HeyYou

I don't quite get it still. Banning a weapon simply because of what it is, and it's capability, NOT because it has been demonstrated to have been used in a significant number of crimes? really?? Why?? Handguns are used in a majority of crimes, yet, no one is talking about banning those? It's always all about assault weapons. (not to mention that several municipalities HAVE hand gun bans, which haven't made a bit of difference in shooting deaths.......) Why do GUN laws need to be reformed? Why not where weapons may be carried? I would point out, that in the example of the Israeli school shooting, the shooter was stopped by a STUDENT carrying a weapon. Now, I am NOT advocating letting elementary kids carry weapons.... but, teachers/administrative staff? That would work. Be cheaper than armed guards as well. (by a good stretch) Why not ban Gun-Free zones? Most mass shootings of this nature occur where folks KNOW there shouldn't be anyone else around that could stop them. History has already shown that banning something does NOT reduce crimes committed by/for said item. In all reality, crime related to said ban actually INCREASES. How is there any logic to banning it then? Especially as relates to guns in the US? Football has killed more people than assault weapons used in crimes..... why aren't we banning football? It has a higher death toll?????? I know, lets ban school athletics programs, and use all the money saved to pay for the armed guards, or better yet, training and licensing for school staff to be armed. :D

Ok, first and foremost, the 'assault rifle' was found in the trunk of the car. It was NOT used in the school shootings. Source. (there seems to be a lot of different stories about this though..... whom do you believe?) Second, yes, an AR-15 CAN be converted to fully auto operation, HOWEVER, you need the military style bolt carrier, and a handful of other parts, to include a machine shop.... to do so. The kits are illegal, and the bolt carrier is not available for sale to anyone that does not have a federal firearms permit. (dealers license.) Without a GREAT deal of effort, and the aid of a gunsmith, the conversion isn't going to happen. If the shooter HAD used a full-auto weapon, the death toll would have been MUCH higher. The shooter used two semi-auto pistols. In a target rich environment like a school, he wouldn't even had to AIM to hit/kill someone. (sorry to phrase it that way...... seems kinda cold, don't it?) Even with only seven round magazines (fairly standard....) he would only have to reload once to accomplish his kill count. Three minutes is plenty of time, I think he had all of ten though. (the glock holds 15 rounds in the mag. I can't find enough info on his other pistol to make the call on mag capacity.....) One of my main points here though is, ALL of the weapons he had with him were legal. For his mother...... being he was under 21? he could not legally possess a pistol, and certainly not carry one around with him. I used to routinely carry an M-16, and am intimately familiar with them..... I have owned/examined/disassembled numerous AR-15 style rifles as well. While externally similar, internally, they are rather different. (see above.) Banning assault weapons would have no effect on this type of crime. The shooter here ostensibly didn't use it. The columbine shooters had pistols, and shotguns..... no assault weapons there either.... Have a look here . A list of school shootings dating back to 1902...... Please note, that in most cases, (99%) NO assault weapons were used. And one (Dawson College shooting) it all depends on your definition of assault rifle, weapon used there used pistol ammo...... So, why all the debate about assault weapons?

The government passed an assault weapons ban back in the 90's. (Brady bill) Due to the way the legislation was written, (definition of an assault rifle) gun manufactures just altered how the weapons were produced slightly, and they were instantly legal. Again. The polls and such indicating folks would be open to banning high-power rifles, and such, are rather suspect. I see nothing about how the polls are conducted, who is asked, or anything else for that matter. Cherry picking your respondents makes poll results come out the way you want them to. Sure, there are online petitions and such, that a couple hundred thousand folks have signed, but, that is barely over 1% of the population here. There are always knee-jerk reactions after incidents of this nature. I would also point out, that the story seems to have changed..... The press is now whining about how dangerous assault rifles are, and they point at Sandy Hook, however, when this story originally broke, it was flatly stated in the article that the shooter used a pair of hand guns, and the assault rifle was left in the trunk of the car. They seem to be neglecting that inconvenient little tidbit now, to further their position that gun control, or assault weapon bans, will have any impact on these sorts of crimes, when in reality, they won't. And the politicians? Yeah, the dems at the top, whom have always been anti-gun, are now shouting about gun-control-is-the-answer. This isn't anything new either. This is just typical political grand standing. They need to give the appearance of "doing something", even though they are well aware that: 1. It won't make any difference. And 2. It will never pass the republican controlled house. So long as it LOOKS like they are doing something, effective or not, that's all they really care about. Helps them get re-elected....

Chicago had a record number of murders in 2012. They also have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. No, death by alcohol (either the victim drinking, or someone else) isn't considered a violent crime, but, the victims are still just as dead. In the last year, we have had a number of accidents resulting in fatalities that were alcohol related. Trouble is, the one drinking WASN'T the one killed...... four teenagers in one incident, when the drinker ran a red light. An entire family in another, when a drunk driver blew thru a stopsign, and t-boned their car. How is this not worse than shooting them? Want to get away with murder? Get drunk, and run your chosen victim over. If it's your first offense, you probably won't even get jail time...... it you do it a couple times, you might get a year or three. That's it. Shoot them with a gun though, and it's life...... Please explain to me how that makes any sense at all. I would also point out that most crimes committed with assault rifles, the weapon in question was acquired illegally anyway. Even if you ban them, those that want to acquire them will indeed find a way. A ban will have zero net affect on it. There are just way to many already in circulation, and it is far too easy to smuggle just about anything you want over our various borders. Even our GOVERNMENT is doing it...... (fast and furious anyone?) Gun laws aren't going to matter. They have made all of zero difference in the various locations thoughout the US. Please have a look at the most dangerous cities here, then compare that to the cities with the strictest gun regulations. Please note that the lists are quite similar....... All the politicians grandstanding, and banning this, that, and the other thing, have done NOTHING to change crime rates. It is simply the wrong approach to the problem.

It is perfectly acceptable to discuss overthrow of the government. It is NOT 'legal' to advocate VIOLENT overthrow of the government. (peaceful overthrow is ok though..... neat huh?) Cars/trucks kill more folks than guns. There is no "need" for anyone to own more than one car. Should we restrict car ownership? Alcohol kills more people than cars or guns...... yet look what happened when alcohol was banned.... a whole new criminal enterprise sprung up, and even MORE people died..... And once again..... Assault rifles are used in less than 1% of gun crimes. In those where they were used, most were acquired illegally to begin with. Not to mention, I have yet to see anyone set the record straight on whether or not mr. Lanza actually USED the assault rifle he had, or if he left it in the car, which was what was originally reported. The guy shooting firemen should not have been in possession of ANY firearms AT ALL. (in all reality, he shouldn't even have been out of prison so far as I am concerned.......) He was a convicted murderer, that convinced some gal to purchase weapons for him. She is now being charged with accessory to murder. No legislation is going to make the slightest difference in these types of incidents. Simply passing some law is NOT going to make people take notice, and not go off on a shooting spree if that is what they really wanna do.

wonder if SKSE could be set up to dynamically create recipes.......Probably not just yet.... but, maybe in the future?

Personally, I don't see our politics, or politicians... EVER being in order again. Things have swung too far, both sides are far to entrenched in their positions, and there is too much money to be made NOT changing anything... for anyone to really do anything different. Which is why I won't give up my guns.... American society is headed for a fall. We may still be able to avoid it, but, Washington DC would have to make drastic changes to do so, and that doesn't seem to be even a remote possibility.... So, my best guess is five to ten years, and something "bad" is going to happen. At that point, it will be the folks with the guns that can actually hang on to what they have.... hopefully. I would have absolutely zero hesitation about killing someone that was threatening me, or any of my family. (or even some of my friends....) I don't care to discuss if I have ever killed anyone.

don't use an activator for the door. I think there are static meshes available as well? Just have your activator 'move' the object to the open position.

Seconded. I think I paid about 150 for mine, but, that's been a little while ago. Runs skyrim just fine. :)

Whats your budget? What country are you in? Any parts you already have that you don't need to re-buy? (keyboard, monitor, mouse.... etc.) Comfortable building your own? (get a lot more bang for the buck that way.)

Hhhhmmm.... maybe a scripted crafting station WOULD be the solution here.....

I would point out that the Sandy Hook shooter was dead before the cops arrived..... Police response times are not the best. Given the financial state of our economy, police and firefighters are the first to get layoffs. Even so, the BEST response time I have seen would still be a minimum of three minutes.... (and that's only because the cop shop is four blocks from the school....) a lot can happen in three minutes. Much better to have armed folks already on the scene. No gun law is going to take guns out of the hands of folks that want to do this kind of thing. I don't quite get why folks think there is something magical about a law, that everyone automatically obeys it. I would point out that murder is illegal, yet it happens many times a day.... even in gun-free countries..... As for the robber taking my gun away from me, and shooting me with it..... That's actually kind of funny. I think you watch too many martial arts movies..... about the time said robber even twitched toward me, I would be pulling the trigger...... so would most anyone else....

oh! are you sure? the guy at Sandy bridge or every where else think " yeah that must be cool here, a school, they will be a lot of child and teachers with guns.... i'm not a Psychologist, but i'm pretty sure, the guy just want to die and take numerous people with him or he's target would have been a precinct no? and this is what NRA is saying :P, good people with a gun against bad one, so, ok may be 27 people will be alive or may be not, but there is and will be one thing still, 99.99% of 130 000.000 american will use there guns in self defense and 0.01% who can or will probably kill one of your kid/parent/friend cool way of life for sure btw you can't..try ..to Ban gun-free zone, if you give firearms to people who are leaving/working in^^ or did i've missed something :) @@ If all he was concerned about was getting himself dead, he would have either simply shot himself, or, went someplace where there were lots of folks with guns. The fact that he chose a school, you know, a gun-free zone..... tells me he wanted to kill a bunch of other folks before finally killing himself. Please note: Most mass shooters have themselves as the last victims. Very seldom is it the cops that take him down. Have a look at the Colorado shootings. Also a gun free zone.... A movie theater. Now, what if half a dozen folks there had ALSO been armed? Do you think the death toll would have been higher, or lower? I know if I had been there, armed, about the time I saw him whipping out a weapon, mine would have also been in hand, and the death toll would have been two. The shooters first victim, and the shooter. Bear in mind, I have military training with firearms.... So, I don't really qualify as the "average" american.....

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom. 2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society. Trouble is, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Your average maniac that wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to care that he isn't allowed by law to possess a gun, nor is he going to care that walking into a gun-free zone with one is against the law. Nor is he going to care that shooting people is patently illegal. Laws only work on those that actually obey them. Criminals, and the mass shooters, by definition, do not. So, please explain to me how any law at all, short of an absolute ban of ALL firearms, and forcibly collecting the 2 million (underestimate... plus guns privately owned in the US) is going to have any effect at all? Banning assault rifles did nothing, I was still able to go out and buy one. Legally no less, as it was already in private hands. I could still buy extended capacity magazines when they were banned as well..... manufactured before the ban came in to play. Not to mention that background checks, etc, seldom would have any effect either, as most of the shooters did not have criminal records. There is NO legislation that is going to stop these kinds of incidents. Taking firearms away from the law-abiding is the exact WRONG thing to do. All you are doing is giving those that would become mass-shooters an even larger target selection, as they can be sure that no one else is going to be armed. Why is it, do you think, that 99% of these incidents occur in gun-free zones? Do you think these are people with a lust for combat, and WANT people shooting back at them? If that were the case, we would see more of these incidents at police stations..... Funny how none have happened at one eh? Banning ALL firearms, and attempting to collect them, would pretty much assure a civil war here in the states. Not many gun owners would willingly give them up. Many will fight. When the government starts killing its own citizens, the whole house of cards will come crashing down. Anyone willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety, deserves neither. I never agreed with taking guns away from anyone. In fact, if you recall from the first post I made in this debate, that is exactly what I WASN'T going for. I agreed with restrictions and reforms, not with seizing individual liberties. I understand where you are coming from, and that your right (and it is a right) to own a gun is one that you staunchly defend, but not everyone in this world should be given a gun; the proof is in the very roots of this debate itself. Yes, of course there are going to be complications with restriction and with reforms, like where we draw the line between who is and isn't a responsible citizen, who does and does not abide by the law, and how we can discern said responsible citizens from those who are not. The answer to your question is simple: this isn't an issue that can easily be solved, and there is no clear-cut answer, but leaving the law as it currently is, I believe, is certainly not the answer. You have stated you think the laws need to change. I have put forth my position that changing the laws will have zero affect. Let me reiterate: Most of the shooters have been folks with no criminal history, or history of treatment for mental instability. A fair few of the shooters did not use their own weapons, but, weapons they STOLE from someone else, be it a parent, or sibling. Most of these shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. Places where the shooters KNOW no one else will be carrying. I will grant that the Arizona shooter (the Giffords incident) DID indeed have a history of mental illness, but, due to privacy concerns, none of that was shared with law enforcement of any variety, to prevent him from purchasing his own weapon. (which he then used to kill several people......) So far, from what I am seeing, changing ANY laws won't have any affect whatsoever on the availability of weapons to someone that wants to commit suicide by seeing how many folks he can take with him..... On the other hand, it appears that armed citizens, including teachers..... have, in fact, stopped the shooter, and significantly reduced the potential casualty count, on multiple occasions. Do you see my logic here? Alright, fine, I'll admit to a structured argument when I see one. Considering all of the facts that you have brought to this debate, tell me this: what do you believe we should do? Leave the law as it is, do absolutely nothing, and ignore incidents like the Sandy Hook shooting? I see your logic, and I agree to most of it (said parents should have been more responsible), but someone has to take some kind of action here. And no, I don't mean with a gun. All I want to see is a safer nation; that's it, that's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking to take anyone's gun away. I'm not asking to sacrifice anything that would mean losing any freedoms we have today. All I'm saying is address these problems and solve this damn war between gun-lovers and those who'd rather see them put away. I admit, I don't have the answers, and I won't pretend that I do, but the law cannot stay the way it is today. It just can't; I don't see how it could. I am not entirely sure there is a "fix" for this particular problem..... aside from a complete ban of all guns, and using the military to collect them, forcibly if necessary...... guns are going to continue to be part of the american landscape. That said, there are few things I would like to see happen..... Biggest among them is cooperation among various departments..... folks being treated for specific mental illnesses should be prevented from purchasing weapons. (this would make only a very minor difference.) Ban Gun-Free zones. 90% of the mass shootings have taken place in gun-free zones. If you can be pretty much assured that your targets won't have the capability to shoot back, there is a lot less motivation to NOT do something like that. Police response times are measured in minutes...... which is all the time it took for 27 people to die in Sandy Hook..... They are the mass shooters major concern.... (as no one else is going to have a gun...) Letting the teachers/administrative staff carry would have put folks capable of stopping the shooter right on the scene, before the first shot was fired. Not 10 minutes after the last shot was fired.... (they would need to have proper training/licensing....) Change the 'good samaritan" law to include those that use deadly force is such situations.... There WILL be a time when an innocent gets shot by someone trying to take the potential mass-shooter..... On that note, whatever happened to the cops that shot 9 people in New York trying to get one guy with a gun? Is it a perfect solution? Nope. It would certainly give folks thinking about doing this kind of thing pause though.......

Lets dispel some rumors here.... First, the average american citizen may NOT own military grade weapons. This includes fully-automatic anything, grenades, grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and cannons. (like you would find mounted on a tank, or artillery piece.) At least, not in FUNCTIONAL form. You can buy tanks on EBay, but, they have been de-militarized. The main gun is incapable of being fired, and the machine guns are generally non-firing replicas. I did see a 20mm anti-tank gun for sale at a gun shop once.... MANY years ago. The price tag was well in to 5 digits though, and the process for purchasing it was difficult, at best. Finding ammo for it would be darn near impossible. (on the legal market.) Sure, if you have a Federal Firearms License, you can actually own these legally. (for the most part) But, that particular piece of paper is EXTREMELY difficult to come by. Getting a Top Secret security clearance is easier...... If the cops saw you walkin' around with ANY of the aforementioned weapons, they would most certainly want to have words with you..... (and it would probably start with "DROP IT!") America IS an interesting place when it comes to firearm ownership. With the proper licensing, you can buy a friggin' minigun... (chain driven, multi-barrel weapon with a rate of fire north of a 100 rounds per SECOND...) Please don't mount it on your car/truck though.... the cops would be more likely just to shoot you on site, than utter a word of warning..... And of course, they also have a TRULY hefty price tag..... not something your average american will ever be able to afford. (think, more expensive than a fair few family cars.....) Any attempt at a constitutional amendment to change our gun rights would pretty much assure that said politician would NEVER get elected to another public office. I.E. Political suicide. Extremely unlikely to ever happen. And not just because of the gun lobby. Any attempt to disarm the public would result in utter failure, and MANY, MANY dead. Dissolution of the US would be a minor consequence in comparison.

Are you just trying to intercept the Level Up option on the menu? (when it would normally list "skills")

That's exactly it, a knee-jerk response and trying to make themselves look good, look like they are action men. That's also precisely how we ended up with even tougher gun laws in Britain than the ones brought in during the 1920's. After a school shooting at Dunblane, handguns were so severely restricted that the only people who can now legitimately possess them are police firearms officers (our police are not routinely armed), service personnel, veterinary surgeons and licensed slaughtermen/women (horses are customarily shot with a pistol rather than a bolt gun.) It is very tough to get a firearms certificate for hunting rifles, and slightly less tough to get a shotgun licence. Of course, this means nothing at all to the bad guys who just get all kinds of guns illegally. And woe betide the householder who does get their 12 bore out of the cabinet in time to confront that burglar, you could lose your permit just for doing that and pointing it at the said burglar, let alone giving them both barrels. Given that the perpetrator in the Sandy Hook tragedy was mentally unbalanced, can any USA citizens here comment on how much the mental state of a "gun permit applicant" is taken into consideration? As over here, it varies wildly. The fact that he was mentally unbalanced didn't come out until AFTER the shootings. He had no history of treatment for mental illness. Not that if he had, it would have mattered in any event, he used his mothers guns. The Arizona shooter had quite the history of mental illness, and treatment for such, but, that information was never released to law enforcement to prevent him from buying a gun, due to 'privacy concerns'....... Nice huh? The trouble is, we have so many different layers of bureaucracy, and none of them share information with the others, that even is someone had been committed to an institution for decades, so long as they were never convicted of a CRIME, they could walk in to any gun store, and buy whatever they want.

Well, that would complicate matters some..... SKSE offer any alternatives?

That's what you get when you let someone that doesn't have a clue try and tell you what needs to happen. This is typical in government. Bloomberg isn't the only one that doesn't have any idea whatsoever about guns in general. They just want to legislate something, call it 'good for the american people', so they can look like they are doing something, when in reality, they just make the situation worse.

If all you are concerned about is converting an item to gold value...... could you imbed a script into a recipe, to determine the items value?? This method would work for ANY item, including mod added. I would be real tempted to base the 'return value' on the characters speech skill as well.... otherwise, you are going to be rolling in septims at first level.....

1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom. 2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society. Trouble is, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Your average maniac that wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to care that he isn't allowed by law to possess a gun, nor is he going to care that walking into a gun-free zone with one is against the law. Nor is he going to care that shooting people is patently illegal. Laws only work on those that actually obey them. Criminals, and the mass shooters, by definition, do not. So, please explain to me how any law at all, short of an absolute ban of ALL firearms, and forcibly collecting the 2 million (underestimate... plus guns privately owned in the US) is going to have any effect at all? Banning assault rifles did nothing, I was still able to go out and buy one. Legally no less, as it was already in private hands. I could still buy extended capacity magazines when they were banned as well..... manufactured before the ban came in to play. Not to mention that background checks, etc, seldom would have any effect either, as most of the shooters did not have criminal records. There is NO legislation that is going to stop these kinds of incidents. Taking firearms away from the law-abiding is the exact WRONG thing to do. All you are doing is giving those that would become mass-shooters an even larger target selection, as they can be sure that no one else is going to be armed. Why is it, do you think, that 99% of these incidents occur in gun-free zones? Do you think these are people with a lust for combat, and WANT people shooting back at them? If that were the case, we would see more of these incidents at police stations..... Funny how none have happened at one eh? Banning ALL firearms, and attempting to collect them, would pretty much assure a civil war here in the states. Not many gun owners would willingly give them up. Many will fight. When the government starts killing its own citizens, the whole house of cards will come crashing down. Anyone willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety, deserves neither. I never agreed with taking guns away from anyone. In fact, if you recall from the first post I made in this debate, that is exactly what I WASN'T going for. I agreed with restrictions and reforms, not with seizing individual liberties. I understand where you are coming from, and that your right (and it is a right) to own a gun is one that you staunchly defend, but not everyone in this world should be given a gun; the proof is in the very roots of this debate itself. Yes, of course there are going to be complications with restriction and with reforms, like where we draw the line between who is and isn't a responsible citizen, who does and does not abide by the law, and how we can discern said responsible citizens from those who are not. The answer to your question is simple: this isn't an issue that can easily be solved, and there is no clear-cut answer, but leaving the law as it currently is, I believe, is certainly not the answer. You have stated you think the laws need to change. I have put forth my position that changing the laws will have zero affect. Let me reiterate: Most of the shooters have been folks with no criminal history, or history of treatment for mental instability. A fair few of the shooters did not use their own weapons, but, weapons they STOLE from someone else, be it a parent, or sibling. Most of these shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. Places where the shooters KNOW no one else will be carrying. I will grant that the Arizona shooter (the Giffords incident) DID indeed have a history of mental illness, but, due to privacy concerns, none of that was shared with law enforcement of any variety, to prevent him from purchasing his own weapon. (which he then used to kill several people......) So far, from what I am seeing, changing ANY laws won't have any affect whatsoever on the availability of weapons to someone that wants to commit suicide by seeing how many folks he can take with him..... On the other hand, it appears that armed citizens, including teachers..... have, in fact, stopped the shooter, and significantly reduced the potential casualty count, on multiple occasions. Do you see my logic here?

Get in your head that there are more people dieing by car accidents and more children drown in swimming pools than get killed by madman shooters. And even with the risk that there would be a madman from time to time killing people, i can live with that. Are you children or what? What do you think would be a bigger problem for a racist madman? Gun laws or armed negros? There is a tip: He doesn't care for the "i'am not allowed to kill people" law. 1. I'll get into my head that there are dangerous citizens out there who do not deserve the right to own a dangerous firearm of any kind. I don't care what the statistics say, I don't want a maniac roaming the streets believing that reform comes from the end of a gun chamber. I apologize if that seems so insane to fathom. 2. No, I'm not a child; I'm a concerned American citizen who finds fault in the Constitution. And believe it or not, I'm actually a Nationalist, but that doesn't mean I can't have my own biases against this nation's gun policies. I have a right to execute my opinions and concerns over the flaws of our society. Trouble is, gun laws only apply to law-abiding citizens. Your average maniac that wants to go on a shooting spree isn't going to care that he isn't allowed by law to possess a gun, nor is he going to care that walking into a gun-free zone with one is against the law. Nor is he going to care that shooting people is patently illegal. Laws only work on those that actually obey them. Criminals, and the mass shooters, by definition, do not. So, please explain to me how any law at all, short of an absolute ban of ALL firearms, and forcibly collecting the 2 million (underestimate... plus guns privately owned in the US) is going to have any effect at all? Banning assault rifles did nothing, I was still able to go out and buy one. Legally no less, as it was already in private hands. I could still buy extended capacity magazines when they were banned as well..... manufactured before the ban came in to play. Not to mention that background checks, etc, seldom would have any effect either, as most of the shooters did not have criminal records. There is NO legislation that is going to stop these kinds of incidents. Taking firearms away from the law-abiding is the exact WRONG thing to do. All you are doing is giving those that would become mass-shooters an even larger target selection, as they can be sure that no one else is going to be armed. Why is it, do you think, that 99% of these incidents occur in gun-free zones? Do you think these are people with a lust for combat, and WANT people shooting back at them? If that were the case, we would see more of these incidents at police stations..... Funny how none have happened at one eh? Banning ALL firearms, and attempting to collect them, would pretty much assure a civil war here in the states. Not many gun owners would willingly give them up. Many will fight. When the government starts killing its own citizens, the whole house of cards will come crashing down. Anyone willing to trade liberty for the illusion of safety, deserves neither.

I have found that those that grew up in a severely gun-restricted environment have a completely different attitude towards guns, than those that did not. For the most part, Europeans will find the American penchant toward gun ownership hard to fathom... simply because they have never been allowed such freedom. That's a carryover from the feudal days, when the lord of the castle didn't WANT the peasants armed, as they might decide a new lord was in order.... That is PRECISELY the reason the founding fathers wrote in to our constitution that citizens would maintain that right, to protect us from an overbearing government.

Ok, depending on which story you read.... the Assault rifle that the fed is screaming about was either used in the shootings, or left in the car..... ABC news has it in the car...... So, was it, or was it not used in the shootings? If not, why the hue and cry to ban them? Just another knee-jerk reaction from our 'friends' in Washington..... What folks don't seem to understand is, it doesn't matter what laws are passed. They can ban future sales of assault-style weapons, but, there are already millions in circulation. They could try and collect them up, but, that would cause more deaths than we saw at the school, as there are those that would most certainly NOT surrender them willingly. We already have a government that seems to think it is everyones nanny, when they start trying to disarm the citizenry, a fair few are going to see that as simply a power grab, and one more step towards a police state. Considering that history shows that disarming the citizens IS a first step toward totalitarianism...... So, lets run this up the flagpole, and see if anyone salutes: What if this school HADN'T been a gun-free zone? What if there were a few teachers/administrators that had been armed as well? Would the shooter have been quite so willing to walk in and start shooting at children, knowing their would be adults that would shoot BACK? Had he shown up, would the death toll have been higher, or lower, with armed staff? Would the teacher that rushed the shooter, instead of dying, been able to end his massacre right there with one well-placed shot? Have a look at where most of these incidents have taken place. Gun-Free zones. Isn't it kinda interesting that where the shooter is assured of unarmed targets, the death toll is higher? Are we cutting our own throats here with denying folks the right to defend themselves? Regardless of where they happen to be? Always remember: An armed society is a polite society.

Sad, but true.......