HeyYou

Wasn't the 'deal' that was passed just a stop-gap measure implemented for a couple months?? I seem to remember reading something about that? No?

Please post your load list. SKSE won't do anything unless it is told to.... I would suspect you have some other mod doing that.....

Check out This Thread over at the official forums.

Have a look at some of the articles coming out about how folks are somewhat less than happy with the house republicans for NOT voting on the Aid bill for folks affected by Sandy. :) Talk about cutting your own throat with a dull knife...... lol less than happy is being polite... The Congressional Republican party is done next cycle. I have this feeling even the republican party as a whole will become split up leading the party to no longer being concidered major player in the two party system. The democratic party will probably be in control on capital hill for decades unless they get their party together. I honestly believe they just need to get rid of the teaparty advocates. It's the teaparty movement that has actually destroyed the republican party. You're right, I was being polite. I really wanted to say a bunch fo things that would lead to my banning, but I didn't want that :D On that, I would have to agree with you. Currently, the government is broken, and very little gets done. Too many folks playing political games, and cow-towing to their campaign donors. The system needs a major overhaul, but, it isn't going to happen, because the only folks that could affect the necessary change, are the same folks that benefit the most from leaving things as they are. Ever notice that if folks aren't millionaires when they go to DC, the sure are when they leave? Makes ya wonder what that's all about eh?

In the overall scheme of things, ILLEGAL guns take more lives than they save, that I will fully agree to. But, LEGAL weapons have saved more lives than they have taken. (suicides aside.... if it wasn't a gun, they would find some other method of doing themselves in....) The trouble comes from wanting to regulate LEGAL guns..... it does all of nothing for the ILLEGAL guns..... See my point? Reducing the population of guns in general would be an EXTREMELY long term ploy, and by the time it started being effective, there would be some newer, better way to kill your fellow man...... You are correct, after a fashion. I don't see it as "reform", I see it as taking away my rights. Which, in the end, is what you are attempting to do. No matter how you approach, your end goal is fewer guns. Not 'fewer illegal guns', just, fewer guns..... I will never get behind that kind of 'reform'.

Have a look at some of the articles coming out about how folks are somewhat less than happy with the house republicans for NOT voting on the Aid bill for folks affected by Sandy. :) Talk about cutting your own throat with a dull knife...... lol less than happy is being polite... The Congressional Republican party is done next cycle. I have this feeling even the republican party as a whole will become split up leading the party to no longer being concidered major player in the two party system. The democratic party will probably be in control on capital hill for decades unless they get their party together. I honestly believe they just need to get rid of the teaparty advocates. It's the teaparty movement that has actually destroyed the republican party. Unless the dems do something REALLY stupid in the meantime.... which wouldn't be that much of a stretch. :)

Food for thought.

I disagree. You run under the supposition that some variety of gun-control would make us safer. I have proven that that is simply not the case.

Have a look at some of the articles coming out about how folks are somewhat less than happy with the house republicans for NOT voting on the Aid bill for folks affected by Sandy. :) Talk about cutting your own throat with a dull knife......

Still, 25,000 dollars plus to be able to buy a gun? That will never fly. The NRA would never get behind this idea. They would see it (as I do..) as a MAJOR infringement of our 2nd amendment rights. You can tout your belief that it isn't, but, that would be for lawyers and judges to decide, and that would prolly take several years as well. Specific schools JUST for gun ownership? That would be even more costly than adding the programs to existing schools.... As for it leading to employment..... only if the military and police were held to the same standards... (something else that just ain't gonna happen...... neither organization has that kind of time to invest in training recruits) And if you think that you are going to tell some soldier that he can't purchase a weapon is his own country, even though he had been bearing arms elsewhere in support of said country...... well, I wish you luck with that one....... The black market would expand from what it is now, to help the criminal element get their guns. Where there is a demand, there WILL be a supply, legal or not. Make it difficult for the average joe to purchase a gun, hence, a good supply of 'stealable' weapons, they will go elsewhere, and there WILL be folks more than happy to give them what they want. For a price...... Gun manufacturers make more than just military weapons. If there wasn't a significant market, they wouldn't make guns for the civilian market at all. Sure, governments make up the bulk of sales, but, if you think gun manufacturers make all their weapons in the same factory, better think again. If you think the cops/military buy hunting rifles.... well, once again, better rethink that. Look at the sheer variety of weapons available on the market. Less than 10% of them are targeted at military/law enforcement. Who does that leave? Civilians..... Sure, it may not have a 'profound' effect on the jobs market, but, it would have some.... (not to mention the losses of tax revenue the government keeps crying about.) And right there is the basic problem you and I have. You want gun control, in the mistaken belief it will make you safer. Chicago has a complete handgun ban, did it have ANY effect on gun crime? Yep, it went UP. I just want to be safer, or, at least have the ability to defend myself/others. Gun control legislation ONLY effects those that OBEY the laws. Criminals (of which, mass-shooters most certainly are) DO NOT. You can pass all the laws you want, but, all you will succeed at doing is taking guns away from the folks that would DEFEND YOU, and do nothing at all to those that would rob/kill you. I think this is the most salient point. Trouble is, gun control advocates refuse to see it. In the illustrious words of Benjamin Franklin: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Trouble is, in this case, you wouldn't even be getting any additional safety. As you have probably figgered out by now.... I am a pro-gun advocate..... I have real issues with the government depriving me of my constitutional rights, no matter what left-handed method they choose. You are never going to convince me that your proposal is a 'good idea', or even workable. (not to mention, you would never get it thru congress....) On the other hand, I know that I am never going to convince you otherwise either. :) So, at this point, I am going to kick back, and see what other folks input may come down the pike. Thank you for a fun debate/argument/whateveryouwannacallit. :D And always remember: An armed society is a POLITE society.

Ok, so, I don't need any real training to go out and buy a 60,000 car, and drive it around, but, I have to go to school for four years to buy a 100 dollar gun? :D I don't think that's gonna fly. How much is said training going to cost? At this point, a typical college degree is pushing 100,000 dollars.... but, they usually give you the ability to get a good job, and pay them back. The same price for the "privilege" of gun ownership isn't going to have the same kind of return on investment that most other degrees would..... so, it's basically flushing money down the toilet. "You may own a house, or, you can have the opportunity to purchase a weapon to defend it, but, not both." is going to be the end result. You might just as well ban guns altogether, as you would be accomplishing the same thing. Maybe in 50 years or so, such legislation might start having some small impact on gun crime.... maybe.... more likely result would be a booming black market in illegal weapons, just as the prohibition of alcohol spawned many crime organizations in the 20's. (I could also see a host of 'online universities' springing up offering 'weapon degrees'.... :) ) I should think someone would have to certify those programs as well, universities would have to hire instructors, and build facilities, teachers would have to be trained, and then certified, etc. All of which would introduce more cost, more government bureaucracy, and higher tuition costs to cover the cost of the infrastructure required...... it would be at least five years before any of it could be implemented at all.... alternative would be... no gun sales for close to ten years..... of course, by that time, all the gun manufacturers (aside from those supplying the government) would be gone..... Moved to some other country where things would be friendlier.... or at least, less restrictive. All that aside though..... it still would have zero impact on gun crime for the foreseeable future. The mass-shooters, and criminals, invariably acquire their weapons thru less than honest means. All this would do would be to create yet another black market for the criminals to make money from.

We do seem to be monopolizing the conversation.... :D I will grant you that education needs to be at the very least, part of the answer, but, it isn't going to be the whole cookie. The requirements you propose would be tantamount to a ban.... as anyone wanting to purchase a weapon would be looking at basically a four year waiting period.... not to mention the imposed expense of said education. Only the relatively rich would be able to afford it... which may not be a direct violation of our second amendment rights, but, it sure is a back door method of curtailing them. (thus, why I think it would be ruled unconstitutional)

Honestly we can do better than this... Just to be clear.... Was never advocating retroactive legislation. If you already have your guns you can keep them. This proposal of needing a 4 year bachelors degree in firearms is more meaningful means to reduce violent shooting in the long run for decades to come. Remember back in the 80's when the legal drinking age was changed to 21 from 18? people who were already 18 after the date of the new law took effect were not effect to the new drinking laws. those people who happen to turn 18 a day before the law went into effect could go to bars and drink their nights away from 18 to 21. yet, renewing your firearms license is a different story... (maybe expect people who already have a licence to take a short crash course then a short test. kinda like getting a GED.) Still, no one is going to come to your home and take your guns away if you already acquired them legally!!! This proposal of education I see no one should really have a big problem with if the idea is for meaningful reform to gun laws to reduce violent crimes in the long run. No one is expecting drastic immediate stop to all gun violence and shootings across the nation to just vanish in one day, that is completely unrealistic. My proposal wheather people like the idea or not does not touch the 2nd amendment. This idea is for the long run..... But that's just the problem. Changing gun laws has zero net effect on crimes committed with them. You are falling in to the same trap as the politicians, thinking legislation is the answer. It isn't. Not to mention, that method would be EXTREMELY long-term..... and the first step towards an outright ban in any event. It would have zero chance of actually passing.

Face it, ANYONE has the POTENTIAL to become a mass-shooter. Fortunately, very few actually live up to that potential. As it stands now, you have to be over 21, no criminal history, and no history of mental health issues (if anyone would actually SHARE that information with gun boards....) in order to get a permit to carry a weapon. Background checks are performed just to purchase a handgun. Making it more difficult for LAW-ABIDING citizens to acquire weapons of any sort has zero effect on those that DON'T OBEY THE LAW to begin with. (99% of mass shooters. maybe even ALL of them) Attempting to pass legislation that would effectively require a bachelors degree to purchase weapons has about as much chance of passing into law as an outright ban. It would have pretty much the same effect as well.... The gun-owners would be REALLY put out by such legislation.... Something else to consider is, you can't make such legislation retroactive.... so, all those folks that currently own guns, can't be required to turn them in until they meet the new requirements. So, even if it DID pass...... it would have no effect at all for decades. (lifespan of weapons already in circulation.) And lets go back to cars again.... If you are 18, and can pass a drivers exam, you can get your drivers license without ANY form of education/training (thru some agency or other, not including parent, or siblings teaching you how to drive) at all. And this for a device that is NOT intended to kill, but still kills more folks than guns every year. Shouldn't we require a 4 year degree to own/operate automobiles then? After all, they are statistically more dangerous than any gun...... And what about the military/police? Should they also be required to undergo four years of training before being allowed to carry weapons? Do you think that soldiers/police are any more mentally stable than the average citizen? Personally, I think any measures directed at restricting guns, or turning schools in to armed camps is merely treating a symptom of a MUCH larger ill. We as a society have become way to permissive, along with the attitude of 'no one is responsible for their own actions' any more. It's always someone else's fault, or peer pressure, or some other nonsense reasoning being applied to these folks. So far as I am concerned, that's all so much Horse Dung. When the government decided that they need to legislate how folks raised their children, giving the KIDS more rights than their parents..... that was the beginning of the end. We are just starting to see the negative results of folks that don't have a clue, passing laws on a subject they know very little about. Which could apply to a LOT more than just child-rearing here in the states....

Honestly hiring minimum waged armed guards is better than hiring minimum waged armed teachers with no uninion rights. Just imagine a teacher one day flipping out over a bad day at work and suddenly deciding to shoot up the place. :psyduck: But I am not in support for armed guards in schools either. Trouble is, anyone that can acquire a weapon (not necessarily legally) has the potential to 'flip', and become the next school shooter.... whether they work there or not. Some action needs to be taken to reduce the impact of these events, and I am not real confident that ANY gun-control legislation passed by the fed is going to have any effect whatsoever. There are always built-in loopholes, due to some lobby group or other.... or, simply because one party or the other inserts language so that they will actually vote for it. I think the solution needs to be more localized..... let the schools decide how they want to handle it. Be it armed guards, or armed teachers. I think deterrence is more likely to work, than banning/restricting access (even more so than now) to any particular weapon type. The politicians currently are all up in arms (sorry, couldn't resist) about assault weapons, even though most of the mass shootings involve handguns, or shotguns. (one guy used a .22 rifle.... bolt action....) Once again, the politicians are targeting the WRONG things/people, nothing new under the sun there.

And if you have a 32 bit operating system, you won't find the Program Files(x86) folder in any event. It isn't there.

Wow? It went up? I think it was hovering around 5% last time I checked...... I think taxes are still going to go up a bit, just not as much if nothing had been passed. (according to what I read this morning....) I don't think I make enough money for it to be an issue though. :) Obama doesn't have to worry about keeping opinions up for the next presidential election, so, he is a lot 'freer' in what he can get away with in his second term. Expect to see him being more aggressive over the next four years. Not sure I see that as a 'good' thing.......

It does kinda/sorta tie in though. Walker is trying to reduce school expenses by curtailing union rights for teachers. Now, having to have armed guards in schools would seriously undermine his efforts at reducing costs. Arming the teachers is pretty much a "free" solution to the security problem....... and unfortunately, I think money is going to be a major factor in the decision making process on how to deal with this particular issue. Armed guards that are worth a hoot don't come cheap. Teachers are already there, and being paid in any event. Let them carry weapons, and you obviate the need for expensive armed guards. Would anyone think hiring minimum wage ARMED guards is a good idea? :)

I REALLY don't want the dems controlling all three houses..... that would rather suck. Sure, there are a bunch of things that I am on the same page with them, but, there are others..... that I most certainly am NOT. (oh, gee... really? Imagine that.... :D) I am not sure just what the republicans are thinking at this point, or even if they are thinking AT ALL. They HAVE to know that not passing something, and just letting us all go over the cliff is most certainly political suicide.... but then, they have been nothing but obstructionists since the 2010 elections. I think whatever plan they thought they had is going to turn around and bite them right in the keester. Hard. I don't want EITHER party to be able to just waltz whatever laws they want right on thru..... If the dems talk too loudly about gun control, I think they will find republicans coming out in force to support their candidates next election....

Yeah, it appears there weren't any spending cuts (or, not very much, if any) in the Senate passed bill, and the house republicans are unhappy with that.... At least until the markets open tomorrow, (wednesday) and start dropping like a stone thru vacuum...... At that point, they might actually call a vote on it. :)

@Korun: Banning guns simply isn't the answer. It won't work here. At all. Even suggesting that in congress would get you laughed out of the building. Even the democrats (anti-gun) are well aware of that. +@Colourwheel: No, it isn't really a "solution", I am not sure there IS a 100% sure cure. But, it would at least, reduce the potential damage done. The trouble with more police would still be response time. In these type of events, a LOT happens FAST. Even two or three minutes is enough time to wreak some pretty serious havok. Where children are concerned, SECONDS count. Armed guards on the scene would already be there, but then you run into the problem of cost..... Schools are already having financial troubles.... (and that could be it's own topic as well...) Trying to saddle them with yet another expense just wouldn't go over well. Some schools are friggin' HUGE, and would require a small army for 'adequate' coverage...... Simply letting the teachers carry doesn't cost anything. (aside from perhaps some more liability insurance coverage.....) And they are RIGHT there on the scene too..... Is it an ideal solution? Nope. I suspect though, that it is going to have to be at least a small part of any solution that we actually expect to work. As for the Governor in Wisconsin.... Yeah, he is a piece of work all right..... His major goal in curtailing collective bargaining is he thinks he can cut costs that way. Don't expect him to be real enthusiastic about transferring the money he thinks he is going to save into putting guards in schools.

I will grant there are some places where I would not want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry carrying a weapon. Aircraft being right up there on the list. Air Marshals carry weapons with specific ammo, designed NOT to punch holes in an airplane fuselage..... (that would just be bad at 35,000 feet.....) However, for the most part, on the ground.... as I see it, the more folks with guns, the LESS likely you are to have some whacko going berserk and seeing how many folks he can kill before he turns his weapon on himself. Requiring 4 years of study to own a firearm is, in my opinion, WAY over the top. In the military, I spent a couple days in classes, and on the range, and I was qualified to walk around with a fully automatic weapon, (to include light machine guns.....) and a host of other esoteric weaponry. (grenade launchers, anti-tank weapons, etc.....) However, I was REQUIRED to spend at least 4 hours per month out on the range, (with each weapon I wanted to remain qualified with....) and expend a certain amount of ammo. (I didn't mind that at all. :) ) Current licensing here in michigan, to get a concealed carry permit, you attend an 8 hour class, to include some time on the range. You must have the weapon you propose to carry with you for the class. It IS possible to fail...... I would point out, that so far, NONE of the mass-shootings have involved someone that was LICENSED to carry a weapon. Most are folks that have some manner of mental issues..... or simply a grudge, and are not fully mature enough to quite understand just what it is they are doing. Holding gun owners/retailers responsible for what happens is also a non-starter so far as I am concerned. We don't sue car manufacturers when a drunk driver kills an entire family.... we go after the person that was operating the car. Same should go for guns. Any lawyer that attempted to sue the dealership where some guy bought his car, and then later (perhaps years....) kills someone with it, would be laughed out of court. Not to mention that a significant percentage of sales (cars) are between private individuals.... I don't see that as really workable. Now, in the case of sandy hook.... where mom KNEW her child had issues, SHE should have had her weapons secured, and, if she hadn't already paid the ultimate price, I could see holding her at least partially responsible. At this point though, we don't know if she did or not... I don't recall reading anything about that..... (when my teenager was being truly awful, I exported ALL of my guns to a friends house..... even though I could secure them in my home, I thought it better that they were simply not around......) If your weapon/car is stolen..... that is something that is generally beyond your control. Holding someone responsible for what someone else does with an object that they took from you illegally would probably fall under some flavor of unconstitutionality. I think you would have a hard time getting that thru congress. :) I am still in favor of giving teachers/admin staff (including janitors....) the CHOICE to carry a weapon at school, and let it be KNOWN that it is indeed permitted. Had this been the case at Sandy Hook, odds are good that this particular event either would not have happened at all, or, the death toll would have been significantly less.

Good luck trying to advocate to reform american Football. I have no opinion on sports where the players become brain dead by their mid 40's. Notice how enforcing Legal limits‎ of alcohol level and driving has reduced DUIs? Just imagine today If there was no law on drinking and driving. Why not all of the above plus more? I agree education and cooperation between various government agencies would be nice as well as gun reform. Gotta agree with ya on the sports thing.... :D I am still curious how one reforms a gun..... Most gun deaths are suicides..... (better than half) Banning any particular segment of them won't change that. (unless you ban them altogether.... and even then, they will still be out there.) I seriously doubt our governments ability to propose any kind of reasonable legislation that would have any significant effect on gun deaths... they can't even balance a budget.... I also am of the firm belief that NO flavor of legislation that restricts gun rights will have any significant effect either. Restricting who can purchase, or where, or where background checks must be done, doesn't seem to have deterred any of the various shooters. In almost every case, the weapons used were acquired legally by the owner, and then the shooter got ahold of them. (either from family members, or, having someone that CAN legally buy them, go and get them.) Exactly what kind of legislation did you have in mind? Perhaps that would be a better topic?

Like I said before to some people this would be the 1st step to serious and meaningful gun reform. History also shows that banning/restricting things does reduce things as well... Football and athletic programs related to deaths are not concidered violent crimes or murder. I put forth that GUNS don't need to be reformed. After all, a gun is an inanimate object, therefore, it is impossible to reform. (and, one could argue, reform it from what? Should it be a baseball bat instead?) I am talking about people dying. HOW they get that way isn't really relevant. The major complaint here is that folks get dead. Why should we permit something simply because it isn't classified as a violent crime, when it actually kills more people than assault rifles? Isn't the goal to reduce deaths?? Do you not care that little Johnny got thumped on the athletic field, and subsequently died? Is it only a tragedy if someone shoots him with an assault rifle?? Drunk drivers kill more people than assault weapons..... drunk driving IS banned.... Still happens more often than folks are shot with assault rifles though. Perhaps we should ban alcohol altogether? Oh, wait, we tried that once, and it failed miserably.... to the point that the ban was repealed.... Hhhhmmm... Could it be that legislation is NOT the answer? Perhaps EDUCATION, or even some cooperation between various government agencies would be more effective......

Look at background processes. Especially anti-virus programs.