Coolbeverage, read more carefully. Either that or quit pointing fingers. Finger pointing because you cannot hear the ideas and suggestions you disagree with will make you seem foolish.

Terry, I don't know which would be more challenging. Hitting something with an AK-47 at 300 meters, or hitting something with a .308 at 1000 meters. both would be nearly impossible shots. For example, if your .308 were sighted in at 25 and 125 yards (I imagine you understand the curved trajectory of a bullet), you'd probably have to aim something like 30 feet above that target 1000 yards away. Or more. I am no ballistic expert and these figures are WAG's, but my point is that a 1000 yard shot is not something that can even be conceived except by an expert, and you'd want to use a gun designed for muzzle velocity like a .222 or 22-250. My grandfather, who was a ballistic expert, was fairly proud of killing a rock chuck at nearly 700 yards, with a .222.

Good to see that the CATO Institute is still the master of misinformation and the over-reaching conclusion. I am an opponent of gun control, by they way, so it's not like I don't favor their overall thrust, but I have read CATO stuff many times over the years and while I have not had the frustration of having to analyze their reports in my current job during the last two years, a click on one of the links above tells me their research methods still resemble a Warner Brothers cartoon. Looks like it's easy to work conservatives into a lather. Sorry if this feels insulting to someone, but if anyone is convinced that loaded guns are better for kids than unloaded ones, or unlocked ones better than locked ones, then you should really look at your own gullibility.

Comparing apples to oranges there Supe. .308 and AK both fire a .30 caliber bullet. Difference is AK is designed to deliver reliable high rate of fire with reasonable accuracy for it's intended purpose, to wound the enemy.

You are right about the relative impossibility of the 1000 yard .308 shot, although the 300 yard AK, again .308, is not out of the question.

You are right about the holdover required for such long shots with lightweight bullets. Here's an example:

.308 180g bullet Mv = 3100fps 500yd v= 2251 fps holdover = 40" @ 500 yds
.224 70g bullet Mv=3399fps 500yd v=1360 fps holdover = >60" @ 500 yds.
I may have told a rock chuck story or two in my day also.
;)

Unless you think that crime fighters can predict the future there is no way to prevent all crime. Thats why there is the legal system and jails.

For that reason the answer for the bus driver's family is to convict and incarcerate that kid.

And to those right wingers that want to turn this discussion into a liberal bashing session, like supe I am also a center leaning lib who is all for the second amendment.

Liberalism is about empowering the individual and self defense is a critical right that everyone should have.

Just because some leftist fools get caught up in the anti-gun scam does not mean being on the left end of the political spectrum and being anti-gun are directly related.

Greed and selfishness appear to be the only properties that appear to be distributed towards one end of that spectrum. ;)

I should have rephrased better. Is there anything that can be done to preclude such instances like this bus driver being killed? Or the wacko with the assault weapon that killed several people in SF years ago?

Since the kid got the gun from somewhere, could we prosecute the supplier, parents, somehow?

Or is this something we throw up our hands and say there is nothing we can do?

Is there a pro-gun person with an answer. Your turn , Coolbeverage. Or is there no problem from your perspective?

People have been killing people as long as there have been people.

I am not saying there is nothing that can be done about this problem, but keeping people away from sharp and dangerous objects is not one of them.

If you want to keep people from killing each other you need to fix a lot of things related to socio-economics and our culture, not what kinds of dangerous items people can purchase.

By the time people are ready to kill each other you are already too late and thats the reason why gun bans are futile.

How about a small step? Is there a way to keep guns from kids?

Unfortunately the guns for self-defence idealogy seems to be at odds with that goal. A gun locked away in a cabinet (with ammunition locked away somewhere in a different location) is not much use in defending one's home.

Smart parents, but thats a bit hard to legislate.

Most states have laws that hold parents legally liable for leaving their guns where there kids can get them, so that at least takes care of the borderline parents who will only be somewhat responsible under the threat of potential incarceration.

Now that I have a young child my immediate access to a gun is a bit limited, but given enough time I can get to a ready to use weapon. As an immediate solution I keep a bat at the bedside and front door.

Stevepaa wants to take away my "assault weapons". Can you define them for me? Do you know what the AWB (94) did? Did it work?

Please don't beat up on the AK. I have 3 and dig them. Which ones don't you like? The 47 or the 74? Anyone know the difference? Not accurate out to 300 meters? How about the Dragonov? That one chambers 7.62x54 which pretty much outruns the 308 (7.62x51).
How about the Galil? Considered by some to be one of the finest battle rifles around, but scratch the surface and its an AK. These guns were designed to be cheap to build and run just about forever. You want close tolerances take one of my ARs (just don't get to close to dirt, or water, or sand......you get the idea). I can hand you an AK and you will be field stripping that baby in seconds (almost as easy as my FAL but thats another story) don't try that with an AR......... Will my AK outshoot my Remmy 700 PSS in 308? I certainly hope not but they are different tools intended for different applications.

While we are on the topic anyone who thinks the 50BMG is not an absolutely incredible round has never shot one or been in the vicinity when one is being fired. Whether spit from a ma deuce, an M82A1 or a Serbu......... yahoo.

Molon Labe...........

Pete, no i am not a gun person, so I would leave the definition up to people who know more, but maybe you have a solution without gun control?

But the gist of the pro-gun lobby is that the causes for that kid killing the bus driver are socio-econmic and cultural, and there is not a thing that we should do regarding guns to prevent the same thing happenign tomorrow. Except to arm everyone with guns.

They need to offer something better, if they want anyone to take them seriously.

Define "kids".

Why should we "keep them away"? How do you "keep them away" from sex for instance?

Maybe as suggested parents start acting like parents and take some responsibility. I have been shooting since I was very young and I got my first gun when I was 10 or so. On the other hand, I was never allowed to have a BB or pellet gun nor even a "cap" gun. Apparently my father wasn't real keen on me learning to point a "fake " gun at anyone so that wasn't a habit I had to unlearn when I had the real thing.

I don't have kids but I still secure my weapons properly regardless. I don't leave the keys in my ignition either. Gun ownership is a right , but with that right comes an enormous responsibility I am still wondering why those two things don't always go together.

"Gun ownership is a right , but with that right comes an enormous responsibility I am still wondering why those two things don't always go together."

I agree, but sometimes we need to put restrictions on people because through experience we learn that they do not take responsibility.

Did you hear a few weeks ago about how high school kids were polled and it was realized that a large percentage actually favored censorship of the media? This group of senators got together and declared that there needed to be better education here. I agree, but now replace the replace the 1st amendment with the 2nd and I wonder if there would be an outcry.

I am no more "pro-gun" than I am "pro-free speech". They are both rights guaranteed by our constitution.

Sometimes tools are misused. Cars are driven by kids that kill people and destroy property, but we seem to accept that as an acceptable risk.

There are loads of laws on the books concerning guns currently, we need to start by enforcing the laws we have. That would be a start.

My personal feeling is that once the liberals eliminate the legal ownership of guns they will find some other way to protect us from ourselves. Better to let them fight the freedom battle in the gun use arena than to find yourself unable to license and drive your car on the road because it has the capability to exceed the speed limit or some other nonsense.

"Lighten up, Francis........"

So if that kid had taken a gallon of gasoline from his parents garage and had murdered half the students on that bus (in an extremely gruesome fashion -- burning them alive), would you then suggest that the parents or supplier be prosecuted?

Let's stop blaming inanimate matter, or people who have nothing to do with the commission of the crime, and start teaching lessons on individual responsible. Of course, individual responsibility is precisely what most liberals are against. Their argument is "everyone is responsible for everyone else."

Hardly, though the 1000 meters with a (Winchester).308 is quite difficult.

No, we are each responsible for our actions.

So the only answer is prosecute the kid? So you think we should apply capital punishment to him?

It is pretty far fetched to consider some kid, dragging 10 5 gallon gas jugs along to burn the bus?

So if he had used sarin, you would still say it is only his fault and not take means to preclude others from doing the same?

So how would you reach these wacko kids and teach them responsibility?

Right now the only thing we can do is prosecute the kid. Kill him or lock him up for life -- makes no difference to me, just as long as he's not walking around free where he can harm me or others. (He's clearly demonstrated that he's a threat; I don't give "second chances" in such matters.)

One gallon of gasoline could easily fit in most kids' school backpacks -- that's more than enough to have killed a large number of children on the bus.

About "sarin" -- now you're presenting a "pretty far fetched" idea.

I'm not particularly interested in "reaching" wacko young adults and "teaching" them anything. I am interested in being able to protect myself from them.

Consider: Everyone on the school bus was prohibited by law from having a firearm; the law didn't stop the criminal, but it did stop the bus driver (and any other adult on the bus) from being armed. The situation could have been very different had the driver been armed.

We as a society really can't reach these kids. Their parents have to do this. Many parents have abrogated their responsibilities in this area and now expect day care or schools to do the job of socializing their kids for them. I rarely had a babysitter growing up and I turned out... Well maybe that's not a good example. :D They say there are no bad dogs, just bad owners and I think that applies to kids to a large extent as well. Sure there will always be a certain small percentage of kids that are truly bad (defective?) but in general I think the number is about the same as it's always been. The rest of the "bad" kids are made as a the result (IMO) of insufficient parenting.

I detect a natural and commendable desire to solve this problem. This is going to sound like I'm being condescending, an old fart or both but as I've gotten older, experience has taught me that many human problems are much subtler and more difficult to understand and fix than I would have thought when I was younger. I think child violence (and violence in general) is one of the problems that is going to resist simple solutions that are applied after the formative years.

-Chris