Leaderboard

And HArvard is left so I'm sure their "studies" are tweaked to reflect what they want. "In **% of crimes with guns, someone is killed." They don't mention if it was justified self defense, they just lump it all together. I've seen it time and time again. http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm I think if a teacher is willing to carry, they should be allowed. They would need to qualify and obtain a CHL, take quality firearms training, crisis classes, run drills in their schools, and work with the local PD to develop plans and facial recognition or another way to ID good guys. They should also work with the teachers who don't want to carry so they can be included in the plans. The teachers don't need to carry a big .45. A pocket carried .380/38 would be fine. CHL records are only to be seen by the principle or other high officials, kept off school property. Local PD maybe? Strict regulations such as no faculty speaks of who carries or doesn't. While on school grounds, the gun doesn't leave the holstered area. If it needs to, it is done in a secure location like the principal's office with a locked door and goes into a safe. The school needs to practice good drills, not the "oh here is another fire drill, let's take our time getting outside" Locking the doors and the students exiting out the windows, get the hell out! Don't sit waiting for help to arrive. We have created a society that has been brought up to be a victim. We need to get rid of the "it can't happen to me" mentality. Guns are not the problem. Society being trained to think guns are inherently evil, that it is better to be a victim, that someone who has personal bodyguards with semi-auto rifles can say you don't need one of those, the media tilting the stats and creating fear there that doesn't exist, parents that don't discipline or hold their children accountable, all the mental institutions being closed and those people released.... The world isn't roses and cotton candy. There are evil people in the world and they will harm you if given the chance. Elbows or a polite "please" won't make them think twice about taking your life if they feel the need or desire. I'm tired and starting to lose my train of thought.... just my 1.5 cents

It has to fit extremely tight, as in beating it on with a rubber mallet to work. If not, every time the bolt cycles the cover will jump and be off. These rifles were made by many manufacturers, with variations in design and are famous for loose tolerances. Zach - find out what kind of SKS he has. Russian, Romanian, Chinese norinco, etc. Value depends on who made it. Also, see if he has the original furniture, bayonet etc. you want that stuff, especially if the numbers match.

If it is a documented "imported before 1990" or it has had the "less than 10 foreign parts" conversion, then I'd pay 4-500 for it. Looks like it has the Tapco US conversion kit on it. Under the current circumstances the prices are silly.

Now's not the time to buy anything. Wacko prices. I think he's about $300 high.

Wait for the 2014 forgot about dre edition. Will be bangin'

The point of the chart being, regardless of "accident" or "intention" -- gun deaths will surpass traffic fatalities. So, when the gov't or private industry looks at way to mitigate deaths, they look through the leading causes and decide how to address them in a economical way. When guns > cars on that list -- that'll show up on the radar, someone will either lobby Washington to mandate 'x' 'y' or 'z' to make guns safer (in a manner that you agree with or not), or the industry will come up with a way to regulate itself so the gov't isn't asked to by the public. Especially if the gun deaths are "accidental" in nature regardless of the amount of ownership. I suppose if 5 people in the US owned cars, we wouldn't need mandates for seat belts or air bags or crumple zones. But rising ownership, which includes irresponsible people and the "accidents" that happen, will end up forcing a shift to either hinder/prevent irresponsible people from owning one, making the guns themselves "safer" in a manner that you may or may not like, or both. So if the gun folks like things the way they are now, they should be totally on board for reducing gun deaths before it reaches a point where someone in a position of power or vast wealth decides that "Gun deaths" is the next problem we as a country needs to address.

I don't see how this is attention whoring at all. It was a great thought. I am my no means a believer at all. But I can understand that this might make some people feel better about the situation. For those who aren't believers, don't read it. He's not forcing you or shoving it down your throat. And def not knocking at your door shoving a book about it in your hands. It's your choice. You shouldn't be offended at all by seeing something like that on a public site. No one is jumping down your throat about what you believe in so don't jump down others about what they believe in.

It's not tricky at all, if you're logical and not politicizing and emotionalizing the issue. It's also a split second decision whether to rape someone, swerve your car into a crowd, or slash someone's throat at the smorgasbord with your steak knife. What's tricky for you is that you so completely long to see guns banned, but lack the honesty to just come out and say it. You fear and loathe them and feel they are imbued with more evil energy than other commom place items that kill and harm every day....including penises, and hands, and because of this magical power (that you admit is inherent in their design, as "weapons of offense") they compel people to act out....which is why only .0038% of all the guns in this nation were used for crime last year. No one is fooled by you, practically the entire forum mocks your belief on this issue, wouldn't it just be easier to own your opinion rather than mask it in a transparent cover story about libertarianism you don't actually believe in?

i'm a minority, greg. can you milk me?

They mentioned on and off duty police, reserve police, retired police and military, firefighters, etc. I wholly disagree with you. In no way would I advocate active duty military protecting our schools. Banning assault rifles is a feel-good measure. Gun free zones are feel-good measures. Etc. At least with someone armed in a school, there would've been a fighting chance. Without, it was literally like shooting fish in a bucket. I agree. The NRA speech today went along the same lines, and they even said they'd fund it. National School Shield. They are developing the courses and training, and will train any volunteers interested. No schools would be forced into it, but all schools would be welcome to participate.Like I said, I've never been a huge fan of the NRA. However, they're the first to come to the table with a real, logical proposition to resolve this issue of gun violence in our schools. Laws don't work. If they did, the shooters would've abided by the gun free zone and homicide laws. Criminals aren't law-abiding citizens. Creating more laws simply isn't a logical solution.

Kasich did something good? Color me shocked on that one

Woodbury Profiteers? I mean, Outfitters? Sure. Take $1k you might get a pmag.

not sure how this sentiment is "attention whoring" maybe he's a man of faith who is trying to bring some peace to himself (and to others) by imagining that the victims are in a better place, and that his faith is not without merit? some believe, some don't.

Don't be coy, you understand the phenomena just fine, like when uptight conservatives blame porn for rape, or video games for misdeeds, or Maplethorpe paintings for how you turned out.