Sacremento Gun Buy Back Plan

[MartinSE]

Gas for guns.

They offered gift cards for $50 of gas for guns - legal or illegal - and ran out of cards the first day - LOL!

Dozens of guns turned in to Sacramento Police in exchange for gift cards (https://fox40.com/news/local-news/over-130-guns-received-at-sacramento-polices-gas-for-guns-buyback-event/)

[Stu from NYC]

Kind of depends who is giving back the guns, law abiding citizens or other?

[tophcfa]

Gas for guns.

They offered gift cards for $50 of gas for guns - legal or illegal - and ran out of cards the first day - LOL!

Dozens of guns turned in to Sacramento Police in exchange for gift cards (https://fox40.com/news/local-news/over-130-guns-received-at-sacramento-polices-gas-for-guns-buyback-event/)

In the process of downsizing, recently sold the motorcycle and snowmobile and going to sell one of the ATV’s and several firearms, only going keep the 9mm Sig, the Marlin lever action 22, the Savage Arms bolt action 30-06, and Thompson Center Fire muzzleloader. That being said, I would be crazy to trade in any of my firearms, which are worth significant $$$, for a $50 gas card. And the world won’t be any safer when I downsize since the firearms are always locked in a safe unless being used for hunting or target practice. But I will be happier, since I’ll get much more use out of the new Yamaha Quiet Tech that I buy with the sale proceeds : (

[MartinSE]

In the process of downsizing, recently sold the motorcycle and snowmobile and going to sell one of the ATV’s and several firearms, only going keep the 9mm Sig, the Marlin lever action 22, the Savage Arms bolt action 30-06, and Thompson Center Fire muzzleloader. That being said, I would be crazy to trade in any of my firearms, which are worth significant $$$, for a $50 gas card. And the world won’t be any safer when I downsize since the firearms are always locked in a safe unless being used for hunting or target practice. But I will be happier, since I’ll get much more use out of the new Yamaha Quiet Tech that I buy with the sale proceeds : (

Oh, I don't disagree with you. In fact, I literally laughed out loud when I read the article. My wife was startled and asked me why.

And, guess the "gem" in the article is that that almost instantly ran out of cards... hmm. seems to be a desirable action. It certainly will not make a dent in the 400 million guns in circulation, but it is certainly a symbol. Maybe death by a million cuts to guns...

But, I doubt it.

[MartinSE]

Kind of depends who is giving back the guns, law abiding citizens or other?

hmm, I don't agree, it means fewer guns in circulation. If a million cities did that (I don't think we have a million cities even if you count towns) it would remove 134 million guns.

Not going to happen, it is just a symbol. But, symbols are good. The Flag is a symbol. It wont stop a bullet, but it is still good to have.

[Taltarzac725]

Gas for guns.

They offered gift cards for $50 of gas for guns - legal or illegal - and ran out of cards the first day - LOL!

Dozens of guns turned in to Sacramento Police in exchange for gift cards (https://fox40.com/news/local-news/over-130-guns-received-at-sacramento-polices-gas-for-guns-buyback-event/)

Read the article!

According to the department, officers were told by the public that a “lack of experience” with firearms and a “lack of knowledge” of the legality of guns or the “inability” to safely store the firearms were the main reasons they turned in their weapons.

If they do not how to safely use, store, clean etc., a firearm then maybe they should not own them.

[billethkid]

An elected officials, chest puffing, do nothing/accomplish nothing action!

[GpaVader]

What it didn't tell you is that they only had 12 cards....

[Stu from NYC]

hmm, I don't agree, it means fewer guns in circulation. If a million cities did that (I don't think we have a million cities even if you count towns) it would remove 134 million guns.

Not going to happen, it is just a symbol. But, symbols are good. The Flag is a symbol. It wont stop a bullet, but it is still good to have.

We can agree to disagree but the guns that come back are not likely to be ones used in committing a crime so what is being accomplished?

Makes a few politicians feel good and perhaps fools some of their constituents.

[MartinSE]

Read the article!



If they do not how to safely use, store, clean etc., a firearm then maybe they should not own them.

I did read the article. And I agree with your conclusion. And my point of the post was that it is one way to reduce the number of guns in circulation - a very small way but a way. I don't really care WHY people are legally disposing of guns, just that they are.

People that are responsible gun owners and want guns, I say go for it.

[MartinSE]

We can agree to disagree but the guns that come back are not likely to be ones used in committing a crime so what is being accomplished?

Makes a few politicians feel good and perhaps fools some of their constituents.

I think fewer "unwanted" guns being turned in means they won't get stolen and used in crimes, won't be disposed of in ways that could lead to them being found and used, and certainly WON'T be found by their children and used. (one of the reasons given was they didn't know how to safely store them)

Fewer guns is better - for me. As I said, it is small to the point of insignificant. But it is a reduction.

[MartinSE]

What it didn't tell you is that they only had 12 cards....

Actually they did tell us how many. If you want to know the TRUTH, read the article.

[MartinSE]

An elected officials, chest puffing, do nothing/accomplish nothing action!

#SAD

It would appear that anything anyone does that someone doesn't agree with is just "chest puffing". To me it was a symbolic act. Obviously no one thinks taking 134 guns off the street in a country with 400 million is circulation is going to make any difference.

It was a symbol. Kind of like wearing school colors, flying the flag, marrying an arm ornament, and on and on. We are a country built on symbols.

[MDLNB]

Gas for guns.

They offered gift cards for $50 of gas for guns - legal or illegal - and ran out of cards the first day - LOL!

Dozens of guns turned in to Sacramento Police in exchange for gift cards (https://fox40.com/news/local-news/over-130-guns-received-at-sacramento-polices-gas-for-guns-buyback-event/)


Funny! They aren't very bright, unless they are turning in stolen, broken or junk guns. Of course, now the gangs/criminals will have less resistance.

[MDLNB]

Hmmm, maybe I will offer TWO gas cards for a gun turned in. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

[MrFlorida]

And I doubt any were from gang bangers.

[MartinSE]

And I doubt any were from gang bangers.

Is there a point to this, cause if there is I missed it...

[Stu from NYC]

Hmmm, maybe I will offer TWO gas cards for a gun turned in. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

Or how about something of more interest like girls for guns.:bigbow:

[GpaVader]

Actually they did tell us how many. If you want to know the TRUTH, read the article.

I did, and was just being a smarta$$....

This is like draining the ocean with a spoon, while in theory this helps or can. I also seen many cases where the buy back guns were stolen and sold back out again. I hope it works but I'm not holding my breath either...

[MartinSE]

Hmmm, maybe I will offer TWO gas cards for a gun turned in. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

As far as I can tell from your posts here, and your positions on guns, I would guess you are a responsible gun owner. So, I would say PLEASE do. Getting guns out of hands of careless, irresponsible, and casual owners hand will go a long way to solving the "excess" gun problem that I believe exists.

Yeah, go for it, think how many guns you could collect for the cost of one collectable Lugar ($34K low end)

[MartinSE]

I did, and was just being a smarta$$....

This is like draining the ocean with a spoon, while in theory this helps or can. I also seen many cases where the buy back guns were stolen and sold back out again. I hope it works but I'm not holding my breath either...

Sorry, it is hard to see sarcasm in posts. I am guilty of that myself.

Yes, it is like draining the ocean with a teaspoon - I agree. I do not think for a. moment they expected to make a dent in their gun problem. It was a publicity "stunt" to bring attention to the public. Getting peoples attention on this topic can be hard. After 20 years people are a bit burned out.

[Stu from NYC]

As far as I can tell from your posts here, and your positions on guns, I would guess you are a responsible gun owner. So, I would say PLEASE do. Getting guns out of hands of careless, irresponsible, and casual owners hand will go a long way to solving the "excess" gun problem that I believe exists.

Yeah, go for it, think how many guns you could collect for the cost of one collectable Lugar ($34K low end)

Agree that there are too many guns in our country but this buy back does not get the right guns off the street.

[Petersweeney]

Program is run and financed by gun companies to get customers to upgrade………so what’s the point?

[Blackbird45]

I own a gun and have a permit from upstate New York. So, I am not against firearms, what I heard in a news report was many of the guns that were being turned in were from people who didn't even know how to use a gun. Either they inherited the piece or purchased them because of unwarranted fear.

I know the argument for and against guns, but when it comes to home safety, I believe an alarm system is a better choice.

I also believe that there should be some enforce safety instruction that people should have to take before they purchase a certain class of firearm.

[Stu from NYC]

I own a gun and have a permit from upstate New York. So, I am not against firearms, what I heard in a news report was many of the guns that were being turned in were from people who didn't even know how to use a gun. Either they inherited the piece or purchased them because of unwarranted fear.

I know the argument for and against guns, but when it comes to home safety, I believe an alarm system is a better choice.

I also believe that there should be some enforce safety instruction that people should have to take before they purchase a certain class of firearm.

People should know how to operate a firearm before being allowed to take it home.

[jdulej]

People should know how to operate a firearm before being allowed to take it home.

Careful, you are starting to rub up against my 2nd amendment. It's like suggesting that someone should know who/what they are voting for/on - not required

[jdulej]

Agree that there are too many guns in our country but this buy back does not get the right guns off the street.

I think many would agree that if it keeps one kid from finding grandpa's old gun under the bed and blowing his brother's head off, it would be well worth it.

[Blackbird45]

Careful, you are starting to rub up against my 2nd amendment. It's like suggesting that someone should know who/what they are voting for/on - not required

There are many disagreements in actually what the 2 amendment really states.
But putting that aside, I personally would not purchase anything if I don't know how to use it. Not only for my own protection, but for that of others.
When I obtain my firearm and permit I first had to see a judge because I had a record from my youth. Part of me obtaining my permit was that he required me to take some classes.

If you respect the safety of other people you should at least learn how to use what your holding.

[GizmoWhiskers]

What it didn't tell you is that they only had 12 cards....

I wonder at what age level, pronoun and language the sign was targeted (no pun intended) to and were free pipes and drugs included with that deal?

[ithos]

The should take those guns and provide them to law abiding citizens with clean records after they pass a firearm training course.
Usually the higher percentage of legal gun ownership in a community the lower the crime.

If you want to reduce the murders, the first step is to stop the no bail, revolving door policies of the radical DAs.

[waterflower]

Lets try something new. Defund the c i a's black ops mind control program and big pharma psychotropic drugs..Maybe just maybe we will not have the tragic events that occur.

[me4vt]

After 9-11 they didn’t ban airplanes they secured the cockpits!

When the #@$%§ eject GOD from everything and insert Worldly ways into everything, this is what “We” get”! Evil in everything🧐

[thevillages2013]

So they used taxpayer money to buy gift cards to exchange for guns. For $50 the recipients got approximately 7 gallons of gas. Tell me the world isn’t upside down now

[Joe C.]

Here we go again ....... The media is using phrases and words to put the sheeple in their place. GUN BUY-BACK PROGRAM ?.....Will someone tell me how in the hell someone can "buy back" something that they never owned in the first place? It gives the sheeple the belief that those firearms were "given" or sold to the public by the "authorities".
Probably a lot of those firearms were stolen or didn't belong to the person who turned them in, and were possibly used in a crime. There were no questions asked.
Anyway, the people who collected those firearms all had a goodly array of firearms to choose from. I'm sure that they weren't destroyed, just given to the cops to keep.

But a gun "buy-back"? How about calling it something else? Maybe a "gun buy-out"?

[CharlesNT]

I guarantee it’s not other…

[dougjb]

Cars are dangerous instrumentalities. We register our cars. We pass a driving test to drive this inherently dangerous thing.

We should demand that each and every gun in America be registered. We should demand that each and every gun owner pass a mental fitness test and a rigorous test as to a gun's usage.

Unlike cars, however, we should demand that any person wishing to own more than one gun, PROVE their need!

And, in my plan, anyone not registering all their guns and taking the required tests would be guilty of a criminal act subject to jail time.

Of course, law abiding citizens would want to comply and seek compliance. But, criminals and gun nuts (aka criminals) would forego compliance. Give the coppers another chance to lock these folks up.

Perhaps we might ultimately realize that gun ownership is counterproductive in our society. Then, only criminals and gun nuts will own guns.

Almost all other civilized countries in the world have gotten their arms around gun violence. Shootings in Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand have annual shootings of people in the the low two digit range while we have over 30,000. Some like Australia historically had a gun heritage similar to our own (think Wild West). But, when they experienced a nut case going off the rails and shooting up a bunch of people, they got together and realized they could not keep going on this way. Mass ownership of guns in Australia is a thing of the past. New Zealand recently did the same thing. It is not unusual in the UK for instance to be in Southeastern England to have the BBC report a shooting (not a killing) that occured in Scotland, such is the uniqueness of gun violence there. Here, we don't even hear of a killing by a gun being reported in the next neighborhood over.

The time has come for all people, gun owners and non gun owners to demand action.

Ultimately, we should just ban guns...totally....except for cops and military.

For those who argue, guns don't kill people, people kill people, I would argue its a lot easier to ban guns than people. If people want to kill others, let them do it the old fashion way, with fists and stones. We would have a lot fewer mass killings!

[dougawhite]

If a city truly wants to remove guns in a way that is meaningful to reduce crime they should do stop and frisk every night in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Also, regular no-knock warrants of known ex-con residences. If they don't do things like that then they are NOT serious about the problem.

[kenoc7]

In the process of downsizing, recently sold the motorcycle and snowmobile and going to sell one of the ATV’s and several firearms, only going keep the 9mm Sig, the Marlin lever action 22, the Savage Arms bolt action 30-06, and Thompson Center Fire muzzleloader. That being said, I would be crazy to trade in any of my firearms, which are worth significant $$$, for a $50 gas card. And the world won’t be any safer when I downsize since the firearms are always locked in a safe unless being used for hunting or target practice. But I will be happier, since I’ll get much more use out of the new Yamaha Quiet Tech that I buy with the sale proceeds : (

I understand that you are a safe, responsible gun owner but why on earth do you need three guns?

[kenoc7]

Cars are dangerous instrumentalities. We register our cars. We pass a driving test to drive this inherently dangerous thing.

We should demand that each and every gun in America be registered. We should demand that each and every gun owner pass a mental fitness test and a rigorous test as to a gun's usage.

Unlike cars, however, we should demand that any person wishing to own more than one gun, PROVE their need!

And, in my plan, anyone not registering all their guns and taking the required tests would be guilty of a criminal act subject to jail time.

Of course, law abiding citizens would want to comply and seek compliance. But, criminals and gun nuts (aka criminals) would forego compliance. Give the coppers another chance to lock these folks up.

Perhaps we might ultimately realize that gun ownership is counterproductive in our society. Then, only criminals and gun nuts will own guns.

Almost all other civilized countries in the world have gotten their arms around gun violence. Shootings in Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand have annual shootings of people in the the low two digit range while we have over 30,000. Some like Australia historically had a gun heritage similar to our own (think Wild West). But, when they experienced a nut case going off the rails and shooting up a bunch of people, they got together and realized they could not keep going on this way. Mass ownership of guns in Australia is a thing of the past. New Zealand recently did the same thing. It is not unusual in the UK for instance to be in Southeastern England to have the BBC report a shooting (not a killing) that occured in Scotland, such is the uniqueness of gun violence there. Here, we don't even hear of a killing by a gun being reported in the next neighborhood over.

The time has come for all people, gun owners and non gun owners to demand action.

Ultimately, we should just ban guns...totally....except for cops and military.

For those who argue, guns don't kill people, people kill people, I would argue its a lot easier to ban guns than people. If people want to kill others, let them do it the old fashion way, with fists and stones. We would have a lot fewer mass killings!

What a wonderful statement; shout it all from the rooftops.

[Wilson02852]

Maybe they should try this with violence based video games. They do nothing but degrade the value of life in many young minds.

It's more than a gun problem.

[PugMom]

An elected officials, chest puffing, do nothing/accomplish nothing action!

this happens every election year, lol

[MrFlorida]

Is there a point to this, cause if there is I missed it...

The point you missed is that criminals will not turn in their guns . These gun buy backs are just a feel good thing for the honest citizens.

[ThirdOfFive]

#SAD

It would appear that anything anyone does that someone doesn't agree with is just "chest puffing". To me it was a symbolic act. Obviously no one thinks taking 134 guns off the street in a country with 400 million is circulation is going to make any difference.

It was a symbol. Kind of like wearing school colors, flying the flag, marrying an arm ornament, and on and on. We are a country built on symbols.
There was a similar buyback some years back, in St. Paul I believe (maybe an adjacent city). I think they offered a bit more for the gun. But the point is that the huge majority of the guns bought back were "guns" in name only. Unshootable junk, in most instances

It is doubtful that the guns-for-gas thing removed ANY guns from the street. Not at $50.00 a throw. A shootable gun should bring in $200 at least and its not hard to sell a gun these days.

This action comes under the heading of virtue signaling.

[Jacob85]

It doesn’t matter if law abiding citizens are the only ones returning guns because if you look at the people who have done these you will see they bought the guns legally!

[Blackbird45]

Maybe the NRA and the Government should sit down a come to a compromise.
Right now, the way things are is not working.
The NRA has to stop acting like the second amendment gives us the freedom to own whatever armament we desire. We already have guardrails on what type of weapons someone can own. And people believing we're going to live in a gun free America need some professional help.

[Jacob85]

Interesting how people think it is the criminals we have to worry about when every person who was someone who shot several people, including the last one did not have a significant record and bought the guns legally!

[ThirdOfFive]

If a city truly wants to remove guns in a way that is meaningful to reduce crime they should do stop and frisk every night in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Also, regular no-knock warrants of known ex-con residences. If they don't do things like that then they are NOT serious about the problem.
Bingo!

[ThirdOfFive]

Cars are dangerous instrumentalities. We register our cars. We pass a driving test to drive this inherently dangerous thing.

We should demand that each and every gun in America be registered. We should demand that each and every gun owner pass a mental fitness test and a rigorous test as to a gun's usage.

Unlike cars, however, we should demand that any person wishing to own more than one gun, PROVE their need!

And, in my plan, anyone not registering all their guns and taking the required tests would be guilty of a criminal act subject to jail time.

Of course, law abiding citizens would want to comply and seek compliance. But, criminals and gun nuts (aka criminals) would forego compliance. Give the coppers another chance to lock these folks up.

Perhaps we might ultimately realize that gun ownership is counterproductive in our society. Then, only criminals and gun nuts will own guns.

Almost all other civilized countries in the world have gotten their arms around gun violence. Shootings in Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand have annual shootings of people in the the low two digit range while we have over 30,000. Some like Australia historically had a gun heritage similar to our own (think Wild West). But, when they experienced a nut case going off the rails and shooting up a bunch of people, they got together and realized they could not keep going on this way. Mass ownership of guns in Australia is a thing of the past. New Zealand recently did the same thing. It is not unusual in the UK for instance to be in Southeastern England to have the BBC report a shooting (not a killing) that occured in Scotland, such is the uniqueness of gun violence there. Here, we don't even hear of a killing by a gun being reported in the next neighborhood over.

The time has come for all people, gun owners and non gun owners to demand action.

Ultimately, we should just ban guns...totally....except for cops and military.

For those who argue, guns don't kill people, people kill people, I would argue its a lot easier to ban guns than people. If people want to kill others, let them do it the old fashion way, with fists and stones. We would have a lot fewer mass killings!
Unconstitutional for sure, and unworkable in any case. Any such move on the part of any government entity would immediately be challenged in court, and it would go down to certain defeat.

There are an estimated 400 million to half a BILLION guns in private hands in this country, and there is "paper" maybe on, at most, 15% of them. Guns are unique in that, given proper care, they do not necessarily deteriorate with age. I've fired guns well over 120 years old and they shoot as well as they did when new. Better, in fact, because ammo has improved so much. Also following WW II the military had huge surpluses of military-grade weapons, several hundred thousand as I recall, mainly M1 Carbines but some older 30-06 rifles and I believe some 1911 pistols, and sold them (many were actually given away) either through intermediaries or by the government itself under the Civilian Marksmanship Program, directly to citizens. There was no record kept of which gun went to which person: you could buy them through the mail--they were actually listed in the Sears & Roebuck catalogue for a time--and they were delivered packed in Cosmolene. Bottom line: if the government appropriated every gun that they could trace to individual owners (very unlikely) that still leaves something like 450 million guns, probably more, in the hands of American citizens and I'll guarantee you that very few of those owners would voluntarily give them up.

We see so much public angst over gun ownership. Don't people understand that there IS a way to get guns out of private hands? It's call a Constitutional Amendment and the mechanism to change the Constitution has been there since the inception of this country. Why don't the anti-gun people take THAT route?

[GOLFER54]

I will NEVER surrender my guns !

[Jeffery M]

Gas for guns.

They offered gift cards for $50 of gas for guns - legal or illegal - and ran out of cards the first day - LOL!

Dozens of guns turned in to Sacramento Police in exchange for gift cards (https://fox40.com/news/local-news/over-130-guns-received-at-sacramento-polices-gas-for-guns-buyback-event/)

A lousy $50 for something worth much more than that? Quit picking on guns. They don't do anything wrong. They are innocent. That is bigotry. Is it because many guns happen to be black?

I know that the concept that people are responsible for their vile misdeeds and not a lifeless object is radical, but it could possibly be true according to some researchers somewhere that I heard about from somebody one time.

I'm thinking about starting up a "Gum for Guns" program, where you transfer legal ownership of a gun to me and I give you a piece of bubble gum. Please include a full load of ammunition.

[ThirdOfFive]

A lousy $50 for something worth much more than that? Quit picking on guns. They don't do anything wrong. They are innocent. That is bigotry. Is it because a many guns happen to be black?

I know that the concept that people are responsible for their vile misdeeds and not a lifeless object is radical, but it could possibly be true according to some researchers somewhere that I heard about from somebody one time.

I'm thinking about starting up a "Gum for Guns" program, where you transfer legal ownership of a gun to me and I give you a piece of bubble gum. Please include a full load of ammunition.
Good points.

Why not a "flowers for guns" program, where you could turn in a gun and get a bouquet of roses or something AND your name chiseled prominently on the Honored Virtue Signalers Wall of Merit? Soooo much better than a $50 gas card (and so much EASIER on the environment as well!).

I know that $50 these days doesn't buy much gas--but every little bit helps.

[Joe C.]

For all you people who want to take our guns or have them "registered", or only let us have one gun, or show proof of needing more than one ........

I'LL AGREE TO THAT WHEN YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, AND YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right that I will fight for and am willing to risk my life for.

[tophcfa]

Maybe the NRA and the Government should sit down a come to a compromise.
Right now, the way things are is not working.
The NRA has to stop acting like the second amendment gives us the freedom to own whatever armament we desire. We already have guardrails on what type of weapons someone can own. And people believing we're going to live in a gun free America need some professional help.

I suspect that the NRA would gladly agree to make fully automatic firearms, bump stocks, ghost guns, and large capacity magazines illegal if the government in turn would agree to draw the line there. No responsible gun owner besides Military or LEO’s has any functional need for those. The problem is that if the NRA were to give up those first lines of defense, there are those in the government that will endlessly keep trying to chip away at all firearms, including hunting, target practice, and self defense. Gun owners don’t want their hunting firearms to be the next first line of defense in the crosshairs of the government.

[Topspinmo]

In the process of downsizing, recently sold the motorcycle and snowmobile and going to sell one of the ATV’s and several firearms, only going keep the 9mm Sig, the Marlin lever action 22, the Savage Arms bolt action 30-06, and Thompson Center Fire muzzleloader. That being said, I would be crazy to trade in any of my firearms, which are worth significant $$$, for a $50 gas card. And the world won’t be any safer when I downsize since the firearms are always locked in a safe unless being used for hunting or target practice. But I will be happier, since I’ll get much more use out of the new Yamaha Quiet Tech that I buy with the sale proceeds : (


You know there turning in broken or cheap Saturday night specials, which is good thing. (IMO saturday night specials (raven arms and the like) kill more that all<others combined). I would be surprised to see 1 AK, AR, or clocks in the bunch?

[KYtoTV2021]

hmm, I don't agree, it means fewer guns in circulation. If a million cities did that (I don't think we have a million cities even if you count towns) it would remove 134 million guns.

Not going to happen, it is just a symbol. But, symbols are good. The Flag is a symbol. It wont stop a bullet, but it is still good to have.

Bad guys will never turn in their guns. Good guys keep their guns for self-protection.

[Jensor17]

The government and You will NEVER GET GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS. It is usually law-abiding citizens that give up old guns, non functioning guns or their deceased husband’s guns. Ask any police officer! Criminals have huge arsenals of weapons in their homes, vehicles and hidden places. Always did, always will.

[Blackbird45]

Let's be reasonable, as a gun owner I am not advocating the banning of guns, but there are some firearms that do not belong in a civil society. AR 15s and weapons of that type were designed to kill people. Not for hunting and not for home or self-protection. Here is a weapon that even in a novice's hands can fire 30 rounds per minute. It has a range of about two football fields and has the power to crush bone and vaporize organs. I'm not saying you can't own one, but maybe they will have to be confined to an official gun range. Where you can own or rent one for the day. I like roller coasters, but for practical reasons I've decided not to build one in my living room.

[jimbomaybe]

Let's be reasonable, as a gun owner I am not advocating the banning of guns, but there are some firearms that do not belong in a civil society. AR 15s and weapons of that type were designed to kill people. Not for hunting and not for home or self-protection. Here is a weapon that even in a novice's hands can fire 30 rounds per minute. It has a range of about two football fields and has the power to crush bone and vaporize organs. I'm not saying you can't own one, but maybe they will have to be confined to an official gun range. Where you can own or rent one for the day. I like roller coasters, but for practical reasons I've decided not to build one in my living room.
Your post suggest a lack of familiarity with firearms, people do hunt with hand guns they are not very effective hunting firearms, basically hand guns are made to shoot human beings, the greater the lethality of a particular handgun determines how effective it is , as to the ar15 " Point target effective range: 550 meters (602 yards)" " American Minuteman " personally I think that's a bit of exaggeration .223 has lost a lot of energy at that range, I have no data on hand but think the military would have a shorter effective range, someone is likely to give better info

[MDLNB]

Cars are dangerous instrumentalities. We register our cars. We pass a driving test to drive this inherently dangerous thing.

We should demand that each and every gun in America be registered. We should demand that each and every gun owner pass a mental fitness test and a rigorous test as to a gun's usage.

Unlike cars, however, we should demand that any person wishing to own more than one gun, PROVE their need!

And, in my plan, anyone not registering all their guns and taking the required tests would be guilty of a criminal act subject to jail time.

Of course, law abiding citizens would want to comply and seek compliance. But, criminals and gun nuts (aka criminals) would forego compliance. Give the coppers another chance to lock these folks up.

Perhaps we might ultimately realize that gun ownership is counterproductive in our society. Then, only criminals and gun nuts will own guns.

Almost all other civilized countries in the world have gotten their arms around gun violence. Shootings in Western Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand have annual shootings of people in the the low two digit range while we have over 30,000. Some like Australia historically had a gun heritage similar to our own (think Wild West). But, when they experienced a nut case going off the rails and shooting up a bunch of people, they got together and realized they could not keep going on this way. Mass ownership of guns in Australia is a thing of the past. New Zealand recently did the same thing. It is not unusual in the UK for instance to be in Southeastern England to have the BBC report a shooting (not a killing) that occured in Scotland, such is the uniqueness of gun violence there. Here, we don't even hear of a killing by a gun being reported in the next neighborhood over.

The time has come for all people, gun owners and non gun owners to demand action.

Ultimately, we should just ban guns...totally....except for cops and military.

For those who argue, guns don't kill people, people kill people, I would argue its a lot easier to ban guns than people. If people want to kill others, let them do it the old fashion way, with fists and stones. We would have a lot fewer mass killings!


This is the U.S. of America, not the United Socialist States of Amerika. We have a Constitution that limits what the gov can do to us. Thank goodness!

[Blackbird45]

Your post suggest a lack of familiarity with firearms, people do hunt with hand guns they are not very effective hunting firearms, basically hand guns are made to shoot human beings, the greater the lethality of a particular handgun determines how effective it is , as to the ar15 " Point target effective range: 550 meters (602 yards)" " American Minuteman " personally I think that's a bit of exaggeration .223 has lost a lot of energy at that range, I have no data on hand but think the military would have a shorter effective range, someone is likely to give better info

I believe you misunderstood my post. I'm not suggesting a ban on hand guns or hunting rifles. The AR 15 was design to kill people and I'm not even saying to ban them.
All I'm am saying that these weapons should be confined to a gun range. You want to experience of this type of weapon you either buy one and keep it in a locker at the range or you rent one at the range. This type of weapon has no business on the American streets.

[MDLNB]

Let's be reasonable, as a gun owner I am not advocating the banning of guns, but there are some firearms that do not belong in a civil society. AR 15s and weapons of that type were designed to kill people. Not for hunting and not for home or self-protection. Here is a weapon that even in a novice's hands can fire 30 rounds per minute. It has a range of about two football fields and has the power to crush bone and vaporize organs. I'm not saying you can't own one, but maybe they will have to be confined to an official gun range. Where you can own or rent one for the day. I like roller coasters, but for practical reasons I've decided not to build one in my living room.


All guns are designed to "kill people." The statement "Not for hunting and not for home protection" doesn't make sense, since hunting and self-protection would seem to indicate the ability to kill with the firearm. Have you ever heard of a Mosin Nagant Russian rifle? Invented in the 1800's and you can still purchase them from military surplus. They are a bolt action rifle that was used in combat/war. Very powerful and was also used as a sniper rifle. Many purchase it in America and surely in other countries as a cheap hunting rifle. An M1 Garand is a semiautomatic military surplus weapon that fires powerful bullets loaded by an 8 round clip, not a magazine. You can also get the MIa which has the ability to select fully automatic and uses a 20 round magazine. Is that an assault weapon? Folks purchase these old military weapons for hunting and/or target shooting and competition. Labeling a firearm as being lethal is almost humorous if not so serious. The old guns are more powerful than the newer, smaller cal rifles, but are generally heavier and usually have less ammo capacity.

Millions own firearms, but only one in millions decides to become a mass murderer. One too many? Ok, then concentrate on the one in the millions, not the law abiding millions of good citizen gun owners.

Ever play "wack a mole?" One person attempts to use a mallet to knock down a mole that may pop up at any given time from a choice of many holes. One person is responsible for the mole. Now, give ten people a mallet and tell them to cover an assigned hole or holes and see how that works out.

There has been millions of lives saved by good citizens carrying firearms. A lot more saved than murdered.

[MDLNB]

I understand that you are a safe, responsible gun owner but why on earth do you need three guns?


I owned over a dozen firearms and my wife said that I had enough. So, I bought her a new gun and she is happy. Why? Why not? Some folks enjoy collecting and some enjoy target shooting or hunting. I know a guy that owns several motorcycles. He can only drive one at a time. Why? Because he enjoys different types of rides. If a person does not harm others, why does it matter their reasoning?

[Engine12]

In the process of downsizing, recently sold the motorcycle and snowmobile and going to sell one of the ATV’s and several firearms, only going keep the 9mm Sig, the Marlin lever action 22, the Savage Arms bolt action 30-06, and Thompson Center Fire muzzleloader. That being said, I would be crazy to trade in any of my firearms, which are worth significant $$$, for a $50 gas card. And the world won’t be any safer when I downsize since the firearms are always locked in a safe unless being used for hunting or target practice. But I will be happier, since I’ll get much more use out of the new Yamaha Quiet Tech that I buy with the sale proceeds : (

You mean your guns don’t go out on their own and shoot people ? Your firearms must be defective, because a lot of the public think guns kill people . 😂

[Blackbird45]

The other day a reporter asked a simple question why the United States is the one with this problem and other countries are not.
Now all countries have mental illness, they all watch the same violent movies, and they all play the same video games. DA! what could possibly the difference between us and them?

[tophcfa]

I understand that you are a safe, responsible gun owner but why on earth do you need three guns?

At first I thought this was a stupid question, but then realized it’s a naive question from someone who knows basically absolutely nothing about guns. There are several reasons to own multiple guns. Hand guns are very different than rifles. Semi automatics, revolvers, bolt action, break barrel, pump action, lever action, muzzleloaders, are all different and offer the shooter different experiences. Different calibers or shot types have different applications. Bird hunters use a scatter gun (shot gun with different choke tubes), while hunting small game (varmint hunting) a 22 or 223 would be appropriate. Bear, moose, or elk hunting would require something like a 30-06. Some hunting requires a firearm for close shots in a wooded area while others require very long shots in open areas. Hunting regulations are another reason to own several guns. In Massachusetts there are three deer seasons, archery, shot gun, and muzzleloader, but one can travel to a neighboring state and use a center file rifle such as a 30 30 or 30-06. During the day one can hunt coyotes with a center fire 223, but after dark must use a rim fire 22. Many hunting firearms are designed for specific game targets or hunting situations, and regulations often require hunters to own several guns. Hope that answers your question.

[MDLNB]

If offered, I would not sell "back" any of my firearms. Each has a different intended function, and some are collector items. I enjoy shooting all of them. That said, I have no problem with any gov entity that wishes to remove unwanted firearms from those wishing to get rid of them. My problem would be if the gov wished to FORCE a buy back of citizen's firearms. I don't see that happening anytime real soon. Before I leave this world, I intend on giving my children my firearms for their collection. I already gave a few away to my grandson that enjoys hunting. Hunting is a necessary function of assisting ecology when there is an over population of certain species, where there is a lessening of natural predators. Supposedly, there are more deer in the U.S. now than in 1900.
I do not have even one firearm that isn't worth more than twice the $50 they are offering in trade. So, I imagine they might get some junk firearms off the street, but nothing of value. I'm sure it made for a great photo OP though.

[Blackbird45]

At first I thought this was a stupid question, but then realized it’s a naive question from someone who knows basically absolutely nothing about guns. There are several reasons to own multiple guns. Hand guns are very different than rifles. Semi automatics, revolvers, bolt action, break barrel, pump action, lever action, muzzleloaders, are all different and offer the shooter different experiences. Different calibers or shot types have different applications. Bird hunters use a scatter gun (shot gun with different choke tubes), while hunting small game (varmint hunting) a 22 or 223 would be appropriate. Bear, moose, or elk hunting would require something like a 30-06. Some hunting requires a firearm for close shots in a wooded area while others require very long shots in open areas. Hunting regulations are another reason to own several guns. In Massachusetts there are three deer seasons, archery, shot gun, and muzzleloader, but one can travel to a neighboring state and use a center file rifle such as a 30 30 or 30-06. During the day one can hunt coyotes with a center fire 223, but after dark must use a rim fire 22. Many hunting firearms are designed for specific game targets or hunting situations, and regulations often require hunters to own several guns. Hope that answers your question.

I totally agree you should own as many guns as you want. But AI also notice you did not mention assault weapons. There is no need for these things to be on our streets. Again you want the experience of this type of firearm, they should be restricted to gun ranges and not permitted to leave the grounds.

[MDLNB]

I totally agree you should own as many guns as you want. But AI also notice you did not mention assault weapons. There is no need for these things to be on our streets. Again you want the experience of this type of firearm, they should be restricted to gun ranges and not permitted to leave the grounds.


All guns are or can be "assault weapons" so how are you going to define the term? No one else seems to understand the term. A musket was an assault weapon when the Constitution was created. A pistol can be an assault weapon. An ax can be an assault weapon. Anything used to attack another person or persons can be construed as an assault weapon.

[MDLNB]

“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them. Which would include their own government.” - George Washington

"When the government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens' duty to take away the government's right to govern." - George Washington

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” - Ronald Reagan

"Guns don't make criminals," Reagan said. "Hard-core criminals use guns, and locking them up and throwing away the key is the best gun control law we could ever have.” - Ronald Reagan

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." - John F. Kennedy

[Blackbird45]

“A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them. Which would include their own government.” - George Washington

"When the government takes away citizens' right to bear arms it becomes citizens' duty to take away the government's right to govern." - George Washington

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” - Ronald Reagan

"Guns don't make criminals," Reagan said. "Hard-core criminals use guns, and locking them up and throwing away the key is the best gun control law we could ever have.” - Ronald Reagan

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." - John F. Kennedy

In the days of Washington all men had the same weapons. It was the duty of citizens to take up arms if the government were to try to impose another king. Today that is not the case. You, your neighbor could arm yourselves with all the assault weapons you want but if a tyrant takes over the government you're not going to be able stop it. This is not a Hollywood movies. Assume I am an evil ruler and my general comes into the oval office, interrupts me from watching The Price Is Right, while I'm eating my PB&J.
He informs me that we are meeting resistance in The Village. My instruction would be as follows: send a drone to take out the whole block and if continues flatten The Villages.
Now I know this is totally ridicules, but what I'm trying to get across, if the day ever comes where this country is taken over by a dictators, there are no weapons that can match what the government has stock pilled.

[MDLNB]

In the days of Washington all men had the same weapons. It was the duty of citizens to take up arms if the government were to try to impose another king. Today that is not the case. You, your neighbor could arm yourselves with all the assault weapons you want but if a tyrant takes over the government you're not going to be able stop it. This is not a Hollywood movies. Assume I am an evil ruler and my general comes into the oval office, interrupts me from watching The Price Is Right, while I'm eating my PB&J.
He informs me that we are meeting resistance in The Village. My instruction would be as follows: send a drone to take out the whole block and if continues flatten The Villages.
Now I know this is totally ridicules, but what I'm trying to get across, if the day ever comes where this country is taken over by a dictators, there are no weapons that can match what the government has stock pilled.


Perhaps so. Especially when folks have a losing attitude. From what I have seen in my lifetime, Americans are generally not that way. I wonder if Ukrainians feel the same way. Probably not, or they would not be hanging on so long against the overwhelming forces of Russia. I bet there were many Colonialists that felt that they might lose against the great force of Great Brit.

But, I think you may have missed the quote from President Reagan above, that pretty much fits the current situation.

[MrFlorida]

Let's be reasonable, as a gun owner I am not advocating the banning of guns, but there are some firearms that do not belong in a civil society. AR 15s and weapons of that type were designed to kill people. Not for hunting and not for home or self-protection. Here is a weapon that even in a novice's hands can fire 30 rounds per minute. It has a range of about two football fields and has the power to crush bone and vaporize organs. I'm not saying you can't own one, but maybe they will have to be confined to an official gun range. Where you can own or rent one for the day. I like roller coasters, but for practical reasons I've decided not to build one in my living room.

Obviously, you don't participate in shooting matches, such as 3 gun events....if you did, you would know that an AR 15 is a very precise target rifle.

[Trayderjoe]

Gas for guns.

They offered gift cards for $50 of gas for guns - legal or illegal - and ran out of cards the first day - LOL!

Dozens of guns turned in to Sacramento Police in exchange for gift cards (https://fox40.com/news/local-news/over-130-guns-received-at-sacramento-polices-gas-for-guns-buyback-event/)

See what you started? :icon_wink:

I see absolutely nothing wrong with these buy back programs (who cares what they are called), especially with the offer of amnesty. Reality is that it is a “spoonful from an ocean”, and it isn’t going to get those “scary assault weapons” (typed with ALOT of sarcasm) off of the streets, so it is symbolic. However, what if there was a nationwide one week/one weekend amnesty program? It would still be symbolic, but perhaps people might feel as if something to move the needle forward is being done?

Since it is voluntary, no one is compelled to participate. Worried about the tax dollars spent? I am pretty sure we can all agree that the government has wasted more tax dollars than this.

I’ll pick an average of 1000 guns per state that are turned in. This is a WAG, so let’s not debate a higher or lower amount as this is purely theoretical. So with 50 states participating, the cost of the “buy back” to tax payers @$50 per firearm is $2,500,000 not including salaries, supplies, transportation and disposal costs. Please, this is still theoretical!

Both the government and the NRA can issue a joint statement in support of the buyback and can tout the results. Yes, most of the weapons may be in essence junk, but it will also remove functional firearms that are in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them (for whatever reason) or as in my note below, don’t want them at all.

On a personal note, I suggested to a party in another state that they take advantage of an upcoming amnesty buy back program. Without going into details, they found themselves unexpectedly in violation of the law involving a fully functional firearm. I wouldn’t trust just calling the police to collect the weapon (and won’t go into details why), so rather than paying an attorney to get them legal, I suggested the amnesty program. I told them to wrap up the firearm, put it in the trunk of the car and drive directly to where the firearms were being collected and turn it in. Note that they did not want to keep the firearm at all, so becoming “legal” AND retaining the weapon was not their goal.

[RickyLee]

In the process of downsizing, recently sold the motorcycle and snowmobile and going to sell one of the ATV’s and several firearms, only going keep the 9mm Sig, the Marlin lever action 22, the Savage Arms bolt action 30-06, and Thompson Center Fire muzzleloader. That being said, I would be crazy to trade in any of my firearms, which are worth significant $$$, for a $50 gas card. And the world won’t be any safer when I downsize since the firearms are always locked in a safe unless being used for hunting or target practice. But I will be happier, since I’ll get much more use out of the new Yamaha Quiet Tech that I buy with the sale proceeds : (

Forward me a priced list, I may be interested in a few. Rick rickyleehall@gmail.com

[Blackbird45]

I have come to the conclusion no matter what someone does to try to find a compromise it will always end up, that owners of guns will not admit there is a gun problem. Video games, violent movies, mentally ill people, to many doors in schools. Their solution is to arm teachers, until comes the day a teacher loose it and shots one or more students. Then the next step will be a bill which I will call gummy and guns. Where each parent will be responsible to put a gun in their child backpack next to their gummy bears.
This line that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun does not always work. At the Top supermarket there was a retired cop working as a guard with a gun, no question he ended up becoming a hero and he also end up dead and the killer kept killing.

[Joe C.]

Let's be reasonable, as a gun owner I am not advocating the banning of guns, but there are some firearms that do not belong in a civil society. AR 15s and weapons of that type were designed to kill people. Not for hunting and not for home or self-protection. Here is a weapon that even in a novice's hands can fire 30 rounds per minute. It has a range of about two football fields and has the power to crush bone and vaporize organs. I'm not saying you can't own one, but maybe they will have to be confined to an official gun range. Where you can own or rent one for the day. I like roller coasters, but for practical reasons I've decided not to build one in my living room.
All firearms are weapons that are designed to kill, or at least put a hole in something. Whether it's a paper target, animal or human, it doesn't make a difference. You can kill with a blackpowder musket or an AR-15 or a Winchester 94. Oh, BTW, you can kill with a car, too. The problem is the person behind the firearm. Responsibility is key!

[jimjamuser]

hmm, I don't agree, it means fewer guns in circulation. If a million cities did that (I don't think we have a million cities even if you count towns) it would remove 134 million guns.

Not going to happen, it is just a symbol. But, symbols are good. The Flag is a symbol. It wont stop a bullet, but it is still good to have.
Just gave me an idea - I think that I will start producing kevlar flags. Wrap yourself securely in old glory!

[jimjamuser]

After 9-11 they didn’t ban airplanes they secured the cockpits!

When the #@$%§ eject GOD from everything and insert Worldly ways into everything, this is what “We” get”! Evil in everything🧐
Got to hate those "worldly ways".

[jimjamuser]

I suspect that the NRA would gladly agree to make fully automatic firearms, bump stocks, ghost guns, and large capacity magazines illegal if the government in turn would agree to draw the line there. No responsible gun owner besides Military or LEO’s has any functional need for those. The problem is that if the NRA were to give up those first lines of defense, there are those in the government that will endlessly keep trying to chip away at all firearms, including hunting, target practice, and self defense. Gun owners don’t want their hunting firearms to be the next first line of defense in the crosshairs of the government.
The "slippery slope" theory is alive and well., I'll bet that the NRA PR executive that came up with that slogan got a $100,000 bonus!

[jimjamuser]

This is the U.S. of America, not the United Socialist States of Amerika. We have a Constitution that limits what the gov can do to us. Thank goodness!
Europe, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand are NOT exactly " "commie" counties. They are classified as democracies just like the US.

[Westie Man]

but they were paying $75 each and that was over 10 years ago

[Blackbird45]

I hate to say this, but covid will bare me out. How many anti vaccine advocates did we see who were on their death beds and were telling people, covid was no joke and to get vaccinated.

Unfortunately, many firearm advocates will not come to the table until it directly hits them. If they lose a child or grandchild many will change their view. I hope it doesn't come to that, but that's what it looks like to me.

[jimjamuser]

All guns are designed to "kill people." The statement "Not for hunting and not for home protection" doesn't make sense, since hunting and self-protection would seem to indicate the ability to kill with the firearm. Have you ever heard of a Mosin Nagant Russian rifle? Invented in the 1800's and you can still purchase them from military surplus. They are a bolt action rifle that was used in combat/war. Very powerful and was also used as a sniper rifle. Many purchase it in America and surely in other countries as a cheap hunting rifle. An M1 Garand is a semiautomatic military surplus weapon that fires powerful bullets loaded by an 8 round clip, not a magazine. You can also get the MIa which has the ability to select fully automatic and uses a 20 round magazine. Is that an assault weapon? Folks purchase these old military weapons for hunting and/or target shooting and competition. Labeling a firearm as being lethal is almost humorous if not so serious. The old guns are more powerful than the newer, smaller cal rifles, but are generally heavier and usually have less ammo capacity.

Millions own firearms, but only one in millions decides to become a mass murderer. One too many? Ok, then concentrate on the one in the millions, not the law abiding millions of good citizen gun owners.

Ever play "wack a mole?" One person attempts to use a mallet to knock down a mole that may pop up at any given time from a choice of many holes. One person is responsible for the mole. Now, give ten people a mallet and tell them to cover an assigned hole or holes and see how that works out.

There has been millions of lives saved by good citizens carrying firearms. A lot more saved than murdered.
I am being a little picky at a detail. But, the 1st statement that all guns are designed to kill people IS NOT perfectly accurate. Obviously, BB guns are GUNS. but they were designed to break glass bottles, hit cans, and maybe kill small birds (hopefully only starlings, which are NOT a native bird) - I digressed, sorry.
.........A 22 rimfire can possibly, in unlikely circumstances, kill a human - but, it was designed to kill small game and varmints (rats and snakes).
...........Anything as powerful or more powerful than a 38 special can be said to have been designed to kill or wound humans. Sorry for the splitting of hairs!

[jimjamuser]

I am being a little picky at a detail. But, the 1st statement that all guns are designed to kill people IS NOT perfectly accurate. Obviously, BB guns are GUNS. but they were designed to break glass bottles, hit cans, and maybe kill small birds (hopefully only starlings, which are NOT a native bird) - I digressed, sorry.
.........A 22 rimfire can possibly, in unlikely circumstances, kill a human - but, it was designed to kill small game and varmints (rats and snakes).
...........Anything as powerful or more powerful than a 38 special can be said to have been designed to kill or wound humans. Sorry for the splitting of hairs!

[nancyre]

Another time the Buy back ran out and the gangs set up shop nearby and purchased the firearms for the same amount. The gangs got a new stockpile.
BTW often with these things they run out of cash or cards. Yonkers NY ran out of funds 3 x and had to schedule another day. Meanwhile folks were transporting these firearms around.

[Monika Greiner]

The "slippery slope" theory is alive and well., I'll bet that the NRA PR executive that came up with that slogan got a $100,000 bonus!

I am going to add my two cents to this conversation. AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle Model 15. It is not an assault rifle as an assault weapon is capable of firing full automatic (pull and hold the trigger and the weapon will keep firing at a rapid rate until the magazine is empty). I wish the news media knew the difference. I think the closest most of them have been to a firearm is a picture in a magazine. All firearms are designed to kill even pellet guns which are technically not firearms. Most AR-15s are in caliber 223 Remington. In some states it is illegal to hunt deer with a 223 as it is considered to small to humanly kill a deer. You can also get an AR style rifle in 22LR which is basically a squirrel and rabbit gun. Do people hunt with AR RIFLES? Yes! Why! They are light in weight, adjustable to fit different size people very light in recoil. They are used for varmint hunting and in Texas they are used to reduce the population of wild hogs. There are 400 to 500 million guns owned by 100 million or so people in America. One non gun owner ask why you need more than one gun. There are a little more than 25 million active golf players in American and most have 14 clubs in their bag. I have about 36 clubs in my garage not including a couple of dozen clubs belonging to my wife. While a 9 iron can be used to replace a broken PW it does not work very well as a driver. Same thing with guns. For the person who suggested in jest I hope that we go back to killing people the old fashioned way (sticks, rocks, knives, etc) suggest you check the FBI web site and you can see that more people are killed in the US each year with knives, fist, blunt objects than all types of rifles combined. In Europe with all of the immigrants who have arrived the weapons of choice are knives.

[jimjamuser]

In the days of Washington all men had the same weapons. It was the duty of citizens to take up arms if the government were to try to impose another king. Today that is not the case. You, your neighbor could arm yourselves with all the assault weapons you want but if a tyrant takes over the government you're not going to be able stop it. This is not a Hollywood movies. Assume I am an evil ruler and my general comes into the oval office, interrupts me from watching The Price Is Right, while I'm eating my PB&J.
He informs me that we are meeting resistance in The Village. My instruction would be as follows: send a drone to take out the whole block and if continues flatten The Villages.
Now I know this is totally ridicules, but what I'm trying to get across, if the day ever comes where this country is taken over by a dictators, there are no weapons that can match what the government has stock pilled.
If it WERE ever necessary to fight back against a US tyrannical government, the weapon of CHOICE would be a bolt action sniper rifle that had long-range accuracy up to 1000 yards in a caliber like a 300 Winchester Magnum. A 223 caliber semi-auto AR 15 type rifle is for short-range firefights and would NOT be as useful for snipers. A sniper needs to shoot from long distance and then relocate or hide their rifle against an established tyrannical government.

[thevillages2013]

I understand that you are a safe, responsible gun owner but why on earth do you need three guns?

Hell, if two of them jamb you better have a backup. Bottom line is it is none of anyone’s business how many guns he or anyone else has that are responsible gun owners. Believe it or not there are people who are not terrified by gun ownership. Very smart people

[Monika Greiner]

If it WERE ever necessary to fight back against a US tyrannical government, the weapon of CHOICE would be a bolt action sniper rifle that had long-range accuracy up to 1000 yards in a caliber like a 300 Winchester Magnum. A 223 caliber semi-auto AR 15 type rifle is for short-range firefights and would NOT be as useful for snipers. A sniper needs to shoot from long distance and then relocate or hide their rifle against an established tyrannical government.
Totally agree with you! One responded said all guns should be registered with the government. Totally disagree with him! Go on line and you can see translations of Hitler posters that were posted in Germany and countries he invaded saying you had24 hours to turn in your weapons and of course they knew who had weapons as they were registered at the local court house. One thing I think we should consider doing would be to register body armor if you want to buy it much like buying a sound suppresser. If you need body armor as a civilian what are you planning. The last two mass shooters were both wearing body armor.

[thevillages2013]

Give the bought back guns to teachers that want them and allow them to carry them in the schools! BOOM

[biker1]

Not necessary or even wanted. Teachers would need extensive training in order to deal with the adrenaline rush and stress. If all schools were treated like Government buildings it would be hard for these sorts of tragedies to happen. You can't easily get into any Government building without being scrutinized.

Give the bought back guns to teachers that want them and allow them to carry them in the schools! BOOM

[Monika Greiner]

Was

[biker1]

Good point. Also, about 60% of deaths by firearms are suicides.

I am going to add my two cents to this conversation. AR-15 stands for Armalite Rifle Model 15. It is not an assault rifle as an assault weapon is capable of firing full automatic (pull and hold the trigger and the weapon will keep firing at a rapid rate until the magazine is empty). I wish the news media knew the difference. I think the closest most of them have been to a firearm is a picture in a magazine. All firearms are designed to kill even pellet guns which are technically not firearms. Most AR-15s are in caliber 223 Remington. In some states it is illegal to hunt deer with a 223 as it is considered to small to humanly kill a deer. You can also get an AR style rifle in 22LR which is basically a squirrel and rabbit gun. Do people hunt with AR RIFLES? Yes! Why! They are light in weight, adjustable to fit different size people very light in recoil. They are used for varmint hunting and in Texas they are used to reduce the population of wild hogs. There are 400 to 500 million guns owned by 100 million or so people in America. One non gun owner ask why you need more than one gun. There are a little more than 25 million active golf players in American and most have 14 clubs in their bag. I have about 36 clubs in my garage not including a couple of dozen clubs belonging to my wife. While a 9 iron can be used to replace a broken PW it does not work very well as a driver. Same thing with guns. For the person who suggested in jest I hope that we go back to killing people the old fashioned way (sticks, rocks, knives, etc) suggest you check the FBI web site and you can see that more people are killed in the US each year with knives, fist, blunt objects than all types of rifles combined. In Europe with all of the immigrants who have arrived the weapons of choice are knives.

[Number 10 GI]

I understand that you are a safe, responsible gun owner but why on earth do you need three guns?

Why does someone need three guns? I shoot in competitions that require different firearms so that is why I need multiple guns. At one time I owned 5 automobiles at the same time when 2 cars would have been all I "needed" but I had a use for each of them. It's no one's business what I own and what I need. If the ownership is legal, what is the problem other than your desire to force your beliefs on me.

[Stu from NYC]

Not necessary or even wanted. Teachers would need extensive training in order to deal with the adrenaline rush and stress. If all schools were treated like Government buildings it would be hard for these sorts of tragedies to happen. You can't easily get into any Government building without being scrutinized.

If a teacher is willing and able to get this training why would this be wrong?

[MartinSE]

Not necessary or even wanted. Teachers would need extensive training in order to deal with the adrenaline rush and stress. If all schools were treated like Government buildings it would be hard for these sorts of tragedies to happen. You can't easily get into any Government building without being scrutinized.

Absolutely agree. Giving guns to teachers that don't want them and have never fired them, and the telling them a teenager on an adrenaline high is going to purst into your class with 2 semi-automatic weapons firing as fast as he can. We want you to pull your gun and try to shoot him before you get shot or pass out or shoot a student or 3 because you are shaking so much.

Bad idea since it was first conceived.

Who do you think the shooter is going to shoot first?

I agree,

1. Harden schools with a single point of entry secured with biometric ID checking. Cards will get lost or stolen.

2. Implement national universal background checks, which would include unsealing minor records - this shooter was 18, he did not commit any crimes, and or get convicted in the two days since his birthday.

3. Implement a national wide system of training and apprenticeships for active shooter training. NO Officer without actual experience is allowed on a case. "Fireteams" of 3 to 5 stationed within 3 to 5 minutes of schools via helicopter transport. They have NO other jobs while on duty, duty can be rotated so they are not too "bored" between shootings.

4. Automated gunshot detection systems in and around schools to detect the number, type, and location of gunshots in school and send that info to the designated team who will arrive within 5 minutes with knowledge of how many shooters, what kind of guns, and where they are located. (AI-based detection can give a "good guess" to the type of weapon, multiple microphones around and in the school can triangulate on the location, and possibly provide live voice/sound streams to the fire team so they can hear what is going on. This would be expensive. But I am sure there are smarter people that me that can figure out how to "timeshare" the teams or something to reduce the cost.

That will not STOP the problem, but it will seriously reduce it.

[MartinSE]

If a teacher is willing and able to get this training why would this be wrong?

Have you ever faced an active shooter high on adrenaline?

Have you ever read reports of trained police officers accidentally shooting innocent bystanders in a firefight? (I have)

There are training videos on youtube that show how actual highly trained officers can make serious mistakes in high adrenaline situations.

Then imagine if the teacher is nervous - shaking and misses the active shooter but kills multiple children that are in the room... Too much risk of things going sideways. There is no way a teacher can be just trained and be an asset in that situation the first time they face it.

The police in this shooting apparently had active shooter training, but NO experience. And it appears there was a lot of confusion and possibly even mistakes. That is NOT an attack on the police. I am sure they did the best they could. But, the first time in a fire fight is not a good place to be.

[biker1]

It would be better to just secure the buildings, really secure the buildings, then arming teachers won't be necessary.

If a teacher is willing and able to get this training why would this be wrong?

[Moderator]

This thread has turned into just another gun control debate. We already have a very lengthy one of those.