DFIB

As a lawful gun owner I agree there should be a more ernest effort to close loopholes although the criminal element will always find a way to break the law. This brings us to the question regarding wither or not we need more laws considering that criminals are not known as such for their strict adherence to the rules. Even this last this last guy from Newtown, I will not right his name but will refer to him as "goober smooch" from now on, committed a crime to take possession of the weapons used in the school shooting. This is an interesting concept that I am not sure can ever happen. How could the government make a person responsible for the uncommitted actions of a person they live with, considering that they are not their legal guardians? Even with guardianship it would seem to be a legal nightmare to propose and even more so to get it passed. EDIT: Makes me think of

For every gun that is purchased from a licensed dealer in Texas there is a background check for every purchase. This includes all firearms. If you are buying a rifle, you need an in State ID. Some dealers will not sell to people from out of state. You can not be a felon or have a police record for drugs, wifebeating, or mental illness ( I don't know how they would verify the mental illness) You will fill out a Firearms Transaction Form Part 1 . The dealer will in your presence pick up the phone and call the FBI seeking approval for the purchase. After the FBI approves they will sell you the rifle. Firearms can only be purchased in person. It is a federal crime to make a "straw purchase" for any other person. If you are purchasing a handgun there is an additional five day waiting period. After which you can take possession of your new handgun. This five day waiting period is waived for persons who posses a CCL because they already have a gun stuck in their belt and have already been authorized by the state to posses a firearm. I always find it amusing that the store, for safety reasons, will escort me to the door with a newly purchased weapon and only let me hold it after we are outside. It is amusing because I have a loaded firearm tucked safely away in my belt. I am not looking at the law as I write this but basing the post on my personal purchase experience. I have purchased in many different stores ranging from Wal-Mart to Pawn Shops and the process is always the same. I have no experience with purchasing at gun shows and have never purchased a gun at such an event. So what do you think? Do you think that there should be more background checks in place to purchase firearms in the US?

You wake each other up with a CO2 extinguisher? Sounds like a way to never wake up.

Automatic rifles are not banned but are a very minimal portion of the amount of weapons available. It is possible to purchase them legally but it is very difficult. I entails a sea of paperwork and background checks. It is regulated by the National Firearms Act.

This a professional forum ...... please check your spelling!

I have no relation with anyone in the case but for some reason it haunts me. Probably for the reason you have stated.

Any bullet wound to a child is devastating. So yea, the round argument may not be all that valid.

Children are so small and frail. At close range anything larger than a .22 would be pretty devastating. But you are correct about velocity and damage. Double the mass=double the damage, double the velocity = quadruple the damage. The .223 round devastating because of the great cavitation it produces. On those tiny children it must have been devastating. The .223 is a favorite among varmint hunters precisely because of its velocity. EDIT: It is amazing what people will post on the internet. There is a video of an actual .223 bullet wound on youtube. It is graphic and I don't want to post it, But if you want to know what a .223 round does to flesh, you can look it up

No offence taken. You were right be afraid afraid. Most of them have never fired more than 10 rounds in their entire career. Not even in training. In many departments if they discharge their weapon in the line of duty, their pay is docked for the price of the bullets. They are under-educated, under-trained, poorly paid, armed to the teeth and have a badge. The only way you can trust them is to be close personal friends or family with their boss. Now the same weapon in the hands of an officer you know is trained and educated maybe changes the panorama a little. Edit: I haven't forgotten that I still owe you a story.

And the saga continues. http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/11/30/35075/ex-fullerton-cops-court-friday-kelly-thomas-beatin/

Man, It is a tough call no matter what you do. If it is rape, one of the hospitals should have sampled the discharge and should know what it is. Unless you have a specific directive to report to the police or law enforcement authorities I would leave the reporting to the higher level of care that I transferred to. I mean, you have strong suspicions but after all out "spidey sense" is not proof. I learned that once the patient has been transferred and received then the burden is on the receiving higher level of care. I feel for you and your patient. Best wishes to you.

Gracias

Where did you get your graph? I have seen em on both sides of the argument and really don't know which are true. I saw one that says that baseball bats are the most common weapon. If I can find I again I will post it . I am not saying that it is correct only that there are a lot of graphs floating around.

Gigapixels. Very, very, cool.

The designation "assault rifle" has been used many times in this thread. Besides being a rifle used in the commision of an assault, what do you think is meant by this designation?

No sweat, I am not visceral about the issue. Different strokes for different folks, so to speak. There is always a risk of an insertion of other ideas into what we say especially when talking about this subject. I only comment on this forum about it because I am relatively sure that the conversation will remain intelligent and civil. The vitreous that is espoused in some of the other forums, blogs, FB, etc... is horrendous. As most things in life I carry "While in the US... hehe" (lookin' at you mike) because it is convenient for me. I just thought that since the question was asked I would chime in. I actually have a small firearm by most people's standards because it is so easy to conceal. In Texas a weapon has to be totally concealed, that means that it cannot "print" or be outlined underneath outer garments. As to a weapon placing me in a situation where I would have to use it, I have found that I am even more careful when armed than when I am not. I understand the great responsibility and consecuence of carrying and possibly using a firearm and try to avoid risky situations. I do have a pretty good situational awareness and avoid conflict and confrontation. This is not to say that everyone that carries has the same perspective. EDIT: I googled P90 and that is not what I have.

I am not sure you are talking about me. If you are, I was thinking of the comparison between countries and the contrast that exist. The USA is a huge country with a lot of people a lot of cities and a lot of schools. Statistically with more people and more schools there is at least the increased probability of there being an incident as compared to countries with less people and less schools. If we add all of the other conditions such as the way the Health systems handle mental illness, that schools are defenseless gun free zones, and the amount of guns in circulation, cultural mores and values, and even regional differences the uniqueness of each country becomes more apparent. Absolutely, I am talking about the US, but only because it is relevant to the conversation. I guess for accuracy sake I should say "While in the US ...." There is no legal loaded carry in the other country that I know of. I wish it is possible but until now it is not, although the discussion of legal carry is becoming more common and popular on a grassroots level so to speak.. I am in the US about half the time these days..

I think you have an valid question about availability, but I don't carry because of criminals with guns, I carry because of criminals period. As far as provoking a situation that would make a person decide to fight an armed person, I have no way of understanding what goes on in a criminals mind. I do know that if they are threatening me with aggression or thievery I like the odds a lot better when I have a firearm. I have carried a fire arm for 25 years and thwarted two attempts to at least rob and possibly assault me without anyone getting hurt. Before legal carry I left the firearm in the truck. Before I carried a sidearm I was robbed and assaulted 3 times with very poor results for me. I never ended up in the hospital but did have to seek medical care. I have fared much better with a gun. Once it was a group of 6 young men that were speaking their native language, unaware that I could understand them. They were talking about how they were going to take me down. I let the 6 of them see that I was armed and they decided to look for a softer target. Could they have tried to disarm me? Yes. Did they? No. So I suppose anything is possible although not necessarily probable. Everyone got to go home. No one got hurt. Mission accomplished. I have carried a gun for so long that it is as normal as a pocket knife or keys. I never brag about my weapon of show it to anyone unless there is a reason to. I have extended family that have been surprised to know, that after years of close personal contact, they had never noticed or even suspected I was carrying. I really only mention it here because of the certain anonymity that the forum offers. For me it is a simple decision about what id better for me just like the other hundreds of decisions I make every day. I am glad you bring these questions up. In reality it has been ages since I have thought about this sort of things.

The USA also has 132,183 schools at the elementary and secondary level alone by 2010 statistics. Once this is factored in the percentual incidents decreases dramatically.

In 2007, the city was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation's "10 best towns for families" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

. I cannot speak for anyone but myself but a few reasons come to mind of why I personally have made the decision to carry a sidearm when possible. I carry a sidearm first because it is legal where I live. I carry a sidearm because I am an individual and take responsibility for my own security and actions, including extensive weapons training. I carry because I have a family and am aware that wither I am armed or not there are evil people in the world that given the opportunity would do us harm. I carry because I refuse to be a victim. I carry because my family deserves to have a dad and a provider. I carry because it would be irresponsible on my behalf to allow a person who has made all the wrong choices in life ruin my life achievements through the responsible choices I have made. I carry because I am a law abiding citizen that wishes harm on no person beginning with my family and me. I carry because even the very best police forces in the world are late to the scene of a crime 80% of the time (lowball estimate based on empirical data). I carry because it has been effective in protecting my person and property in more than one occasion when evil doers attempted to assault and rob me, possibly even murder me. We will never know because I had a sidearm which I did not draw or point. I just pulled back my shirt and displayed my holstered weapon and the bad guys decided I was not worth the effort. There are probably other reasons but these are just some that come to mind. Edited for spelling and syntax.

Hey Doc, I found a little time. There are several things that I think we should consider when we think of the 1700's. Everything you mentioned is true but I would interject that the founders had also just defeated the tyranny of England and this surely influenced their thinking. The idea of the 2nd amendment, as I understand it, and I am by no means a constitutional expert,was as much to protect from tyrannical governments as the other threats you mentioned. That anti-federalist ideology, I think, is alive and wel, even today. I do not diminish your threat list but would simply expand it. It is also true that they were armed with weapons that are infinitely inferior to what exist now. I would simply note that the armament in the 1700's was proportional to the threat. So to speak, tyrant armies had the same single shots as the citizens. So in essence we could say that proportionality could continue to be a factor if it is perceived that the Amendment included protecting against tyrannical governments as well. There are tons of gun laws already in existence that are not enforced or totally ignored. This creates the question, do we need discuss the constitution or the failure in enforcing existing laws? Dialog is important. I am afraid that there are too many interest involved to come to a reasonable conclusion.

We must take into account that the USA has 314,000,000 people in it. That would skew they outlier theory a little EDIT: I went back and read your other post. Got it.

I think that a lot of the guns in Mexico do come from the US but not directly. Most are purchased from warehouses of overstock remnants from internal conflicts the USA supported in Central America. The Guatemala - Mexico border is wide open. There is practically no surveillance or accountability outside of the main road border crossings. There are weapons armories just across said border that sell wholesale with no ID required. It is funny that the US president himself promoted the idea that most of the guns come from the US. If I remember correctly a very small percentage can actually be traced to the USA. Well, not so small but most definitely not the 90% that president Obama claimed in his visit to Mexico. http://www.factcheck...xicos_guns.html So the black numbers should be an even lower percentage than. It is just very comfortable for Mexican government to blame the US for it's problems instead at looking at the internal corruptions that allows cartels to proliferate and thousands of Mexican citizens to be slaughtered. Smoke and mirrors. I agree that a lot of weapons in Mexico come from the USA. I also don't think that they all came from the civilian gun market. Like I say, Central American warehouses and weapons the US has sold to the Mexican Navy over the years are the most likely sources. EDIT: The only way to purchase a handgun or rifle legally in Mexico is from the Mexican army. Where does the Mexican army buy the guns they sell? Yep, so not all the weapons in Mex. are smuggled across the US border even if the US is their point of origin. Good points all but I was referring to myself.