Today is the day

"Just before first period began Friday morning in Martinsville Ind., a 15-year-old student shot a fellow middle school classmate, police said."
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.aspx?id=80590

That is no reason to take my guns away from me.

You realize that you will be accused of insensitively and coldly exploiting this tragic event, the victim, and the misguided untrained unsupervised shooter for your own agenda. Whatever it may be.

But written by a civil rights lawyer that clerked for William Kunstler, yes that William Kunstler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kunstler

Read the whole thing, but might learn something interesting starting on page ten.

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/doclib/20080708_1986844thebattleoverguncontroldonbkatesjr.pdf

is probably not true. Ask how many gun owners here are for the registering and licensing of their guns. They fear that great big database in the sky as a tool of confiscation.

In CA & NY. So our concern has precedent. Further, such databases accomplish little in the way of crimesolving.

agree then that the pro-gun article is reporting false information in one of it's first statements of fact? Second paragraph in?

The article is from 1986. Perhaps you may not have noticed that gun-owning Americans have become quite a bit more radicalized in the intervening years, thanks in no small part to the AWB and the misguided efforts of the Brady Campaign, the VPC, et al.

I'll rephrase. In 1986 would you have supported a national registry and licensing?

I only speak for myself. No. Not registry anyway because it is, as I and others have pointed out, simply not worth the cost. It does not keep the streets safe (that is the goal is it not?) and the administration and manpower costs problems are huge. Licencing only if it is a shall issue with fool proof safeguards to keep licencing officials to abuse their office, which has a history in the US. I think tweaking and enforcing the current federal gun laws (like dragging gangsters with convictions in federal court for possession instead of some local DA pleading it out. As felons they can not be charged with having an unregistered weapon. SCOTUS decided that a couple of decades ago.) In any future gun control legislation I would like to see attached to it:


1)You get to explain why wreck the FDR coalition again. Those farmers and union members in Wisconsin, they are gun owners and pro gun folks too.

2)The NRA replaces Eddie Eagle with New Zealand Mountain Safety Council's "Billy Hook".

3)The Anti gun lobby has to start using peer reviewed research with citations with with any of their propaganda rather than continue just making things up as they do now . If intellectual dishonesty is required to push your cause, the cause is not worth fighting.

4)families of crime victims can bring a wrongful death suit against Brady et al if the victim followed their advice of submitting to their attacker rather than resist.

5)Any politician that votes for safe storage laws can be prosecuted for depraved indifference when ever a home invasion that ends in murder that could have been prevented if a gun were accessible. Google "Jessica Carpenter Merced Califorinia 2000"

6)Anti gun celebrities need to surrender their CCWs, sell their guns, and fire their armed body guards. This includes Mike Moore, Dianne Feinstein,and Rosie O'Donnell.

7)Jurisdictions with "may issue" laws should be open to federal sanctions when they routinely deny permits to qualified "average people" and approve known members of organized crime (Rick Rizzolo in Californian) and unqualified celebrities like Don Imus (NYC)

8)The statue of limitations be waived for reckless endangerment and depraved indifference to the groups and individuals that perpetrated the cop killer bullet hoax. Even after many police departments begged them not to, the corporate media and groups like Brady ran with it anyway, having two bad results, one was that the public was misinformed that there was such a thing as a "cop-killer" bullet. The second, and more serious, criminals learned that police often wore body armor. This latter meant that the criminals aiming for the head, tripling the annual rate of police duty fatalities, as the police had feared.

With rights come responsibility. I think that is reasonable.

Then I would have. Now I don't. Events have made me a believer in the "slippery slope." I suspect I'm not unique in this.

You might be among the majority that is OK tweaks to our current rules or you could be among the Carrie Nation/Paul Helmke crowd described starting on page 10. By pouncing on one rare occurrence, you strike me in the latter group. Either way, Peer reviewed research by criminologists shows that not only is there no causation but no correlation and the best you can hope for is one for one cancellation. These researchers include Americans, Canadians, and Brits.
Registration has lead to ban in UK, Australia, and to a lesser degree Canada (specific models). Did not reduce any violent crime including murder. The only reason Canada keeps it's 1995 law is because of political pressure from families of a school shooting and the IT company that operates. Few countries bother with it. Might license, but not register. So yeah, gun buffs have a legitimate objection with universal registration.
Plus this: http://www.diarmani.com/Articles/Birth%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Gun%20Registry.htm
New Zealand gave up the idea when their Parliament was lobbied by law enforcement who complained about squandering resources on theater.
Oh yeah, even though Canadians needed licenses for handguns since 1934, (If I read the RCMP's gun history site correctly, and a Canadian gun collector I know) machine guns were registered but not regulated in any other way until 1977.

for a clue on how well a total "ban" worked out for them. What, by the way, is your desired solution/agenda for what you obviously consider a big problem? I can't seem to find any specific proposals in your posts.

When you post a news occurrence, please provide commentary so we can reply in an appropriate manner.

Otherwise, no one knows what sort of point you are trying to make.

Are you trying to show that firearm crime happens? Everyone knows that.
Are you trying to show a pattern? Then you need to explain.

All of us have access to news sites - we don't need simple echoes of the news on a forum intended for debate.

mayve to make guns illegal in middle schools?

Already done!

And what the hell is a 15yo doing in middle school?
When I was in middle school I was 12. At 15 I was a junior in HS.