Disclaimer

Only if Gen3 picks me up from CLE on her way to Cbus.

I love it. I think Pauly should be banned from the internet. Why? Just because.

correlation != causation

Malibu Maxx -- assault car. 29.3 fps http://jalopnik.com/5970989/watch-this-psychotic-driver-try-to-run-down-a-bunch-of-people-outside-a-milwaukee-club

In those 10yrs.. the population also increased by 1.3M... so while gun crime did rise per capita, the weapons ban likely wasn't the only contributing factor. A lot of other legislation may've been passed in those 10yrs. The per capita rate is still less than the US.. so...

I have no control over how John Q. Public paints their opinion flying couch riders that can't turn, or legal gun owners. People are going to have their biases either way. I don't see how it it was inflammatory or derogatory. It's just information. http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood- I don't see the author giving an opinion that these are horrible gun people, or they're the best thing since sliced bread. That's the reader bias that puts those ideas in your head or John Q Public's. Here's an article where they revealed the CCW list back in.... 2010 http://gothamist.com/2010/08/06/unsurprising_list_of_new_yorkers_wh.php I wuv ewe too... just much less since you sold the RC

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Webster-firefighters-shot/Aov0V53ztUC4bKegOnofrg.cspx ^^^ Proof we need more guns. Either FF's need an armed escort, or they need a 9mm in one hand, the fire hose in the other, and be able to somehow carry people out of buildings with "guns ablazin'"

Ohh, so nothing discussed in the other threads is fair game because this is a WHOLE new thread? People can have one opinion in one thread, but can have a different one because this is a different thread? It all falls under the same umbrella. The point still is, there are other public records out there for things -- why is a "gun list" different? Because guns are more dangerous-er-er than cars, or traffic tickets, or gay marriage? Or, guns are no different than any other "tool" like a car?

I'm sure the addresses of gays are public record (if they got married), or if they got a gun license or a traffic citation -- you just wouldn't know they were gay in those cases. But the sex toy registry is a great concept. I can't wait for all the Facebook images of people asking to ban "assault dildos" Edit: It DOES happen -- I totally forgot about this case: http://www.truecrimereport.com/2011/07/sam_mazzola_moron_of_the_day_w.php Sam Mazzola of Columbia Station, OH (about 20min southwest of CLE)

Are we still doing the whole automobile analogy-stuff? "Assault Vehicles should be banned" and whatnot, with the obvious sarcasm being if we ban guns that kill, we should ban cars that kill too... (which I disagree with since guns and cars are apples and oranges) But to continue to play that game... Why would criminals steal a gun, when they could steal a car? If they're equivalent and a car can be just as nefarious as a gun... why not take the car? All your traffic citations are public record, so they could've just as easily published information of all tickets and see who owns (or has access to) vehicles.

Mental-Health Records Missing From Gun-Dealer Database http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578191312121328632.html#articleTabs%3Darticle The checks are only as good as the database you're checking.

If time is of the essence in a situation like the Sandy Hook, to the point where armed security personnel should be kept onsite to address threats, then every extra second it take to put a new magazine in the gun is an advantage for the good guys. Plus, if you have to physically carry three extra magazines, that's additional carry items on your person that have to be accounted for . So, it's not just "feel good".

No. "Money talks, bullsh*t walks"

??? Keep the GS and keep riding the snot out of it. I'd wait to get a different bike until you're done with school.

I'm not going to indy, but I will make a trip to westside Cleveland if someone names a place.

I know that the leading causes are heath related. Guns and Automobiles are compared because they are, in theory, 100% preventable. I don't view the chart as being biased one way or another. If the simple question was, what causes more deaths, cars or guns, the simple answer is cars -- but is projected to be guns in 2015. Now, I don't think the analysis should stop there, though some people will, either due to their own biases or inability to process the complexity of the problem. It's a directional question that gives you a directional answer to further investigate the data, sources, compilation and reporting thereof. If automobiles or guns didn't exist, they would cause zero deaths. Man has control of their existence, which makes the comparison simple. As the vast majority of that list is health related, those aren't necessarily preventable due to genetic and environmental factors that are only known to increase or reduce the risk of such factors, not 100% prevent the risk. Those factors are out of our control, save for studying and implementing eugenics. Though we should be able to agree that TONS of money each year goes to fighting those health risks as well.

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.

Stats are bad mmmkay. Harvard -- totally leftwing and biased, nothing good or academic comes from there, but please continue to quote sites like "Rense.com" -- totally credible Chevy. And then when Cooter did post some credible numbers, the UK was better, which didn't help bolster that argument. Speaking of profiling, it's funny you lump Mags and I together, since everyone is familiar with my firearm background. But hey, you guys keep ignoring the cold hard numbers in favor of your fantasy hero-scenarios and telling everyone how right you are and how wrong everyone else is that would dare question how simply obvious the solution of "more guns" solves this problem.

Research accounts for that... Hence why I defer to those that did the statistical analyses. Just because I can cite sources and case studies that prove things contrary to your opinion does not make me a troll... It makes your arguments weak. This is also why I don't claim to have a solution, because I'm not an expert and all the armchair politicians on here aren't either. I don't care about how much of a badass or Ricky Rambo someone thinks they are with their CCW or arsenal of home weapons... It's a different ball game when they're actually in the crisis situation and have to decide to pull the trigger or not, if they're not from a military or police background.

Harvard Injury Control Research Center Homicide http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

They (I assume you mean the people in need of mental health that commit these offenses) choose the most convienient crowded public areas. Why drive 50 miles to the nearest military base when the school or movie theater is 5miles away? I'm no psychologist or have the background on this, but I'd surmise an element of the paranoia is attacking the people they perceive as "public", the common man. There is an element of terrorism to it. Engaging military people is combat. Terrorism is doing it to the least suspecting and unengaged. Well, if that's the psychological warfare you want to play -- I don't necessarily agree that it makes a difference to someone with mental health issues, deterrents are only valid for sane and logical people -- but to your point, why not let kids defend themselves in school? You really want a deterrent, let criminals think that even those outside positions of authority in schools can carry. If a child can demonstrate competency with a weapon, that would be a great bullying deterrent as well. You're the one that said ALL teacher didn't have to be armed... so if not all of them are, it's pretty easy to guess which ones aren't. Jerry, the 6'5" muscular gym teacher, or Ethel, the 66 yr old librarian? I know which one I'd have the upper hand in the reflex and strength department if they ever got close enough -- even if Ethel was packing. That's why cops never get attacked and killed in the line of duty, right? You're proving your own point... we're not dealing with people "in their right mind". I haven't formulated a reasonable solution yet. It takes time to do research on these things and make compromises -- that's why I don't jump on the internet right away and proclaim "Here is the solution to this problem". I'm humble enough to know that I don't have a solution nor am I experienced or educated enough to come up with one at the moment. We can have a discussion about it and offer options and opinions, but to proclaim "I'm right and all others that disagree are koolaid drinking pussy lib-douches" really doesn't help come to a solution, nor does it paint said proclaimer as the most intelligent being. I'm not saying YOU are proclaiming that, but there are a lot of people that take that stance. It's simple-minded and the reason things don't get solved in this country.

Ok, so now we're just down to how much people want their property taxes to go up (in Ohio at least), or whether the school decides to supports sports or a few cops on the beat. And, what if the school/community decides they don't want guns around their kids or to pay for multiple armed personnel at the school? If another massacre happens do you just shrug it of and say, well, they got what was coming to them? Ok, so what's stopping a cold blooded planned killing from occurring in an unarmed classroom? Socially engineer your way into the school the day of, or hide a weapon the day prior to be retrieved in between classes, bring it to the classroom that is reasonably expected to be unarmed (or known to be unarmed via research), lock the door, pop the teacher first (just in case), and you have an entire classroom at your picking. I can paint as many hypothetical situations where it wouldn't work for as many as you can surmise that it would be a deterrent. They'd find out. It wouldn't be a secret long... one student office aid asked to file records of the teachers with CCWs and it's blabbed to the entire student body. Or one hacker breaks into the school database and has the same information. Regardless, it's moot in an unarmed classroom per the hypothetical above. You seriously think that a teacher wants blood on their hands for killing students? "But three of them rushed me?" Ok, explain how little Jessica, sitting in the front row, the 4.0 student on her way to Harvard got killed when she wasn't a part of the melee... I'm just trying to get your vision on how this would go if teachers were armed, or additional security personnel? The guy in Columbine exchanged fire with Harris and Klebold. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm Cross-fire, collateral damage, etc... either way, the psycho gets what he wants, innocent people killed.

I never claimed it would, the point was to refute the claim that an armed guard would've stopped anything. Columbine happened, and armed guard was on premises; therefore that theory has been proven invalid on that case study. It has nothing to do with promoting and discouraging an AWB.

What's the point of having an armed guard then? If you don't expect a gunfight, why do you need a firearm? Just give the guy a taser and be done w/ it. I still don't know how you can force some teachers who don't WANT to be armed to arm them. I'm opposed to it for the simple fact that all the teachers in the system now were not informed that would be part of the job requirement, and some don't feel comfortable with it. The 99.9999999999% of the time a firearm wouldn't be necessary requires a ton of precautions so kids don't access them. I had an English teacher that was just shy of 327yrs old... the smallest girl in the class could've easily overpowered her in a quick manner -- so now what if you get a group that wants to bumrush the teacher. If they just tackle a teacher, is that justification for lethal self-defense? Teachers shooting midschoolers? You just want to make the legal assumption they were going after the weapon and it's justifiable? How many scenarios do you want to run? Or would you just be in favor of mandating it and "seeing how it plays out"?

What is it with that line of reasoning? Clinton AWB huh? That makes a lot of sense. Ya know, since apparently the armed security guard (a sheriff deputy named Neil Garder) must've only been armed with a single shot musket? Is that what sheriff deputies are issued? The reason the armed sheriff deputy in Columbine wasn't able to stop two armed kids was because of Clinton's AWB...