Go back and read my post again. I did not say that I favored inaction. I said I did favor reasonable gun control. I just said that it wouldn't solve the problem, only shift it. I also said that it would have other beneficial effects, reducing suicides and accidental shootings.

As for the problems of making bombs, keep in mind that the internet is a wonderful tool, where people can learn many things, but that include bad things as well as good, and I expect that, unfortunately, the state of the art in bomb making will improve. Even then, I expect we will move beyond that to things like dropping toxins from drones.

In the long run, I think we either need to accept that these sorts of things are simply a part of society today, or we need to figure out why so many grow up today with either no sense of right from wrong, or a desire to be on the side of evil. If people have a desire to commit a great evil, they will find a way.

I'm also in favor of reasonable gun control.

1.Background checks for any gun purchase

2.Limiting the number of firearms you can purchase to 1-2 per month

3.Requiring a basic safety course to purchase a firearm.

Thing is that only works for people who follow the law.
If you look at places like Chicago,where the majority of shootings are
gang related,they aren't using legal weapons.

Criminals don't care what laws you put in place,they ain't gonna follow them.

New Jersey just passed a law reducing magazine capacity.Think a shooter is gonna care.

My wife and I were having this discussion with a friend of ours last year.
She's for all kinds of gun control and eventual repeal of the Second Amendment.

I told her,pick what gun you want and you can get it in a couple of hours.
Just not legally.

That's the problem.

As an aside on New Jersey's law reducing magazine capacity from 15 rounds to 10 rounds.
Saw a side by side demonstration of shooters using 10 round and 15 round magazines.
Just like gun enthusiasts told the legislature before the law was passed,both got off roughly the same number of rounds per minute.

Two parts to this. The first is your supported legal adjustments. I wish this is the kind of middle ground, reasonable compromise that could be created within this country. I'd like to add an age limit to the list as well, at least for certain firearms. I feel like these are ways the discussion can move forward, rather than everybody going to the extreme sides, knowing that nothing will get changed in that environment.

The second part that I disagree with vehemently is the argument that bad people will still get the weapons despite restrictions as a rationale not to change much. This should never be the philosophy of a democracy, that we shouldn't act reasonably because the lesser of us will circumvent the rules. I doubt making murder illegale stops those who are murderous, but that isn't any reason not to have a law outlawing it.

This also isn't fully borne out by the results. The oft-cited changes to Australia's gun laws in 1996 had a massive impact on the firearm deaths, both suicide and homicide (https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/12/2/509/9... ). Homicides dropped by more than half while suicides dropped by more than 80%.

I believe suicides are something that rarely gets discussed in the gun control discussion, especially referencing that of those who are going to be persistent in their attempts to get guns either legally or illegally. In 2016, there were twice as many suicides in America (45,000) as there were homicides. The most common form of suicide in the US is through the use of firearms. I can't help but think that by limiting the number of firearms, we could limit the number of suicides.

(This was a response to rpbobcat's post, not really a response to the original post here. This has nothing whatsoever to do with OHIO football and I will now step down from this soapbox.)

I think the distinction between illegal and legal guns is an oft misunderstood one.

When you say guns used in Chicago crimes are illegal, that's true. But they start as legal guns, mostly purchased in Indiana, and become illegal through private sales and the mere fact that they're possessed in Chicago. It is lax rules around the purchase of legal guns that leads to the flood of illegal guns on the black market. To reduce illegal guns, you need to regulate the purchase of legal guns. Illegal guns don't just appear out of the ether.

Similarly, in New York, the vast majority of illegal guns are purchased in Virginia, where gun laws are far more lax. It's perfectly legal for me to buy a gun in Virginia, walk outside of the store, and sell that gun to a perfect stranger in the parking lot. I don't need to check that stranger's ID or run a background check. Those guns are then shipped to New York by criminals, re-sold illegally, and used in crimes.

Meanwhile, if I did the same thing with a 6 pack of Bud Light and it turned out the person I sold that 6 pack of Bud Light to was 20, I've broken the law and can be prosecuted.

The goal of legislation should be to 1) make it harder for criminals to get their hands on said illegal guns and 2) make the penalties for being caught appropriately prohibitive. For some reason, when we talk about gun control legislation people act as if a law is only worth passing if it solves the entire problem. We don't think of any other legislation this way. Speed limits are in place not because they mean nobody will speed. They're in place to discourage speeding and make the roads safer for everybody. They reduce traffic deaths. Gun legislation should be thought of as the same way. We make incremental adjustments, ad incremental improvements. And lives are saved.

I agree about legal guns being resold.
Like I said,I believe a background check should be required for all gun sales,including "person to person".
Its how I've always handled a purchase or sale,even though N.J. didn't require it.

I also agree on prohibitive penalties.
Problem is,in some states,N.Y.is a biggie,prosecutors use that as leverage in plea bargains.

One other thing that also needs to be addressed are state to state carry permits.

A couple of years ago a woman from Pa. got pulled over in N.J.

She was a single mother who,due to threats from her ex, had a restraining order and carry permit.

She had her gun in her car.
N.J. doesn't recognize out of state carry permits,so she was charged with having an illegal firearm.
She would have gone to jail if Gov.Christie hadn't stepped in.

My friend moved across the country, and before traveling with his guns he researched each state he would pass through and what their gun laws are--that way he knew he wouldn't be breaking any laws. If she isn't responsible enough to know and understand the laws, then she isn't responsible enough to own a gun. Period. I don't think she should've done jail time, but I do think she should have lost the privilege to carry or own a gun.

Interestingly, she has become an activist, advocating for national reciprocity for conceal carry permits. Governor Christie is actually vehemently opposed to that idea.

[/QUOTE]
Go back and read my post again. I did not say that I favored inaction. I said I did favor reasonable gun control. I just said that it wouldn't solve the problem, only shift it. I also said that it would have other beneficial effects, reducing suicides and accidental shootings.

As for the problems of making bombs, keep in mind that the internet is a wonderful tool, where people can learn many things, but that include bad things as well as good, and I expect that, unfortunately, the state of the art in bomb making will improve. Even then, I expect we will move beyond that to things like dropping toxins from drones.

In the long run, I think we either need to accept that these sorts of things are simply a part of society today, or we need to figure out why so many grow up today with either no sense of right from wrong, or a desire to be on the side of evil. If people have a desire to commit a great evil, they will find a way.
[/QUOTE]I agree with LC above. It’s always great to read intelligent critical thinking. I find you apply that to football too. Which is why I enjoy reading your posts. I will admit I am entertained by some others...like calling for the firing of our schools most productive OC after the first game. Or the “if you don't agree with me you are just wrong” posts followed by some link to an agenda driven article that we are supposed to accept as fact. Those are most entertaining.

1- You don't have to walk far out of the US to find a far worse situation elsewhere. Gun violence is a major challenge here as it is in other countries. Its not just gun violence either; London "reports" a higher murder rate than NYC. The US is one country that reports every incident. Contrary to agenda driven articles, there are far more dangerous places than here.

2- Other than aesthetics there has been very little evolution in rifle and handgun development over the past 100 years.

3- There is an interesting marker in Dodge City, Kansas relating to Wyatt Earp shooting up the entire town. Unfortunately this is not a new problem; but mass shootings are on the rise again since the University of Texas Bell Tower incident in 1966.

4- 40+ years ago I attended a “suburban” high school outside of a great College town in Southeast Ohio. It was not uncommon to see kids with guns during deer season. They were very visible and easily accusable. It was common for some to have a folding buck knife on their belt throughout the day. I witnessed some pretty rough fights where both involved had folding buck knives on their belts; yet none were ever used. There are more guns laws today than ever. Guns have changed very little. Society has changed a lot.

5- I have never been a gun person. I fired “maybe” 10 practice rounds in my first 45 years. Like most of my friends homes, they were around and accessible, yet far less available than they were for my parents and grandparents.

6- Today, you can print your own bump stock, rifle or hand gun on most store bought 3D printers. Technology is changing fast. I am not aware of any law that is going to keep bad things from evil people. We have become very good at passing feel good laws that do nothing but make some people feel like they accomplished something for a few weeks.

7-You can purchase a decent quality 3D printer cheaper than you can purchase a basic rifle or AR15 and print your own fully functioning weapon.

8- It would be nice to pass a law to stop the madness; however I have met evil people. Most have little regard for any law.

7-Part of my solution; go back to teaching kids critical thinking skills and teach them to value human life and we may see some improvement. Be safe, prepared, aware, and grateful for those brave souls who work to protect us from evil. I hope to see them at the next game.

Go Bobcats!

As far as the above points:

2.There have been quite a few advancements in both rifle and handgun technology in the past 100 years.
I don't want to bore everyone with details but two examples:
A. The M-16.
A lot of fire power in a lightweight,small caliber weapon.

B.Laser sights for handguns and rifles.

6.This was discussed in detail on another thread.
You might be able to "print" a "bump stock" with some "lower end" 3D printers,not a rifle or handgun.

First off,you need specific,sophisticated software to take the data files for a weapon and convert them into a "printable" format.

Second,the kind of 3D printer you need to "print" a weapon costs around $10,000.

7.If you "print" an all plastic weapon,including a plastic firing pin and
recoil spring,you may get off a couple of rounds before they break.

As I posted before,I have a friend who is a police firearms instructor.
He said a 3D printed weapon is just as likely to blow up in your face,as shoot a round.

Can this change in the future,sure,including the fact that now they have some 3D printers that form metal.
But for now,cheap handguns are much more of a problem then 3D printed weapons.

True; thats why I said very few new developments. While I only fired a rifle a few times before 45; I have since been through the required basic training and have continued more advanced training. I am currently a Winchester Certified Marksman. Whatever thats worth; not much.

The new Trace Lasers are very common and easy to use.

Good point on the 3D printer. Would not want to fire one made on a cheap printer. How many metal weapons can the more expensive metal printers produce?

This technology is going to continue to improve. Seems an evil person will soon if not already be able to produce a lot of things we are not going to like. Maybe they will do the right thing if we pass a few more laws and ask them politely to knock it off.

[QUOTE=DublinCat]
Good point on the 3D printer. Would not want to fire one made on a cheap printer. How many metal weapons can the more expensive metal printers produce?

{/QUOTE]

I don't know if metal 3D printers are in widespread use yet.

One thing I did see is that they use one on the space station to make parts.

You'd have to walk pretty far to find a far worse situation in a developed country, like forever. You are going on about critical thinking but you keep saying things that are absolutely false. The murder rate in London is roughly HALF that of NYC, and NYC is the safest big city in the United States. In 2017 there were 131 homicides in London and 292 in NYC and they have a similar sized population. St. Louis has a homicide rate that is almost 20 times that of NYC, and over 55 times that of London!

The US has 4.88 homicides per 100,000, over five times the rate in the UK. No developed country is more dangerous than the United States. That is a fact.

You are actually both correct. It all comes down to the metrics you are looking at -- murder rates vs. crime rates.

In trying to find an answer to the problem, here's a question to think about. These types of things didn't happen 50 years ago. There were plenty of guns available back then, and far less security back then. What has changed? Can any changes be reversed? Or, are there additional changes that can be made to cause the problem to go away, or at least, be reduced?