to kill. Please explain why an AR-15 in a responsible gun owners collection would translate to a kid's death over other choices. A Glock 9mm is far easier to load, carry, and fire. Why wouldn't it be riskier? Please explain.

There are numerous intelligent, considered answers posted already so I’ll address the elephants in the room.

A man known to EVERYONE to be troubled, hostile and threatening - a veritable powder keg with a lit fuse - killed 17 kids with an AR-15. We do not have a systemic, agreed upon way to keep even obvious threats from obtaining weapons. The patch work agencies who knew or should have known failed the shooter and his victims. And, even if he had been on a no-buy list he could have used a straw buyer (who are almost never prosecuted when caught) or bought from a private vendor at a gun show. The debate should be about these and other relevant issues rather than about banning AR-15s.

Having said that, suppose AR-15s and other “assault weapons” had been banned. Then does anyone think he would have simply sighed and pined for the good ole days? No, he might have walked in with a deadlier weapon that isn’t considered an assault weapon. Deadlier? For in-close shooting as was accomplished in FL I believe my Saiga 12-gauge shotgun with 10 round magazines would have proven more effective (on a per round fired basis) than the 30-round AR-15.

Now, I’m not intending to open another thread here. My points are (1) there are alternative weapons that will serve the deranged who are intent upon mass murder even if “assault style” weapons are banned and (2) the assault weapon ban debate is sucking the life from meaningful discourse about how to truly inhibit future mass murders.

It is interesting that although these type of magazine fed weapons have been around since World War II (for over 80 years) these types of tragedies only started AFTER we starting tearing down the mental healthcare apparatus that had been in place up until the mid to late 1960’s.

Yet we get more anxiety from flying. There hasn’t been a major airplane crash in the U.S. since 2009, but we’re more scared of flying than driving. Nine people a day don’t die in airplane crashes.

If news headlines were responsible, every few days you’d read something like: “CRAZY YUPPIE WOMAN IN SUV KILLS 5 CHILDREN WITH A CELLPHONE” — this stuff happens — or “MAN SLAUGHTERS AMISH FAMILY IN INDIANA WHEN HE DRIVES INTO THEIR BUGGY WHILE TEXTING” — a real story.

You’d never get on the road again.

Where’s the rage, the walkouts, the national movement for a ban on cellphones? Oh, that’s right. My poop doesn’t stink.

Hand guns are deadly.

Cigarettes are deadly.

Cell phones (the new cigarettes) are deadly.

Cars are really, really deadly — and used irresponsibly every minute of every day.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 16,529 murders in 2016. Of that number 652 were committed with all types of rifle and shotgun combined. That’s 3.9% of all murders. Compare that to 1,713 murders committed with knives, 1,881 killings with clubs and other instruments and 743 committed with bare hands or feet.

dochielomn wrote: But I don't know, part of me thinks that guns are smuggled into the country or sold in a back alley illegally, so if someone is hell bent on getting one, they'll find a way (same way even if bullets were expensive and eventually you'd find an illegal way to buy cheaper bullets). But at the same point, I don't think turning schools into a fortress or arming teachers is a way to go either. I just don't think there is a simple solution as the media tends to portray.

dochielomn wrote:Ok, so I have an issue with your analogy with the corvette. Your analogy is too simplistic as fatal car accidents happen all the time and some of those are caused by people driving too fast or above the speed limit. I think for your analogy to really apply is to have like say 50% of these types corvette owners doing this.

dochielomn wrote:Additionally, I'm not sure if you need more guns in the schools (in terms of armed guards). Then, you're potentially asking for a guard to over react and possibly shoot a kid (the same way that you see law enforcement over react at times by shooting unarmed people). Like I said, I just don't know what the solution to this issue is without really going to an extreme.

When it comes to mass shootings at schools specifically there are three levels of risk.

1. guns getting into the hands of psychos
2. psychos with said gun getting onto school property
3. once psycho is on school property, he can’t be stopped

What I don’t understand is the idea of taking weapons away from 10 million people to keep them out of the hands of 20 psychos. Mitigating the risk at the 2nd level is far more practical and less expensive than the 1st or 3rd levels.

dochielomn wrote:In terms of 3D printing guns, how many people own or actually use a 3D printer though?