Bowsite.com

I rarely shopped there anyway - but now is even less of a reason....

It solves nothing though...

Great for the small mom and pop shops.

BBB - don't be silly. There's nothing floating around that would prevent someone under 21 from possessing or using a long gun..

OTOH - and at the very least - if a "kid" is in the Military, he/she should be able to qualify for a waiver. Frankly, I don't see any need to extend the age minimum for long guns to anything that doesn't have a removable magazine, or if it does, capacity of 5 or fewer for centerfire and 10 or fewer for rimfire. That covers all standard sporting rifles/shotguns and pretty much everything that hasn't already been banned in CT anyway.

Basically, all it would do is to push high-cap semi-auto rifles into the same bucket as handguns, and honestly... I don't have a problem with that.

Business wise, given they likely make a small % of thier overall corporate profit off guns, and a tiny percent off AR platform/style rifles... Any money lost from folks ticked they make this move, will be made up from folks who may go there BECAUSE they did a move like this.

Regardless, they may even decide they are ok taking the risk of a reduction in sales given their corporate lawyers or PR folks could be suggesting to them that should someone use a weapon bought there in one of these shootings in the future, that the backlash could really hurt them.

I saw somewhere online this weekend, that what prompted this move, was that they sold the shooter a shotgun (not used in the crime), but the CEO decided that was close enough to negative publicity for him.

Not defending or agreeing with what they did, but I can now see why they took this road.

Bob - there’s a difference between discrimination and a blanket policy. Still, if someone doesn’t want my business, I’m happier taking it elsewhere.

There are certain guns we can no longer buy... I had found a nice older S&W semi auto at Kittery, 15+1 in 9mm - had cash in hand, paperwork completed - then the manager nixed the transaction - it's against their policy to sell those to CT. I told him CT law bans guns by name, and they could either transfer the gun without the mag, or transfer to the FFL WITH the mag and he could not legally transfer it to me. They gave me my $$ back.

Of course, last week I heard a news report that business is just fine after their announcement in support of gun control. It doesn't matter to me, I just have to shop where I am not spending against myself. When the choice is mine, I will not pay for gun control.

If 18, 19 and 20-year-olds can be denied the right to purchase firearms to protect themselves, is that not an infringement of their constitutional right? If they are too young to be responsible enough to buy a firearm, why should we allow them to set policy about who else can have them? Uninformed people call AR an "Instrument of War", has any military even issued them to their soldiers? In the US military, they use a rifle that, while it looks somewhat like an AR, is a Select Fire or Full Auto 5.56 caliber rifle. Calling a Semi-Auto anything an Assault Weapon is just ignorant. Well either ignorant or purposely deceitful.

A bit of info for you, since you seem interested:

When was the AR invented: "ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt in 1959. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s was made to Malaysia on September 30, 1959, with Colt's manufacture of their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959." (Source: https://www.ar15goa.com/about/the-ar-15-rifle/)

When was the M16 invented? "The original M16 was a selective fire 5.56mm rifle with a 20-round magazine. In 1964, the M16 entered U.S. military service and the following year was deployed for jungle warfare operations during the Vietnam War. In 1969, the M16A1 replaced the M14 rifle to become the U.S. military's standard service rifle." (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle)

Your facts are wrong, Again. Clearly, you are one of the ignorant ones. Not to mention arrogant, but we all knew that already. Any more questions or misconceptions I can clear up for you?

Home Defense, Target Shooting, Competition, Hunting (mostly predators with the 5.56), and Big Game with heavier calibers. It's only the most popular rifle sold in the USA and has been for some time. It's accurate and reliable and very versatile and modular. And when the Feds banned it for 10 years ('94-'04) no difference was noted in crime statistics (FBI Uniform Crime Report).

Point taken on clip vs magazine. I misspoke. Most my rifles are bolt action and take 3 rounds so I haven’t the need for either. And I will concede that the AR 15 became the M 16 in the late 50s, but stand by the fact that the AR 15 remains the civilian equivalent of the M 16 and the M 16 is still used in the military 54 years later because it is most effective at eliminating the enemy. The M 16 was “invented” well before it went into military service in 1964 as your misleading Wikipedia quote states. If you scroll further down on the same page, it will see it was designed in 1957, the same time as the AR 15. You can’t dispute the AR 15 is the preferred weapon of mass shooters because, to quote you, it is “accurate and reliable and very versatile and modular.” And the weapon of choice used to combat shooters using an AR-15, is the AR-15. And during the weapons ban it could have one, but not more than one, military-grade spec like a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher. And it was not the only weapon “banned” during the time, but I would agree that the ban did next to nothing to limit access, but it sure appeased the voting public. I guess I don’t see the need for the general public to have military-grade assault weapons with high capacity magazines. If that makes me ignorant, then so be it.

5.56 x 46 mm NATO, is the caliber of most AR style rifles, although some are chambered for .223 (INCHES). You can use .223 ammo in rifles chambered for 5.56 x 45 (MM NATO) but the reverse isn't recommended as pressures may be too high because of a slight difference in the headspace.

You not seeing the "need for the general public" is probably why we have a Bill of Rights, instead of a Bill of Needs. But feel free to not exercise that right. By the way, calling them Assault Weapons is another area where you are showing your political stripes. That's a made up term used by those wanting to ban them. An AR15 is neither an Assault Weapon nor an Assault RIfle. Words matter might as well get it right.

Instead let's talk about a gun that doesn't exist,......"assault rifle". The gun is not the problem. It's just the hole in the donut, but the media loves to talk about the holes.

"A semi-auto AR 15 with a 30 round clip may not technically be an assault weapon, but pretty dang close."

You have once corrected me on clip v magazine. But I think most can infer here that I realize that an AR is neither an assault weapon nor assault rifle because it is not fully automatic. Yeah. Got it. Spelled out as such.

This guys a walking encyclopedia on guns

This guys a walking encyclopedia on guns

People wanted to ban pump action shotguns in WW1 because these "trench guns" were thought to be worse than the other weapons being utilized. In WW2 and Vietnam, soldiers with these nasty shotguns got extra attention from the enemy.

The cyborg

Those are the one stipulated in the 2nd amendment. Military, as in militia.

Personal arms as weapons of war: stick, rock, club, spear, bow and arrow, sword, flintlock, Springfield 1863 Percussion and Trapdoor, shotgun, revolver, pistol, M1903, M1903A3, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M14 (semi), FN SCAR (semi), AR-15, SKS and AK Variants (semi), M36 Phase Pulse rifle in 40KW range. I want them all, except for the last (lol).

I remember when the government was less intrusive. Less regulations and less taxes. I learned a moral code from religion and my parents. I learned with age comes responsibility. I earned money starting at 10 years. I wasn't concerned about taxes until my first 'real' job, when some union and some government took my earnings without asking. I had no concern about laws except that I had to be 16 years to drive or buy firearms. I used to buy rifles and pistols at the hardware store and even by mail. I have not killed anyone except when ordered by my government, and only then because I believed I was protecting my inherent rights as put forth in our Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

I recall a recent conservation I had with the CT ACLU. The 1st Amendment is interpreted broadly, to cover everything from idiocy to debauchery (i.e.; abortion), while the 2nd Amendment is interpreted narrowly, and is defined by what is is. I guess my civil rights don't include the 2nd Amendment.

[End rant]

The stipulation for regulation was in time of national need, not full time. The civilian arsenal was to supplement a possible standing army need. Therefore, arms equivalent to government owned arms were expected to be in the hands of civilians not under a central authority, for the purposes of regulation. While the mission of a standing army was to protect the nation, the threat of a standing army to liberty was recognized. Trust was in God, not the government.

So when the government was discovered to be stockpiling vast amounts of ammunition through out various administrative departments(like the IRS), a few months back, it was clearly understood that this posed a threat to civilians, not foreign forces.

"I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers could have envisioned the power and lethality of modern-day firearms and certainly could not fathom that American civilians would use them against other civilians when they wrote the 2nd Amendment."

You don't have to imagine anything. Murder was then horrible as it is now.

Crime: HOM: 4 or more Ind adults Motive: POLITICAL / control of trade

Circumstances: the Indians traders were en route to the House of Good Hope, the Dutch trading post on the upper Connecticut River (in present-day Hartford). The Pequots attacked them to defend their monopoly of trade with the Dutch in the Connecticut River Valley. The attack violated Pequot treaties with the Dutch, which were negotiated in 1633. The Pequot had granted the Dutch a plot of land, extending 1/3 mi. inland, on which to build their trading post, in return for wampum and trade goods; and the Pequots had [according to Cave, Pequot War, 58] "bound themselves to respect the peace and to allow Indians, regardless of tribal affiliation, access to the Dutch trading post." The peace proved "ephemeral," as the Pequots "were not reconciled to the loss of their trade monopoly in the Connecticut River Valley."

"In one of the most famous crimes of post-Revolution America, Barnett Davenport commits an awful mass murder in rural Connecticut. Caleb Mallory, his wife, daughter-in-law, and two grandchildren were killed in their home by their boarder, Davenport.

Davenport, born in 1760, enlisted in the American army as a teenager and had served at Valley Forge and Fort Ticonderoga. In the waning days of the war with the British, he came to live in the Mallory household. Today, Davenport’s crime might be ascribed to some type of post-war stress syndrome, but at the time it was the source of a different sociological significance.

On February 3, apparently unprovoked, Davenport beat Caleb Mallory to death. He then beat Mallory’s seven-year-old grandchild with a rifle and killed his daughter-in-law. Davenport looted the home before setting it on fire, killing two others.

His shocking confession was the basis of much soul-searching for the fledgling nation’s press. Many books were written about the crime, and the perception of murderers began to change in America. Until then, crime was most often seen as the result of common sinners losing their way. But Davenport’s crime and its portrayal to the public caused people to perceive criminals as evil and alien to the rest of society. To some degree, this view has persisted through the years.

Those quaint good old days is a myth.

" The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

There already is a line. Moving it any farther is encroaching on personal liberty. And don't you know, the movement is in the direction of complete confiscation?

Why is the absurd grenade to tank statement made when personal arms are the issue, to sway the ignorant, nothing more, because the left has a goal to reach, one step at a time.

Hunting firearms are not the intention of the 2nd amendment. Hunting is not listed as an inalienable right.

Aside from that, I know what you are talking about, I own multiple firearms I use at the range and for sporting purposes. I even use one for work! The likelihood of dying in a mass shooting is very rare, but they are happening more and more frequently. But there is that fear/dread component involved with public perception of these events. I know that my chances of dying in a plane crash are much lower than driving around town, but knowing that everyone on board is going to die when the plane goes down resulting in a disastrous body count is what people fear. Just like dozens of people dying in a mass shooting. Yes far more people die in ones, twos, and threes in car accidents and shootings every day that collectively far outnumber mass casualty events. But guns are scary to the public, especially in the hands of crazy people looking to kill innocent people. So the public will not stand by while these events keep on occurring. Handguns were used to kill intercity youth in the 1980s and were and remain heavily regulated to this day. Now 18 year old disturbed (usually white) boys can go buy a weapon of war and use it for its intended purpose the same day. As times have changed, doesn’t it make sense to more heavily regulate the weapon of choice? Why in this day and age is it easier to purchase the weapon being used in mass shootings than it is to purchase a handgun? Why are we calling to boycott Dicks because they are committing to only selling firearms for hunting purposes in light of recent events?

Smoothdraw. You should talk to Ace. He thinks liberals made up the term “assault weapons” to describe those devices so they can ban them. You mean the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee my right as a civilian to own a bazooka?

Wild Bill. Why is his “absurd” statement so absurd? His point was we need to draw the line somewhere. I can’t get a grenade launcher for obvious reasons but I can buy multiple weapons of war that have been in military service for over 50 years? Not sure I follow your logic on the Davenport killings. Because that happened in 1760 it is okay that the Petit slayings occurred modern-day? What has this got to do with AR 15s in the hands of civilians being used on other civilians?

Davenport = The founding fathers were not strangers to murder and mayhem and understood wickedness can be found in the hearts of other people. To paint them as having an different position on arms rights, in light of actual conditions today, is hypothetical and insincere. They insisted that government is to be feared and held in check, to not regulate and destroy the rights of the people.

"That is what you fear?" Am I and others to be mocked for this? More recent historical facts tell us that confiscation of citizen owned firearms precedes a slaughter of people that far surpasses the count of lives lost to what is already criminal activity. There are no inches left to give on the 2nd amendment, because too many miles have been swallowed up already.

The problem is more complex than gun control and involves a society with an increasing void in morality, due to failure to acknowledge the absolute right and wrong established by God.

“I cannot imagine the Founding Fathers could have envisioned the power and lethality of modern-day firearms and certainly could not fathom that American civilians would use them against other civilians when they wrote the 2nd Amendment“

But of course they were able to see the development of the Telephone, Television, Internet etc, so the 1st Amendment should applied to these things, right?

It’s clear that the Founders envisioned the Well Regulated Militia armed equal to any potential enemy force, with any weapon that they could “keep and bear” but some of you only care about your hunting arms.

The Federalist Papers and numerous quotes by the Founding Fathers made it perfectly clear that they wanted the masses armed and prepared Incase they saw the need for a RevWar Deux.

BobHunt. I appreciate your service as well. I have shot plenty AR 15 rounds but never an M 16. Chuck a bump stock on the AR and you have a full auto weapon. You are suggesting the spray and pray approach of full auto is more lethal or just gets more lead downrange in a shorter period of time? Or are you just arguing as to what is defined as an assault-style weapon? Are you suggesting that these scum bag murderers are the product of liberal parenting? I find that hard to believe, in fact, I would argue they are the product of misguided conservative parenting. No one is suggesting taking your guns away. Why when gun regulations come up do people assume liberals are coming to take their guns away? Why then are we having a nationwide conversation about gun regulations with an R House, an R Senate, and an R President? Where are these gun-snatching liberals?

Bill. So I think given all the mass shootings using AR 15s the public is going to demand that line be shifted to raising the age limit to purchasing an AR to 21. I agree there is a bigger problem in society that is more complex than gun control, but increasing regulations on civilian “assault” style weapons I have no problem with as long as they are continued to be used to kill dozens of innocent people. I do not think the general public will have a problem with that either.

I wonder why.

Were any of the mass shooters I mentioned previously incarcerated and released prematurely? Nope. And I'd wager a guess if they were old enough to vote, and if they in fact voted, it wasn't for Hillary. Your arguments blaming liberals don't make sense.

CT is a blue state. We used to have lots of gun manufacturers and incredibly lax gun laws until the very unfortunate event that happened in Sandy Hook. Your boys should start a young Repub club!

Back to your previous post. I know that an AR 15 was used to subdue the TX shooter and even hinted as such in a previous post. The irony was not lost on me. But it is going to be a hard sell, even in Texas, to suggest that AR 15s are good because one was used to subdue a murderer who had just killed 26 people, with an AR 15. That's not a liberal thing. It's a fact, and it happened in Texas, which aside from Austin, is not very liberal.

Liberals are ruining this country. Let's start with calling killing babies as a woman's right to her body. Then all kids get a trophy because no one loses. Spanking your kids gets you jail time and you can pray in school but you can teach them that John had 2 mom's. Liberal social programs pay people more NOT to work than they could get doing honest labor. So when little Johnny doesn't have his life go his way he takes his gun and makes everyone pay. And the liberal Hollywood stars making movies that depict murders and mahem blame the gun, just like you. Ignore the process that got Johnny to that point.

My position is simple. Guns for personal protection and hunting need just 3 rounds. I don't care what they look like. All guns are weapons of war, if they need to be.

BTW - I might also be one of the a-holes on this site at times.

The majority absolutely does not dictate the laws of this country, never has, hopefully never will. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. The Constitution and laws that are consistent with the constitution govern, not the majority of citizens.

If the majority governed a simple majority could overturn the constitution, bill of rights, electoral process etc, at a whim. That is not the way it works and our government are laws are structured specifically to prevent majority rule.

The Senate, the electoral college, the bill of rights, constitutional limitations of government power, the supreme court are all obvious examples of the majority not ruling. The only branch of our government that could remotely be characterized as majority rule is the house of representatives and their power to act is limited by almost every other part of government not governed by the majority.

Smoothdraw nailed it for me. There is a line someplace to be drawn. I had a big long note to follow that, but cut it. In the end, that's where it is for me.

Being governed by the majority opinin is one of the things our founding father's most feared. The specifically and intentionally created a government that would not be governed by the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Maybe you should move to another country that has majority rule if that is really what you want.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Often attributed to Benjamin Franklin

Will.just do like me, interject with nonsense and stupidity..throws them off their game for a second or two..lol

Elephants eat rhino puppies and that's why chocolate looks like asparagus. Muzzles are for candy canes which are made of pavement and ridden by golden elves with watermelon helmets.

:) How'd I do bud?

"Many of my classmates were against the walkout, claiming it was a pointless action to stop any violence. Not a minute after we got of the building, students held up Make America Great Again flags, NRA memorabila and signs that read Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

I guess there are several young people who agree with our 2nd amendment rights! The other striking thing about this letter to the editor was that the school prohibited the press from the school campus to cover the rally. Wonder why???

This is where I get lost. The message I hear in most "liberals" discussions, starts here: "You can have guns, we just would like to verify you are a good person first, sorry for the couple hurdles you will have to jump (background checks etc) through." And when it's heard by by right leaning friends it goes through some filtering device so it sounds like this: "We will abolish the 2A, anyone who wants a gun is a homicidal maniac, and zealot who should be in a concentration camp, oh and we love Stalin".

I said it on the other thread. I'm all for the 2nd Amendment. Love my guns and look forward to handing them to my kids when I'm old. I just dont see how a solid system of background checks and, heck, Ill raise that to say even an age shift for purchase (not use, that's up to parents or the gvmt for millitary or similar public safety fields where extensive training would be performed compared to civilian use) negatively impacts honest, good people. Because if you are a good person, those checks will have zero impact on your ability to have guns.

I do not believe that's the start of a gun heist. I dont believe that's the start of abolishing the second amendment. In that scenario, if you live a good life, you can enjoy all your rights. If you dont, if you have a felony, or you beat your wife or assaulted some one or drove high/drunk etc. Sorry, not sorry - YOU made the choice to limit your rights. That is on the individual.

BIG problems should be FIRST on our "to do" list, but, why is there not agreement on and work being done, to remedy that?

Approaching the evolving problems with the same weak/lame solutions, does not effect the changes needed to properly address the solution. There was a time in our history when these acts were unthinkable, on the scale they now exist. Why should God help us save children's lives when we legalize murder of the unborn? Why should God protect our schools when his existence is forbidden to be spoken of there? American rights and liberties are inalienable ONLY because they are from God. The socialist/progressive mindset has declared God dead and powerless. The ramifications of this indoctrination are all around each and every one of us, but nobody seems to care in learning the truth. The first question from God to man in the Bible is, "Where are you. "Step by step, inch by inch, here a little, there a little we move farther and farther down the path of deception towards the great utopia promised, and never actualized.

The future looks bleak if we continue as we have.

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2Chronicles 7:14

If you are one of his people, you can make a difference, if not, you are part of the problem.

Our division is by design.

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

In this case, we gun owners get to verify for the "man" that we are good people, we can be glad that people who make bad choices don't get to have the same rights as good people, and those who chose not to partake in the 2nd amendment feel they are safer.

Nobody has answered this one: What law, had it been in place, would have prevented any of these shootings? Why would the Parkland Shooter have obeyed the age restriction on buying a rifle? He was willing to commit murder! Are you proposing a penalty for buying a rifle under 21 years old that would have a punishment more severe than that for murder? Do you honestly think he would have given up on his plans because a Gun shop couldn't sell him an AR? That's a real question.

Now consider this: Has an 18, 19 or 20 year old ever used a firearm to defend their own life or that of a loved one? What if they hadn't been able to buy that gun? This is a perfect example of a proposed gun law that will save not 1 life, and may actually cost some.

The need to "do something" should come with the painfully obvious second part: 'but not something that wiill make it worse'. Banning Magazines with a Capacity of over 10 rounds or banning a semi-auto rifle that looks like a Military Rifle saves zero lives, that has been established and proven. I won't apologize for not being willing to give up my right Just because some of you THINK it sounds good, or makes you FEEL as if you are accomplishing something positive.

Again, tell me a proposed law tha will save lives, (and explain how it will save lives). Maybe you can come up with something, we 2nd Amendment people are reasonable sorts, we just hate useless government intrusion.

"One can be pro-Second Amendment and also not want innocent people killed with firearms." Actually, everyone pro 2nd Amendment doesn't want innocent people killed. Some of the Anti 2nd Amendment people are quite obviously willing to sacrifice a bunch of lives to achieve their objectives.

Will - you won't find anyone saying out loud "We want all your guns!" The reason is obvious, it's because that would create a huge crisis in this country with gun owners, but it's what the liberal left wants,.....don't be fooled by their political speak about just bump stocks, or just background checks or just age restrictions or just the way a gun looks. When they point to other countries, like the UK, that have severe restrictions on guns (I think they allow 22cal. handguns and shotgun for hunting and it's difficult to get either) they are saying they want all your guns.

The bomber in Texas proved that a twenty something year old with a computer can find out how to make bombs to do the killing. And the cop that shot the kid in the Maryland school proved that a good gun can stop a bad. People with bad intentions will find a way to do it.

The root cause is the breakdown of society in my opinion and I think it's the lack of a strong family unit and lack of religion in society. This is a generation of "What's right for me is all that matters." But that's a much more difficult problem for the politicians and high school protesters to even recognize and acknowledge. They would rather ignore the root cause and try to cure the symptoms.

I found this exerpt from USAToday. Sounds like us. The best solution is to find some common ground. Start by beefing up security at schools and more complete background checks / systems. The government should make that a priority. Along with fixing society!

I wouldn't do have our government do anything. Free societies have inherent risks. This is one of them. Risk mitigation is not worth price we would have to pay in freedom.

CNN and MSNBC are “owned by people who hate America???” Ted Turner was born in Ohio, was expelled from Brown University before receiving his diploma for having a female student in his dorm room, owned the Atlanta Braves, and was married to Jane Fonda. Does it get any more American than that? Plus he gave $1 billion to the United Nations to broaden domestic support for the UN and co-founded an organization to prevent proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Turner. And MSNBC is owned by NBCUniversal News Group, a huge media conglomerate. NBC, home to Monday Night Football and NASCAR hates America? Wait, what?

I would argue these folks are way more American for daylighting the BS propaganda from the likes of FoxNews Tucker Carlson, the kid everyone wanted to beat up for wearing Nantucket reds and that stupid required sailboat belt whose parent’s Suburban had a decade’s worth of over-sand permits lined up on the rear bumper from wheel well to wheel well. The guy who was complaining yesterday about the kids protesting in Florida saying “If they’re too young to buy guns, why should they be making my gun laws?” Claiming the kids are “not citizens” because “they’re not 18.” Yeah, that guy loves America. Angry, rich, privileged, out-of-touch white guy, marching the R party right out of the House, Senate, and White House. Sound like anyone else in the news these days? Hint, his name rhymes with Monald Drump.

Personally, I think a gun in the classroom with the kids’ teacher is just dumb and asking for trouble. But on-site SWAT style weaponry sealed away and monitored by resource officers/deputies/trained staff for super rapid response which would then eliminate the “soft target” stigma of schools, I would be behind 100%. This isn’t to say a deranged lunatic could not find another soft target.

Oh yeah, the "ban" would have stopped him? How is that possible, a law is written on a piece of paper, THE GUY WAS WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER let that sink in. You obviously haven't thought that one through. Why would he care about breaking one more law?

By the way, what is a "high capacity weapon"? Are you referring to the magazine? Reloads take seconds. Are you referring to the caliber of the rifle? a 5.56 is not a high power rifle.

It's frustrating when even gun owners know so little about which they speak. You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not however entitled to your own facts.

If clips held a maximum of three bullets that’s alot of reloads. But then I suppose the shooter would just arm himself with a bunch of handguns. I guess there’s no one solution. Maybe you’re right again. It just seems like it’s way too easy for these crazies to shoot up a school. I’m not willing to write off the lives of these students as the price we pay for “freedom”. What do you suggest this country does? These shootings have put a sense of fear into students. When the fire alarm goes off some kids think twice about going outside.

Nothing new there, and a healthy fear at that.

I recall being shuffled out into the school corridor, away from the windows, and being instructed to kneel down facing the wall, put my face to the floor with one forearm under my forehead and the other across the back of my neck, because an a-bomb was coming from the commies, to waste the country. Oh, and no talking. Fear? You could hear a pin drop as we all hunched over and wondered what it would be like to get nuked. Still a threat we face today, ala N.Korea, which by the way has an stringent gun control program, the envy of the left.

Yes Virginia, there are evil characters in your world, not all are Santa.

What’s the answer? Make schools a (much) harder target. Arm any responsible adult working there who is willing to meet the training requirements. Many of these people are ex military, or already qualify to carry outside of school. Of course they can be trusted inside the school. They already have our kids lives in their hands, give them the appropriate and necessary tools to fight the threat. Nobody is suggesting that we insist that teachers carry a firearm, just allow the ones who want to, to do so. Train every school worker in how to spot a threat, and how to react. The lack of response from several law enforcement agencies and the school itself in FL was unconscionable. That kid was begging for someone to stop him, nobody would.

I’d add metal detectors to every door used to enter the school. Why the heck do we do that for a courthouse and not a schoolhouse? While we are at it, we have to stop the under-reporting of crimes in the schools. If you break the law in a school, you get the same treatment as if you did it in public.

School shooters have shown themselves to be cowards, almost always ending their own life at the first sign of resistance. I say let’s have them meet that resistance sooner. These teachers are fighting back when a shooter enters their classroom, but they are doing it with chairs and clipboards, how the heck can we not want them to have appropriate tools?

Israel had school shootings until they put firearms in the classrooms, now they do not.

We can try an experiment, arm staff in half the schools, parents can choose which school to send their kids to. I know where I am sending my kids. Where do you think the next school shooter will show up?

Will we ever eliminate all mass shooting? Probably not, but if we keep insisting on trying things that have no chance of working, we won’t even slow them down. Hard targets get targeted less often. Why do 90+ % of these shooting happen in places where people can’t carry firearms? The answer to that is obvious yet is lost on some.

End point, if that is correct, my whole "theory" may be wrong.

Back to your question though Ace. How could a law - say good background checks maybe age of purchase change - save lives. Well, I dont know that it would relative to the school shootings we have had. But I'm not limiting lives to that. What if those BASIC laws prevent say 100 people from being killed by firearms? It's not going to save everyone. It cant. But, to save a few people, I'm totally fine with going through all the background checks, having to take the class, renew my permit, get fingerprinted, keep my nose clean. I just dont see why those things are hard. Sure, for a couple days every decade (at least up here in MA) I have to deal with it. That doesnt seem like a big thing in exchange for even 1 person getting to go home to their family to me.

I do agree with Bob fully on the family and social unit of people. At the risk of ruffling feathers, I dont think religion is a factor. I'm not going deeper than that. I'm not diving into that worm hole. Did that on the other thread and it just took it off the rails, so I'm not going there here. I just believe that a good social unit is a key in keeping people healthy and on track.

70% of the violent crimes are committed by 6% of the criminals, keep those guys in jail and watch the crime rate plummet even more.

There is a lot we can do, all it takes is honesty about what works and the will to do it. Nobody proposed cardboard box control or banning electronic timers and wire after the Austin Bombings. If people keep blaming inanimate objects, nothing will get better.

My granddaughter was saddened that she has to be seated farther back in the bus, because the driver reserves the front seat for those who act up. I'm certain the drivers would love a means to restrain some of them. How about if the belts are not engaged, the bus won't move?

“I am old enough to remember when people used to march to get their rights, not take them away from someone else.”

Makes me believe the sheeple in Washington are really doing "Marx for our Lives."