Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mickthestick on July 24, 2012, 12:43:24 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/)
Yes, I know it's Fox News, but the statistics are fairly neutral. Seems that the natural, and popular human reaction to this sort of thing is to fortify, not to disarm.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/)
Yes, I know it's Fox News, but the statistics are fairly neutral. Seems that the natural, and popular human reaction to this sort of thing is to fortify, not to disarm.
What do you have against Fox News??? LOL - kidding :noid
That is the more natural reaction I agree. People are starting to open carry more often too as I see it.
-
A friend posted this quote on his facebook, I thought it was appropriate.
"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men" -Saint Augustine
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/24/background-checks-for-guns-in-colorado-reportedly-jump-41-percent-since-movie/)
Yes, I know it's Fox News, but the statistics are fairly neutral. Seems that the natural, and popular human reaction to this sort of thing is to fortify, not to disarm.
Probably a lot more likely that people are getting their guns while they still can because they think a gun ban/heavier restrictions are on the way. Same thing happened just under 4 years ago.
-
Yep, anytime anything remotely looks like it's anti-gun, the prices go through the roof as folks panic buy thinking they'll never get another chance. Ahh don't you love the free market. The joy of suckers born every minute :)
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,336786.0.html
-
I always have a gun next to me since i play with a headset on while my gf sleeps in the next room. however just food for thought, if there had been several people in that theater with guns, there's always a possibility that many more would have gotten killed or hurt as no one would really be sure who the shooter was, or perhaps the shooter would have gotten stopped within the first couple of shots. but with all that smoke and chaos most people only saw shadows in a dark theater.
semp
-
however just food for thought, if there had been several people in that theater with guns, there's always a possibility that many more would have gotten killed or hurt as no one would really be sure who the shooter was, or perhaps the shooter would have gotten stopped within the first couple of shots. but with all that smoke and chaos most people only saw shadows in a dark theater.
semp
That's something I've often thought about, but it never seems to come up when stuff like this happens. I wouldn't trust the average dweeb on the street to make the right choice between Coke and Pepsi, never mind staying clear headed and reacting properly under stress in a situation like that. "If only there'd been an armed citizen there to smite the evildoer." is a really nice thought, but what if there were a dozen of them? Identifying Friend/Foe in a situation like that would be problematic.
Wiley.
-
Yep, anytime anything remotely looks like it's anti-gun, the prices go through the roof as folks panic buy thinking they'll never get another chance. Ahh don't you love the free market. The joy of suckers born every minute :)
Yes, the price of freedom, in any capacity, is that one has to live with the consequences of exercising it...
However, I prefer a system where citizens are allowed to make decisions - however irrational those decisions may sometimes seem - verses the alternative, where those decisions are made for them by governing bodies which, throughout history, have seldom proven to be wiser or more enlightened than the individuals.
-
That's something I've often thought about, but it never seems to come up when stuff like this happens. I wouldn't trust the average dweeb on the street to make the right choice between Coke and Pepsi, never mind staying clear headed and reacting properly under stress in a situation like that. "If only there'd been an armed citizen there to smite the evildoer." is a really nice thought, but what if there were a dozen of them? Identifying Friend/Foe in a situation like that would be problematic.
Wiley.
When I'm staring at a madman with a gun, I'll take the chance that I and anyone else who is armed can shoot him over standing there and getting killed like a sheep any day of the week.
I may get shot by someone thinking I'm the madman with the gun, or I may get shot by someone who did a 1 week CCW course and doesn't know how to use their gun in a stressful situation. But that, to me, is better than standing there powerless to stop a lunatic.
Now if only Texas would hurry up and pass that open carry law.
-
I'm sorry but the argument that guns = freedom doesn't hold water. That is just the simplistic argument put forward by people with a vested interest. It's simplistic because it doesn't take a lot of thought or examination to digest.
Most of Europe is by any definition, free. They have been free for at least the last 150 years. Their freedom didn't come from making high powered, rapid rate of fire, firearms available for every nut job in the area.
This is confusion that plagues the US in comparison to other free countries. The rate of incidences like this is EXTREMELY rare compared to the US.
There is also a huge distance between reasonable and effective gun laws and no guns at all. Instead of seeing things as all on or all off, it would be incredibly more useful to talk about what kinds of laws would reasonably protect the vast majority of people. What we have in this country is insane. Ask the rest of the world, they'll tell you. The right place does not look like Dodge City in 1875 :). It looks like a place where people can go through their lives without the concern of being shot to death by some imbalanced nut job, or because they are in the wrong neighborhood.
-
I don't think that guns = freedom is a good articulation of the thought. Prohibition, however, be it prohibition of booze, marijuana, high-powered weapons or high-powered cars, is the erosion of freedom.
Responsible adults should be able to enjoy potentially hazardous things and activities, plain and simple. The reason is, life isn't about existing in totally neutral, danger-free environment. Life is about fun, excitement and the stimulation of nerve-endings. Yes, that must be balanced with the realities of living in a complex society, but a huge, almost perfect majority of gun owners seem to be able to do that just fine.
-
Most of Europe is by any definition, free. They have been free for at least the last 150 years. Their freedom didn't come from making high powered, rapid rate of fire, firearms available for every nut job in the area.
This is confusion that plagues the US in comparison to other free countries. The rate of incidences like this is EXTREMELY rare compared to the US.
Europe is not free. Countries like England and Germany will jail you for using defamitory speech. This is not freedom.
-
I'm sorry but the argument that guns = freedom doesn't hold water. That is just the simplistic argument put forward by people with a vested interest. It's simplistic because it doesn't take a lot of thought or examination to digest.
Most of Europe is by any definition, free. They have been free for at least the last 150 years. Their freedom didn't come from making high powered, rapid rate of fire, firearms available for every nut job in the area.
This is confusion that plagues the US in comparison to other free countries. The rate of incidences like this is EXTREMELY rare compared to the US.
There is also a huge distance between reasonable and effective gun laws and no guns at all. Instead of seeing things as all on or all off, it would be incredibly more useful to talk about what kinds of laws would reasonably protect the vast majority of people. What we have in this country is insane. Ask the rest of the world, they'll tell you. The right place does not look like Dodge City in 1875 :). It looks like a place where people can go through their lives without the concern of being shot to death by some imbalanced nut job, or because they are in the wrong neighborhood.
And what's the violent crime rate in England nowadays? How about Australia? Or Chicago? How does that gun control work out for them?
Guns don't equal freedom. Well what, exactly is freedom? Is it the right to run arond the streets naked with green jello all over your body? Is that freedom? Or is freedom the right to live your life how you see fit, how you deem. The right to choose where you work, where you live, how you live, if you want to raise a family, how you raise your family. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. That is freedom.
And what is a gun? A gun is a tool. It is a violent, highly capable and extremely effective tool. But more to the point, guns are power. Raw, unfiltered, no nonsense power.
A man with a gun has a power that a man without a gun will never achieve. The power to choose. And choosing is what freedom is all about.
If guns never existed, then strength of arm and skill with a bow would be the equals of that power. Physical size, sharpness of sword and innate hand-eye coordination would be the powers that let you choose your life. A 6 ft 230 lbs. man could choose any life he wanted in such a world, he could very easily choose to dominate or take what he wanted because very very few people could stand up to him. He could become a champion of righteousness, he could become a king, a conqueror, or he could become a murderer, a rapist, a being most vile and foul and very few people could hope to stop him.
A 14 year old girl with a gun has more power than he.
The men who created this nation understood this. They understood that for freedom to exist, for people to be able to choose their lives they must have the power to do so. And power stems not from an idea, not from a belief, not from the vote, or from a government, or divine mandate. The root of all power throughout all of history, is by what one man or woman can physically do. The ultimate form of power on this Earth, is the ability to end life. It has been so for thousands of years. The threat of it has seen nations rise and fall. Has seen people act with extraordinary valor and others with utter deprivation.
How then do you make certain that the people you wish to protect have the power to protect themselves?
You arm them. You let them, as a right of citizenship carry whatever arms they deem necessary to protect themselves. The ultimate power of the Earth then rests, not with a king, not with a priest, or a book of law interpreted by a council, but divided, split 300 million times amongst the people who have no desire to abuse it.
Some will die, there will be accidents, some will abuse this power but others will be there to stop them. In a far more effective manner than any watch, police force, or army.
The tragedy that has taken place is not that guns were used to kill people. If a man is crazy, if a man desires it, he can kill just as effectively, just as many people, if not more, with weapons that aren't guns, and that are far easier to obtain.
The tragedy is that people died, and a man killed them. The tools are irrelevant.
-
Guns don't equal freedom. Well what, exactly is freedom?
Very nice post. My only comment or twist to what you said is that guns don't equal freedom, but a deterent to tyranical forms of government. Any government including the US could turn into a tyranical regime and arms are the tools to deter that to some extent.
-
(http://brainsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/fat_hairy_guy_on_bed_with_guns.jpg)
-
I blame FORKS for obesity! :old:
-
Nice to see that people can spit back their indoctrinations so well . . .
To try and answer and not with any intent to change your mind, since they are pre-made. Here are the arguments
1. Gun is a tool. Yes. A handgun has only one purpose, to kill people. Giving a nut case a more effective tool is NOT a good thing.
2. You can kill people without a gun. Yes this is true. But you can't kill them as fast and effectively without a gun. The Colorado case is an excellent demonstration. Ever use a sword? I have. Had he been armed with a knife or a sword, the number of dead and wounded would be far less. He also would have been overwhelmed very quickly by sheer numbers.
4. Our founding fathers ordained this and saw it as good. hmmm. I pretty sure our founding fathers didn't have 12 people in a movie theater shot to death in mind when framing the constitution. Or a 4 year old killed on a playground or . . . Guns are not necessary for freedom. Would the gun in the hand of the 4 year old save him? in the hand of his mother? Reasonable laws that are enforced are necessary for reasonable freedoms. If you don't think so, please visit Libya or Syria. Read the constitution, even the little words. None of the above scenarios are protected.
5. England and Germany are not free? Man, I can't even answer that one. Do yourself a favor and go there and ask. They aren't free to wield handguns but that isn't what they want anyway. "Freedom" as a concept is ALWAYS a trade off and not an absolute.
Again, read the part about its not ALL ON or ALL OFF. Its about reasonable protections. When we have stuff happen like this with remarkable regularity, that's a pretty good indication that reasonable protection has failed. I own guns, I taught my son gun safety. The problem here is that people look through the wrong end of a telescope and say, "I trust me to have guns and all the cool magazines, and automatic weapons". In most cases you are right.
What you really should be asking is, "Do I trust my knot headed neighbor who can't seem to park his car straight, who lurches down the street in a series of massive corrections, manages to set his lawnmower on fire every weekend, whose VCR blinks 12:00, and figures his trash looks good on my lawn, and hasn't learned how to bathe regularly yet, with a high powered automatic weapon." If your answer to this is an unqualifed yes, well . . .
The crux is determining a responsible adult. I'm saying we are failing at that right now and a realistic look would save lives.
-
Check the survellance video from last week that never made it into the Liberal media at the end of the article.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/24/gun_sales_spike_after_colorado_massacre
If you are afraid of your fellow citizens and denegrate them for being stupider than yourself and by a standard yet proven to be any the superior. Yet you want a life free of risk, harm, and the resposibility of freely protecting your life at the possible cost of your life. What is life worth to you that you are willing to trade your freedom to a bureaucrat and it's agents knowing they have no legal responsibility to protect you even from their own mistakes?
Your fellow citizens have more investment in not making mistakes than any bureaucrat or agent of government becasue they have perverted law to sheild themselves from consiquence. Yet you will deny your fellow citizens the natural right of self protection becasue you live in fear of your personal demise looking at all who might impact it as an evil enemy. Do the shackles and chains of your personal fear not make you an accomplice to those who in acts of evil want to take the lives of your fellow innocent citizens? Those very ones whom you fear becasue you have judged them inferior in functional capacity to yourself?
Fear in exstream situations kills more people by their automatic responces to it than it saves, becasue more often it incapacitates the mind from performing postive action. The militairy and police overcomes this by repititious training so the soilder and policeman has ingrained positive actions to draw upon. Concealed carry training creates the same positive action resource to draw from under stress. Or why bother in snow country practicing tail slide recovery with your car in an empty parking lot? On the highway your fear wil simply overcome you anyway while you scream and your high speed spinning car takes out the surrounding 12 cars killing all those innocent children.
If anyone bothers to read the Federalist Papers the 2ndA was a deterrent to tyranny by the Federal government becasue the Federal government only has privleges confered by the constitution. The natural right to self defence has never been questioned untill the last half of the 20th century in the U.S.. The 2ndA recognises that precondition's existance thus placing the Federal government on notice of it, and consiquences by it. The defence of your life needs no conditions becasue anything including your government can try to take your life from you at which point it is your responsibility to preserve it. Why? Because at one time suicide was considered a mortal sin and it is your duty to God to take care of his gift of life he entrusted to you. Natural rights cannot be granted by government. Only forcabely taken away by cohersion of death.
The United States and England are two completely different cultures, land mass sizes, and population densities. This argument about guns and violence, UK vs US, is the same as escoriating the state of california for it's Liberal one party dominated political culture and their stance on gun's and self protection.
California 38M, England 51M. In both cases the majority of the population lives in medium to large culturaly balkinised citys dominated by monopolitical Liberal\Progessive cultures. Both have high crime rates in their minority and immigrant cultures. California is still trying to catch up by eliminating the 1st and 2nd amendmants to the US Federal constitiution within it's jurisdiction.
-
Nice to see that people can spit back their indoctrinations so well . . .
To try and answer and not with any intent to change your mind, since they are pre-made. Here are the arguments
1. Gun is a tool. Yes. A handgun has only one purpose, to kill people. Giving a nut case a more effective tool is NOT a good thing.
2. You can kill people without a gun. Yes this is true. But you can't kill them as fast and effectively without a gun. The Colorado case is an excellent demonstration. Ever use a sword? I have. Had he been armed with a knife or a sword, the number of dead and wounded would be far less. He also would have been overwhelmed very quickly by sheer numbers.
4. Our founding fathers ordained this and saw it as good. hmmm. I pretty sure our founding fathers didn't have 12 people in a movie theater shot to death in mind when framing the constitution. Or a 4 year old killed on a playground or . . . Guns are not necessary for freedom. Would the gun in the hand of the 4 year old save him? in the hand of his mother? Reasonable laws that are enforced are necessary for reasonable freedoms. If you don't think so, please visit Libya or Syria. Read the constitution, even the little words. None of the above scenarios are protected.
5. England and Germany are not free? Man, I can't even answer that one. Do yourself a favor and go there and ask. They aren't free to wield handguns but that isn't what they want anyway. "Freedom" as a concept is ALWAYS a trade off and not an absolute.
Again, read the part about its not ALL ON or ALL OFF. Its about reasonable protections. When we have stuff happen like this with remarkable regularity, that's a pretty good indication that reasonable protection has failed. I own guns, I taught my son gun safety. The problem here is that people look through the wrong end of a telescope and say, "I trust me to have guns and all the cool magazines, and automatic weapons". In most cases you are right.
What you really should be asking is, "Do I trust my knot headed neighbor who can't seem to park his car straight, who lurches down the street in a series of massive corrections, manages to set his lawnmower on fire every weekend, whose VCR blinks 12:00, and figures his trash looks good on my lawn, and hasn't learned how to bathe regularly yet, with a high powered automatic weapon." If your answer to this is an unqualifed yes, well . . .
The crux is determining a responsible adult. I'm saying we are failing at that right now and a realistic look would save lives.
You can take away guns, but if I'm going to become a murderer; by God I'm going to do it whether I've got to use a bow and arrow or silently go through a movie theater, acting like I'm whispering in their ear and just slit their throat, move on to some other random avacado (this is assuming the smoke grenade is still in play.)
So you want murderers to kill in silence then?
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/479945_347590378649682_1041291545_n.jpg)
Someone who is strong and has good aim could kill 12 people with rocks before people really understood wth was happening. "Some nut is throwing rocks."
Better yet, give me one of those fancy crossbows with the rotating "ammunition" slots. It's a crossbow that's rotates like a revolver.
-
Umm, when is the last time you read a story where 12 people were killed by rocks or had their throats slit one by one? That kind of dreamland scenario is what makes this an impossible discussion. Endowing rocks with properties they don't have makes it hard to really talk.
Tell you what, go try and kill people in a theater with rocks. First you have to lug a bag of rocks into the theater without being noticed. That number of rocks is kinda heavy and it will make noise. You'll have to drag them in the theater so standing in line will be interesting. A wheelbarrow would be easier. But I'm sure they will let you in with a wheelbarrow full of rocks . . .
Again, my suggestion is to stop spitting back the gun lobby rhetoric and THINK. I'm NOT saying to BAN ALL GUNS. I'm saying the present laws FAIL. Given the alarming regularity with which this happens, MAYBE just MAYBE it would be a good idea to look at the present level of protection. Where did the laws fail? Can we fix that?
-
Umm, when is the last time you read a story where 12 people were killed by rocks or had their throats slit one by one? That kind of dreamland scenario is what makes this an impossible discussion. Endowing rocks with properties they don't have makes it hard to really talk.
Tell you what, go try and kill people in a theater with rocks. First you have to lug a bag of rocks into the theater without being noticed. That number of rocks is kinda heavy and it will make noise. You'll have to drag them in the theater so standing in line will be interesting. A wheelbarrow would be easier. But I'm sure they will let you in with a wheelbarrow full of rocks . . .
Again, my suggestion is to stop spitting back the gun lobby rhetoric and THINK. I'm NOT saying to BAN ALL GUNS. I'm saying the present laws FAIL. Given the alarming regularity with which this happens, MAYBE just MAYBE it would be a good idea to look at the present level of protection. Where did the laws fail? Can we fix that?
Lol why would you do that when you could get a gun? That's the point. You don't see that stuff because you have guns. Take away guns and it will be that.
A psychotic killer will always be a psychotic killer. Whether he has to eat your face off or shoot you in the mouth.
If I'm going to kill someone, it doesn't matter WHAT I use. A gun just makes it quicker.
I mean I could just crush someone's skull with a baseball bat. You folks gonna outlaw a sport after that?
----
And a wheel barrow? Do you know how little of a rock you need to kill someone if you've got the arm to lay out the force? I could lug it in an assault pack, let alone a nice back pack.
Hell and with the knife you don't have to slit throats. If it's long enough to punch through their lungs they won't be able to scream anyway. Just gotta pick your blade. It doesn't really have to be that long either.
Taking away guns just means more thorough killers will be born. Thorough killers tend to get away. Hell let's invite Jack the Ripper to come play. :) :banana:
Criminals will always have guns. You will not ever change that. You will only cripple the honest folks who just want to own a weapon for the sake of shooting. It's a fun sport. I love putting targets up about 700 yards away and dropping them with an assault rifle. Why? Because to most people it's hard.
-
I personally think we should all just be happy people go on shooting sprees instead of bombing stuff. I shudder to think what the body count would've been if he'd put his explosives in play.
Wiley.
-
Er, which part of I'm not talking about banning all guns is difficult to understand? Did I say "ban target shooting because you're killing targets"? It's about reducing the death toll. Yes, admittedly psychos will find a way to kill. They will kill less if they don't have an assault rifle. How does a rational society determine when a member of that society should have access to use easily lethal force?
Let's admit that you sir are a master killer. You can kill with your hands, hell, you can kill with your eyeballs. Ok, so now, SO WHAT? What we are talking about is reducing the lethality of a nut job that DOESN'T have special training. We aren't talking about YOU, get it? Pulling a trigger is so easy toddlers can do it. Which leads to a remarkable number of toddlers being killed. Do you see that as a good situation?
How would you fix that?
-
Umm, when is the last time you read a story where 12 people were killed by rocks or had their throats slit one by one? That kind of dreamland scenario is what makes this an impossible discussion. Endowing rocks with properties they don't have makes it hard to really talk.
Tell you what, go try and kill people in a theater with rocks. First you have to lug a bag of rocks into the theater without being noticed. That number of rocks is kinda heavy and it will make noise. You'll have to drag them in the theater so standing in line will be interesting. A wheelbarrow would be easier. But I'm sure they will let you in with a wheelbarrow full of rocks . . .
Again, my suggestion is to stop spitting back the gun lobby rhetoric and THINK. I'm NOT saying to BAN ALL GUNS. I'm saying the present laws FAIL. Given the alarming regularity with which this happens, MAYBE just MAYBE it would be a good idea to look at the present level of protection. Where did the laws fail? Can we fix that?
I'm all for a more effective method of weeding out the nutcases from the non-nutcases. I was once denied buying a 12 gauge in a Blacksburg VA pawnshop because I presented them with an out-of-state ID. About 3 months later, that very same shop sold Seung-Hui Cho the two handguns he used to go on a rampage at VA Tech...
However, it seems that a properly motivated nutcase will not be hindered by the lack of access to semi-automatic military-style weapons. The same shotgun I use to shoot skeet can be modified into a concealable killing machine in about 5 minutes. Batman fanboi may kill only 4 or 5 instead of 12 or 15, but where exactly does this dialog go then? What if he jammed the theater doors closed and simply set fire to the place with a couple gallons of gasoline? What if he flooded an apartment building with CO, killing dozens in their sleep? What do you prohibit then?
Guns have been legal in the US since the very beginning. There was a time when fully automatic weapons were available to anybody who wanted them... And yet, it's only relatively recently that these mass shootings have started to crop up.
I think that a rational response to this phenomenon would be to figure out the source of their psychotic ambitions (fame, notoriety, etc..), not just the mechanism by which they carry those ambitions out.
-
Umm, when is the last time you read a story where 12 people were killed by rocks or had their throats slit one by one? That kind of dreamland scenario is what makes this an impossible discussion. Endowing rocks with properties they don't have makes it hard to really talk.
Tell you what, go try and kill people in a theater with rocks. First you have to lug a bag of rocks into the theater without being noticed. That number of rocks is kinda heavy and it will make noise. You'll have to drag them in the theater so standing in line will be interesting. A wheelbarrow would be easier. But I'm sure they will let you in with a wheelbarrow full of rocks . . .
Again, my suggestion is to stop spitting back the gun lobby rhetoric and THINK. I'm NOT saying to BAN ALL GUNS. I'm saying the present laws FAIL. Given the alarming regularity with which this happens, MAYBE just MAYBE it would be a good idea to look at the present level of protection. Where did the laws fail? Can we fix that?
lolo Where to start. Many folks have been killed by rocks. Wocks were used as tools, building material, and weapons for a long long time.
Let's see...... extemely easy to sneak into a theater with a few bags of rocks..... I bet it is so easy that you could walk in with an rifle, shotgun, and a pistol.
Laws protect folks like the perp in this case. Had anyone noticed him acting odd chances are they did not say anything for fear of being labeled heartless or ignorant.
-
Er, which part of I'm not talking about banning all guns is difficult to understand? Did I say "ban target shooting because you're killing targets"? It's about reducing the death toll. Yes, admittedly psychos will find a way to kill. They will kill less if they don't have an assault rifle. How does a rational society determine when a member of that society should have access to use easily lethal force?
Let's admit that you sir are a master killer. You can kill with your hands, hell, you can kill with your eyeballs. Ok, so now, SO WHAT? What we are talking about is reducing the lethality of a nut job that DOESN'T have special training. We aren't talking about YOU, get it? Pulling a trigger is so easy toddlers can do it. Which leads to a remarkable number of toddlers being killed. Do you see that as a good situation?
How would you fix that?
By teaching parents not to leave their guns laying out.
Oh wait....we do that already. Stupid people will be stupid regardless of what you make them do or the classes they are forced to take. ;)
-
I remember having to watch this in the 6th grade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge8aZqgxV7Q
sneaking stuff in is the easy part. Especially a theater.
-
I always have a gun next to me since i play with a headset on while my gf sleeps in the next room. however just food for thought, if there had been several people in that theater with guns, there's always a possibility that many more would have gotten killed or hurt as no one would really be sure who the shooter was, or perhaps the shooter would have gotten stopped within the first couple of shots. but with all that smoke and chaos most people only saw shadows in a dark theater.
semp
I generally have faith in people to make a good decision. If you were at the back of the theater and couldn't see the shooter real well, I don't you think most would start firing randomly in that direction. However, if you were a few feet away and could clearly see him, you would take that shot. I look back the Gabby Giffords shooting and the concealed carrier who came around the corner and saw someone holding a gun. He correctly judged the situation and decided not to shoot. It's really hard to make a point either way though, with shootings like this so incredibly rare, it's impossible to really statistically say anything, everything is just a case by case basis.
-
To bring the rock argument a little closer to guns, look at a bow and arrow. A bow and arrow were designed to kill, humans and animals. Can you imagine the damage a well trained individual would be able to inflict with a modern bow and arrow? However, no one looks at someone who has a large bow collection as weird, it's just their sport.
-
Which leads to a remarkable number of toddlers being killed. Do you see that as a good situation?
How would you fix that?
A remarkable number of toddlers are also killed because their parents leave them in locked cars in the summer, or they drown because left unattended by a pool or lake. Or some of them are just beat to death by their mother's scumbag druggie boyfriend. How would you fix that and where is the outcry for these victims?
-
Sheesh I'm in a gun control thread this won't end well. :bolt:
-
Take the rock and the bow and arrow argument and put them in a real context.
By the reasoning here, Europe has psychos (unless you are saying that only the US has crazy people?) and because psychos are going to kill, they are looking for ways to kill but they don't have free and easy access to guns. So, it follows logically that we should see the same mass killings in Europe, only the psychos use rocks!!! or bows and arrows! or swords or spears or. . . .
Ok, I'm looking for these cases but wow! I don't find them!!! Isn't that interesting! I wonder why? Oh! I know their psychos just aren't innovative enough! They aren't SMART enough to get a bag of rocks and slip in to a place unnoticed because it is so EASY! It's either that or total internet failure. Suggestion, get out of the dreamland and really look at the world.
Ya see, this isn't about theory, its about what DOES happen. In the world, look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria. These places have LOTS of guns. Are they safe? Are they free? If guns = safety and freedom, what's up here? It is clear that guns by themselves don't guarantee either safety or freedom. It's the rational and educated and informed people who do that and are the most potent weapon for change that the world has ever known. Don't rely on the tool, don't rely on the rhetoric, but rather work to educate people, consider new viewpoints and LEARN from past mistakes. We aren't required to codify the past and just repeat it because all of the reasons stated. We can change it and make it better. I personally think that is what freedom really is.
I see that you all have things well in hand. Thanks for illustrating so quickly why things are the way they are and why people will continue to die by violence in this country at a rate all out of proportion to the rest of the world for absolutely no reason but intellectual laziness. I just suggest, just for fun, let a NEW thought in. Don't just regurgitate what someone else has said into your ears. Entertain, just for a moment what would be the way to approach a law that could possibly make people safer and not infringe on the rights to own a firearm. If you were made a Senator right now, what would you do? How would you fix it?
-
A couple of road flares and a backback full of gas-filled water balloons would have killed a lot more people and possibly gotten the whole building instead of a dozen in that one room. We ought to consider it fortunate that the killer's psychotic delusions involved shooting people in one room hoping for a showdown with batman, rather than burning or blowing up an entire building full of people. Apparently his apartment was rigged for a fairly large explosion and fire so it's a good thing he didn't reverse his plans, and blow up the theater then barracade himself in his apartment with some guns. That could have killed far more people without firing a single shot.
There is a darn good reason it is a crime to falsely shout "fire" in a movie theater...
-
Just to chime in: this type of horrible event doesn't happen with any type of regularity. With all the guns we own in the U.S., this type of act is not a regular occurance.
Unfortunately, the world is a violent place. We're lucky that we don't have more incidents like the OKC Bombing, or smaller, targetted bombings that other countries have. When's the last time the U.S. had riots like they had in France a few years ago?
Now, as for the weapons used in the majority of murders, they're handguns, not 'Assault Rifles'.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
The link to the statistics on violent crimes (non-murders) shows that guns aren't the #1 weapon:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl19.xls
This link shows that gun deaths are actually surprised by drug related deaths:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_10_tables.pdf
As for child deaths, it's not as common as you think either. It's just simply tragic and heartbreaking:
http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pdf/Leading_Causes_injury_Deaths_Age_GRoup_Highlighting_Unintentional_Injury%20Deaths_US_2009-a.pdf
The problem is that all media sensationalizes these specific, horrific events, replaying them hour after hour as if they are commonplace in our daily world. They then bring on people to talk about gun control, and reinstating an 'Assault Weapons Ban' (AWB), but those speakers don't realize that the AWB didn't ban anything of significance.
Then you have people who believe that you can turn a semi-auto AR or AK into a full-auto by filing down the firing pin. Or newsfolks and politicians who think it's possible to buy grenades or rocket launchers at a gun store. Or that a .50 BMG will take down a commercial airliner at 1.5 miles. This is what is spread on the mainstream media news channels.
Basically, a whole lot of misinformation, and not a lot of attention to the facts, the laws, or the statistics.
When my wife first saw one of my AR15's, she thought it was illegal. I explained that it wasn't. She asked about the AWB. I explained what was 'banned' during the AWB period. Her response, never being a gun owner, or into shooting: "That's pretty stupid. What would it have stopped?"
Anyways, I'm always going to be in favor of being able to defend my family and myself with the most efficient means necessary. I don't think it's right to take that option away from people because of an emotional reaction to a tragic event.
-
You guys type too fast...Like 15 replies while I was typing one. :o
-
Entertain, just for a moment what would be the way to approach a law that could possibly make people safer and not infringe on the rights to own a firearm. If you were made a Senator right now, what would you do? How would you fix it?
I'd stop the 'war' on drugs, tax marijuana, and use the money and those resources to fight violent crime.
-
The attack on assault weapons is irrational because any weapon in the hands of a determined and skilled user can kill many many people. The key to remember on why certain segments push "assault weapons" as being evil is that they are seeking an in towards gun control. Any little bit they can get will just mean that many more they think will be off the street.
In the end, always remember that gun control is about an attack on the 2nd Amendment, and not just assault weapons.
-
Ask yourself why no one in the US can talk about ANY kind of gun control? Isn't it EXACTLY this kind of reflexive, unthinking reaction?
Facts are your friends, wishful thinking, while pleasant, is not :). From wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
Gun-related death rates in the United States are eight times higher than they are in countries that are economically and politically similar to it. . .
In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.[37] Due to the lethal potential that a gun brings to a situation, the likelihood that a death will result is significantly increased when either the victim or the attacker has a firearm.[38] The mortality rate for gunshot wounds to the heart is 84%, compared to 30% for people who sustain stab wounds to the heart. . .
The incidence of homicides committed with a firearm in the US is much greater than most other advanced countries. In the United States in 2009 United Nations statistics record 3.0 intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was 0.07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany 0.2.
BTW, Katanaso, I agree with you :) I hope that doesn't cause you any concern.
-
Anyways, I'm always going to be in favor of being able to defend my family and myself with the most efficient means necessary. I don't think it's right to take that option away from people because of an emotional reaction to a tragic event.
The last part of your last sentence is the key. Every damn time something like this happens folks try to find a reason for something that has no reason. So those who see a guy walking into a theater with an AR15 with a 100 round magazine, see a very visible thing. How does that make sense? In the end it doesn't. There is no reason to have a hundred round magazine on your AR15. The odds of 100 guys coming into your house to harm your family are kinda slim. And at that point you probably aren't going to get them all anyway.
OK so it's a reasonable thing for scared people to point at. Immediately the gun owners get just as unreasonable and the panic buying and 'oh they're coming to get my guns' mentality kicks in and it's just as silly as the 'take all the guns' crowd.
Lets face it. In this country the horse is out of the barn on that one. It's never going to happen. Understand I've got a small arsenal in my house as I've long been interested in shooting and guns. I've got two AR15s as well.
But I'm not threatened by the discussion. I'd like to think that folks get to vent their fears in trying to understand a tragedy that has no explanation.
In the end, the only ones who win in this are the folks in the gun industry as the panic buying drives the prices up and increases demand.
And in the end, as always this will die down as we move on to the next 'crisis'.
The beauty of that free speech bit in national discourse is you don't have to like it or participate. Much as the 'lose my guns' crowd is quick to scream 2nd amendment, they need to remember that the 1st Amendment covers peoples right to express themselves.
Now excuse me as I go polish my AR15 :aok
-
Bodhi, no doubt a skilled user can do as much damage with a handgun as an inexperienced user can with an assault weapon. But that's just it. An inexperienced person can use an assualt weapon with a large magazine and wreak havoc. Commen-sense regulations should not bring about rants of "They're taking our guns away!!!!" A ban on high-capacity magazines would be a simple law that does not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights, and would/should not be an issue among legal gun-owners. Not only that, but it may reduce the carnage in future shootings.
Guppy beat me to it.
-
In the end, always remember that gun control is about an attack on the 2nd Amendment, and not just assault weapons.
Pulleeeeeeze! By this reasoning, the best possible course is to leave guns lying around every street corner. Absolute freedom of access is not a reasonable course. We don't allow absolute freedom of access to motor vehicles! A reasonable discourse as Guppy says is not an "attack" on anything. It is what a polite and intelligent and free society does to create itself.
Political discourse in this country has turned into demonizing the other side based on wildly fictitious arguments. I'm relatively certain that I'm not a demon and I'm pretty sure that other folks here are not either. What do we as rational people think? Can we talk? Can we disagree? Can a workable compromise be found? I think we can. I believe we can. I believe that is what America is about.
Take the blinders off. THINK
-
Legislating stupidity is the same as legislating the fitness to live in a "Class" of predetermined citizen levels.
Once a bureaucrat is given that all encompasing power in the name of protecting "We the People" from each other. We no longer have the right to self determination but, instead an unelected bureaucrat decides from day to day to enterprit the policey guidlines to choosing who is defined fit for each "Class" level. Bureaucrats are inheritly corruptable by definition and the same as you and I. Ideologicly predudical in the name of their personal vision of who's fit to be a member of the citizen body and who should be descriminated with prejudice for not fitting their arbitrary mold. And who scares them for any arbitrary reason.
We already see this fear of a less fit class of citizens being decided by some posters here. And the next logical step is legislating classes by fear with an undefined testing of fitness to satisfy that fear. Which turns everyone into unfit less than human members of the human race until they pass this undefined test to assuage the posters fear.
This leads to the following which is far more a warning about human nature and ourselves, than the edification of a man giving a surmon on a mount. Our fear of personal death causes us to judge others by the lie of measuring others to be less worthy by the virtue of their failings regardless of those same in ourselves. Think the French Revolution's Mob and Robespierre's 2 year reign of terror now called "The Terror". 7000 catholic preist were murdered during "The Terror" by not meeting the social standards of fitness for that time.
Note:
Many morality scripture lessons come from much older Hebrew Law testiments and judical actions not unlike our modern judicial comments handed down in rulings. Good moral lessons are good moral lessons and all Rabbi including the guy who walked on water studied Hebrew law.
--------------------
1 JUDGE not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
--------------------
Fear and the power of animal survival causes us to want others freedoms taken away by the sinister comfort of a Bureaucrat's promise to only judge the wicked in the name of our mutual interests. By definition we tacitly grant unknown Bureaucrat's power as administrators over us by exercising our power of vote over our elected representatives. Who hidden from our scruitany as our surrgate hire the unknown Bureaucrat's to rule us by the power of our fears and the perversion of the laws they have enacted granting themselves immunity from their tyranny against us. The Federalist papers discussed this and the importance of the 2ndA in addressing it in it's most extream and tyrannical evolution.
Rapier,
You should really us FBI satistics and not Wiki which has an anti constitutional agenda. The vast majority of those gun realted deaths are male criminals against male criminals ages 15-29 in the inner cities of large population centers. Not against the general body in fly over country of nearly 330M people, or non criminals against non criminals shooting each other simply because they own a guns. Your personal fear of violent death by lesser human beings to your personal standards is driving your agenda. You are more dangerous to yourself driving your car based on insurance statistics. But, fear is irrational and once rooted in the memory, is cherished as a constant freind soley on your side in all situations saving your kester from the dark unkown.
-
Er, which part of I'm not talking about banning all guns is difficult to understand? Did I say "ban target shooting because you're killing targets"? It's about reducing the death toll. Yes, admittedly psychos will find a way to kill. They will kill less if they don't have an assault rifle. How does a rational society determine when a member of that society should have access to use easily lethal force?
Let's admit that you sir are a master killer. You can kill with your hands, hell, you can kill with your eyeballs. Ok, so now, SO WHAT? What we are talking about is reducing the lethality of a nut job that DOESN'T have special training. We aren't talking about YOU, get it? Pulling a trigger is so easy toddlers can do it. Which leads to a remarkable number of toddlers being killed. Do you see that as a good situation?
How would you fix that?
You don't fix that.... How could you?
Norway: 76 killed, mostly children, in a nation with some of the strictest gun control laws on earth...
You can't legislate evil. You can't legislate crazy. Evil and crazy people have been murdering thousands of years before man began recording his history. Laws are only useful for regulating those willing to obey and prosecuting those who will not.
The over-riding issue isn't weapons, guns, bombs or otherwise... It's a culture that glorifies violence; which it promotes in popular media and makes the media moguls very wealthy. Those same moguls who scream for gun control when some screwball emulates their villains or heroes, but whom will never accept even a shred of social responsibility for those actions... Violence is a cultural issue, and guns just an easy thing to point to rather than address the core issue.
Do we logically blame the alcohol for the drunk? Do we logically blame the sun for some sunbunny's skin cancer? Let's apply genuine logic and accept the fact that we need to examine our culture(s) rather than focus on symptoms instead of the root cause disease.
-
Have to repeat these words.
The over-riding issue isn't weapons, guns, bombs or otherwise... It's a culture that glorifies violence; which it promotes in popular media and makes the media moguls very wealthy. Those same moguls who scream for gun control when some screwball emulates their villains or heroes, but whom will never accept even a shred of social responsibility for those actions... Violence is a cultural issue, and guns just an easy thing to point to rather than address the core issue.
-
Ya see, this isn't about theory, its about what DOES happen. In the world, look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria. These places have LOTS of guns. Are they safe? Are they free? If guns = safety and freedom, what's up here? It is clear that guns by themselves don't guarantee either safety or freedom. It's the rational and educated and informed people who do that and are the most potent weapon for change that the world has ever known. Don't rely on the tool, don't rely on the rhetoric, but rather work to educate people, consider new viewpoints and LEARN from past mistakes. We aren't required to codify the past and just repeat it because all of the reasons stated. We can change it and make it better. I personally think that is what freedom really is.
I see that you all have things well in hand. Thanks for illustrating so quickly why things are the way they are and why people will continue to die by violence in this country at a rate all out of proportion to the rest of the world for absolutely no reason but intellectual laziness. I just suggest, just for fun, let a NEW thought in. Don't just regurgitate what someone else has said into your ears. Entertain, just for a moment what would be the way to approach a law that could possibly make people safer and not infringe on the rights to own a firearm. If you were made a Senator right now, what would you do? How would you fix it?
First off - to live in America, being psychotic is a requirement. ;)
Oh, those countries where religious extremist run everything isn't safe? I'm sorry. I didn't realize that affected my gun ownership.
Let me direct you all to a little town called Kennesaw, Georgia. It's a town where everyone who isn't a convicted felon/rapist etc. is required (more like asked) to own at least a hand gun. Guess what? One of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Why? Who in the hell wants to rob a house where there is someone who they KNOW has a gun?
Who would want to rob a car where they KNOW that it's owner has a gun?
It's a beautiful thing. You can call it dream land but I'll take my right to bear arms and beat you with it as I smile at a liberty that our European friends do not get to enjoy.
-
Let me ask this question. Out of all these mass murders caused by a gun in one location at one time, has there ever been a victim or bystander with a legal weapon around? As far as I can remember, no. These have always taken place at locations where the perp knows everyone is sheep to be slaughtered. What we don't here from out liberal media is the amount of these actions that were stopped by an armed citisen before they started (perp chose the wrong place and or time). Gun control is a farce and always will be, if Britain is so great why are their police force now armed, when they outlawed guns, and when they weren't, they didn't outlaw guns :lol. Switzerland is a great example of a well armed populace that doesn't have our problems.
:salute
BigRat
-
Switzerland is a great example of a well armed populace that doesn't have our problems.
:salute
BigRat
Switzerland has a well adjusted mentally stable population.
-
Bodhi, no doubt a skilled user can do as much damage with a handgun as an inexperienced user can with an assault weapon. But that's just it. An inexperienced person can use an assualt weapon with a large magazine and wreak havoc. Commen-sense regulations should not bring about rants of "They're taking our guns away!!!!" A ban on high-capacity magazines would be a simple law that does not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights, and would/should not be an issue among legal gun-owners. Not only that, but it may reduce the carnage in future shootings.
Guppy beat me to it.
Here's the problem with banning high capacity magazines: there are millions in circulation. I'd venture to estimate even tens of millions. There's no way to get those out of circulation.
A ban would stop the law abiding person from using them at a range, or for plinking out in some deserted area where it's legal to shoot, but it wouldn't stop any criminal from using them. Do they care if it's illegal to have a 30-round magazine when they're going to rob a gas station, or when they're going to shoot somebody? I wouldn't think so.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet you often see AK-47's with 30 round mags on them. Remember though, high cap mags are banned in California, as is that type of AK(specific features to it).
-
You don't fix that.... How could you?
Norway: 76 killed, mostly children, in a nation with some of the strictest gun control laws on earth...
You can't legislate evil. You can't legislate crazy. Evil and crazy people have been murdering thousands of years before man began recording his history. Laws are only useful for regulating those willing to obey and prosecuting those who will not.
The over-riding issue isn't weapons, guns, bombs or otherwise... It's a culture that glorifies violence; which it promotes in popular media and makes the media moguls very wealthy. Those same moguls who scream for gun control when some screwball emulates their villains or heroes, but whom will never accept even a shred of social responsibility for those actions... Violence is a cultural issue, and guns just an easy thing to point to rather than address the core issue.
Widewing, thanks for providing a rational response. However, I don't think I ever said we could prevent all murders, in fact the exact opposite. I didn't say we could legislate away crazy. What I said is we could make the psychos less broadly and easily lethal, which seems like a worthwhile goal. The point about Norway is that 74 murders is an absurdly low number for the number of people that live there. Same population in the US would have many more murders.
Yes, a big problem is that our society glorifies violence. Yes, PLEASE let the people who produce content you feel is objectionable and over the top violent know about it. Stop paying for it, stop consuming it. Absolutely! That at least is a plan that can change something.
If it unsafe to be where religious extremist run things, why don't people with guns who disagree, use their guns to make it safe? Could it possibly be that a majority of extremists WITH guns can run things and make it unsafe for people that don't agree with them? This is why I'm saying that guns don't equal safety and freedom. It's the educated and rational populace that create safety.
MarineUS, I'm sorry you feel the need to beat anyone physically but I guess that's where you're comfortable. Anyone who doesn't agree with you deserves a mouthful of knuckles. You win the "Internet Tough Guy" trophy. Congratulations! I'm very proud of you! Always nice and pleasant having a conversation with you!
Bustr, I'm kind of at a loss how Wikipedia, being written as it is by people of the world, can have any "agenda". If you mean that it may not be a center of the US viewpoint, that is undoubtedly true. But its distributed writing system makes it really hard to have an agenda. People kind of write what they think, just like here. But say that the stats are even off by a 100%, they seem to indicate a bit of a problem don't you think?
There seems to be a thread running here that states that if everyone had a gun it would be safer. That sounds a lot like if there were more bullets flying around fewer people would be hit. Lots of bullets flying around sounds a lot like a war. In WWII 2/3rds of the deaths were non combatants. This argument would be far more convincing if we could guarantee that all those people that were toting guns KNEW how to use them properly, had the proper training to judge a situation and take the right action. That would be a good component in meaningful gun legislation. I wouldn't have a problem with those folks having guns. I DO have a problem with people who don't understand basic gun safety owning guns and carrying them around (this include most gang bangers, that's why they are so good at shooting themselves). The problem is we can't get past the part of having guns or not, and don't have a conversation about having them safely.
-
Here's the problem with banning high capacity magazines: there are millions in circulation. I'd venture to estimate even tens of millions. There's no way to get those out of circulation.
A ban would stop the law abiding person from using them at a range, or for plinking out in some deserted area where it's legal to shoot, but it wouldn't stop any criminal from using them. Do they care if it's illegal to have a 30-round magazine when they're going to rob a gas station, or when they're going to shoot somebody? I wouldn't think so.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet you often see AK-47's with 30 round mags on them. Remember though, high cap mags are banned in California, as is that type of AK(specific features to it).
No doubt the law would not prevent everyone from having it. However, it may deter some who do not have the black market access or even motivation to acquire one. A law abiding gun owner I would hope would not need a 100-round clip for self-defense. On the other hand, if someone snaps one day and decides to randomly shoot-up a place, they would most likely use what they have, and may not go through the trouble of getting a 100-round clip before they carry out the deed. Unfortunately, some still may, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop those people.
-
Widewing, thanks for providing a rational response. However, I don't think I ever said we could prevent all murders, in fact the exact opposite. I didn't say we could legislate away crazy. What I said is we could make the psychos less broadly and easily lethal, which seems like a worthwhile goal. The point about Norway is that 74 murders is an absurdly low number for the number of people that live there. Same population in the US would have many more murders.
You misunderstand... The 76 dead in Norway were from a single incident of mass murder.....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57457869/norway-prosecutors-seek-psychiatric-care-not-prison-for-confessed-mass-killer-anders-behring-breivik/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57457869/norway-prosecutors-seek-psychiatric-care-not-prison-for-confessed-mass-killer-anders-behring-breivik/?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesArea)
-
No doubt the law would not prevent everyone from having it. However, it may deter some who do not have the black market access or even motivation to acquire one. A law abiding gun owner I would hope would not need a 100-round clip for self-defense. On the other hand, if someone snaps one day and decides to randomly shoot-up a place, they would most likely use what they have, and may not go through the trouble of getting a 100-round clip before they carry out the deed.
I don't feel the need for a 100 round magazine for self-defense, but CorkyJr might think that fits the bill for his peace of mind. I don't feel that's my right to tell him what's right or wrong, as he's legally able to own a firearm.
Personally, I'd own a 100 round magazine to take to the range because it would be fun. But they're expensive, and not that reliable, so I never bought one.
That said, I probably own 40 or 50 30-round magazines. Why? Why not. They're cheap. If one gets damaged, I have more. I've given them to friends who shoot AR's. And I enjoyed taking 20 of them to the range to test out different types of ammo. (It's much more convenient to load magazines the night before rather than at the range).
If you haven't shot an AR, realize that changing mags after shooting 28 or 30 rounds takes a second or two. It's not a cumbersome process.
The 30-round magazines are what I was referring to as being in the millions, not the 100-round Beta-C mags. So honestly, they just wouldn't be that hard to get.
-
Not everyone is as experienced as you however. One big clip is a lot simpler for an amateur than reloading a lot in a stressful situation. I would hope that not being able to use 100 or 50 round mags at a range would be a palpable price to pay for the knowledge that someone who snaps and decides to go on a rampage most likely will not have easy access to such a clip.
Edit: Just noticed you said an experienced person can reload in a second or two. The whole shooting was about 90 seconds. If he reloads a few times, thats a few more people who haven't been shot.
-
If it unsafe to be where religious extremist run things, why don't people with guns who disagree, use their guns to make it safe? Could it possibly be that a majority of extremists WITH guns can run things and make it unsafe for people that don't agree with them? This is why I'm saying that guns don't equal safety and freedom. It's the educated and rational populace that create safety.
MarineUS, I'm sorry you feel the need to beat anyone physically but I guess that's where you're comfortable. Anyone who doesn't agree with you deserves a mouthful of knuckles. You win the "Internet Tough Guy" trophy. Congratulations! I'm very proud of you! Always nice and pleasant having a conversation with you!
I'm sorry, I didn't realize a joke about a midget was serious business. You can take your train of "I have no humor" and drive it to another junction because I like to live, laugh and have fun. If you don't like that then you can bugger off. <3
People like you are a VIRUS. "Ermauhgawd! He said something about beating a midgeeeeeet! Errrrrmauhgawd! He's so evil! He's a buuuuuullllly." - I was assaulted in February by a man down the street from me after his dog tried to attack my niece. I followed his dog alllllll the way to his house on foot (about a mile) and told him he needed to lock it up or I was going to get it put to sleep. I was then assaulted by his wife with a broom. I pushed her back (and her being a fat sack of crap) and she fell. I pushed where your shoulder turns into your arms. Why? No pain there and it keeps her out of my "bubble" at which point her husband runs up and I sit and watch as he "haymakers" my face, puts me in a headlock and proceeds to smash in the back of my skull. I didn't swing, bite or kick one time. Why? Because I was in his yard at this point and beating this poor fellow into submission isn't exactly the USMC way.
You use enough force to stop the situation. I got loose and asked him if he'd like to break my nose because I could use the money and his pretty car. At that point he left me alone. So no, I'm not a fan of smashing people, but I do like to make jokes. If you've got a problem with it, I suggest you go get a reality check.
Why don't they stop them? Um...hellooooooo? We've been in Afghanistan for how long now? With a trained military, with aircraft, with biiiig boom sticks that make pretty fire and these guys won't go down. Why? Because most of those folks are brainwashed into thinking we're trying to kill off their religion.
For the places our military is NOT located: They are simply outgunned. The normal person may have an AK, but the groups who terrorize the populace have RPG's, home made explosives, a vague view on tactics and have done some type of training whereas joe shmoe over here is just a farmer trying to protect his family.
EDIT: Not to mention the fact that those "extremist" don't fight with GUNS. Most of the time it's ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EXPLOSIVES that are worn or placed in a busy area.
EDIT x2: Lemme just bold, italicize and underline that since you seem to be so out of touch with reality. I mean if you can't laugh at a joke then something must be unconnected up there. Just making sure you're good to go.
I was expecting a battle of wits but you appear to be unarmed.
-
I understand what you're saying, but the worst massacres were done with rifles (Norway, Australia) utilizing smaller magazines (30-round), or with pistols (Fort Hood, Virginia Tech).
This last one happened to use the 100-round magazine, but the others were all carried out with cheaper, more common magazines.
If production was halted on high capacity magazines, there are so many in circulation that, in my opinion, it wouldn't have much of an effect other than to raise the prices of those already available.
We're living in a really sick and twisted time in society, and I don't know how you fix that. It's been boiling for several decades now, and every so often, one nutjob explodes and does something unfathomable to the rest of us who live civilized.
-
I still believe that the positives outweigh the negatives, if any, that such a law would bring. Either way, I'm glad that a civilized discussion about politics can still take place on these boards, and in the US in general. :eek: We need more pragmatic people in government, and less that place ideology above all else.
-
Nice to see that people can spit back their indoctrinations so well . . .
1. ... A handgun has only one purpose, to kill people.
First of all, this statement is inaccurate.
Second, the irony is thick... To claim that "a handgun has only one purpose, to kill people" is a perfect example of "spitting back an indoctrination". It's a common generic statement designed to sway an emotional response from the unknowing or easily-swayed.
I own several handguns, and know many others that do as well. They all get fired regularly. Together, the handguns I know about personally have been fired literally 10's of thousands of times (and that may actually be an understatement...). None of them have EVER been fired at a person, let alone killed anyone.
The killing in Colorado was due to a sick individual. He could have easily killed more people than he did with items picked up from the grocery store at far less expense to himself. To blame the inanimate objects he chose to use is foolish. May as well blame the car for a drunk-driving death, or the matches for an arson attack, or the knife for a stabbing, or the pen that this crackpot used to fill out his background check form.
The fact is, killing someone is just one thing that can be done with a firearm. It isn't even slightly close to the most common thing done with a firearm. Even a handgun.
-
First of all, this statement is inaccurate.
Second, the irony is thick... To claim that "a handgun has only one purpose, to kill people" is a perfect example of "spitting back an indoctrination". It's a common generic statement designed to sway an emotional response from the unknowing or easily-swayed.
I own several handguns, and know many others that do as well. They all get fired regularly. Together, the handguns I know about personally have been fired literally 10's of thousands of times (and that may actually be an understatement...). None of them have EVER been fired at a person, let alone killed anyone.
The killing in Colorado was due to a sick individual. He could have easily killed more people than he did with items picked up from the grocery store at far less expense to himself. To blame the inanimate objects he chose to use is foolish. May as well blame the car for a drunk-driving death, or the matches for an arson attack, or the knife for a stabbing, or the pen that this crackpot used to fill out his background check form.
The fact is, killing someone is just one thing that can be done with a firearm. It isn't even slightly close to the most common thing done with a firearm. Even a handgun.
that reminds me of a joke, guns dont kill people, bullets do, I am for the right to bare arms but I always find that joke funny.
semp
-
Switzerland has a well adjusted mentally stable population.
Yes, I hear that chocolate, cheese and protecting the financial anonymity of the world's richest criminals tends to promote calmness.
Going back to an older point, however, if you want to curb these shootings, you need to stop the motivation behind it. That motivation, I think most will agree, is the draw of instant fame and notoriety. Some savor the idea of becoming instant legends. Some savor it to the point that they're willing to give their lives in the process. Surviving the massacre isn't necessary, as Columbine proved.
Unless we figure out a way to make it impossible for a person to become an instant celebrity by doing something like this, people will resort to any method. Take away their guns, their explosives, their knives and axes and baseball bats, and they'll start driving school buses into swimming pools to make the headlines.
Is the media to blame? For the most part, I would say yes. Nothing sells like bad news and body counts. That's what they're going for, and that's what they get, every single time.
Of course, now we're talking about the freedom of the press, and it's not the second amendment that's implicated, but the first.
-
You don't fix that.... How could you?
Norway: 76 killed, mostly children, in a nation with some of the strictest gun control laws on earth...
You can't legislate evil. You can't legislate crazy. Evil and crazy people have been murdering thousands of years before man began recording his history. Laws are only useful for regulating those willing to obey and prosecuting those who will not.
The over-riding issue isn't weapons, guns, bombs or otherwise... It's a culture that glorifies violence; which it promotes in popular media and makes the media moguls very wealthy. Those same moguls who scream for gun control when some screwball emulates their villains or heroes, but whom will never accept even a shred of social responsibility for those actions... Violence is a cultural issue, and guns just an easy thing to point to rather than address the core issue.
Do we logically blame the alcohol for the drunk? Do we logically blame the sun for some sunbunny's skin cancer? Let's apply genuine logic and accept the fact that we need to examine our culture(s) rather than focus on symptoms instead of the root cause disease.
A profoundly wise and insightful post. :salute
-
First of all the Colorado shooter obviously knew how to make explosives and booby traps, I suppose we would feel better if he had detonated a bomb in the theater possibly killing hundreds.
Assault rifle by definition has full auto capability (machine gun) those are restricted.
A 6 shot revolver fires one round per trigger pull just as does a semi automatic, so the only difference is magazine capacity.
It doesn't take a firearms expert to change a magazine in a fraction of a second. If you really think magazine changes are a big impediment you might want to ask yourselves why most of the military standard issues of the world are 20 to 30 round magazines rather than 100 round drums. There would be nothing to stop the guy from using a bag full of revolvers either.
Before banning a legal item I would like to be assured that the result would be clearer than "There is some chance that it might possibly slow down a person intent on mass murder, maybe a little."
-
I just suggest, just for fun, let a NEW thought in. Don't just regurgitate what someone else has said into your ears. Entertain, just for a moment what would be the way to approach a law that could possibly make people safer and not infringe on the rights to own a firearm. If you were made a Senator right now, what would you do? How would you fix it?
I am genuinely curious, Rap, about what you're actually suggesting in terms of new laws that might have stopped even this one individual in Aurora, while still not significantly impacting the rights of those law-abiding citizens who believe in and practice responsible gun ownership? I say this without any sarcasm, but out of honest to goodness desire to promote a reasoned debate. The evidence to date suggests that, at least here in the USA, stricter gun laws does not equal safer communities (just the opposite, it can be argued). And there are legitmate reasons to own a gun: 1) Shooting sports (including hunting), 2) self/home defense, 3) THE original reason for the second amendment, i.e. defense against tyranny (foreign or domestic). So, any such proposed changes/additions to gun laws must not unduly impact the lawful preservation of these liberties.
-
Bodhi, no doubt a skilled user can do as much damage with a handgun as an inexperienced user can with an assault weapon. But that's just it. An inexperienced person can use an assualt weapon with a large magazine and wreak havoc. Commen-sense regulations should not bring about rants of "They're taking our guns away!!!!" A ban on high-capacity magazines would be a simple law that does not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights, and would/should not be an issue among legal gun-owners. Not only that, but it may reduce the carnage in future shootings.
Guppy beat me to it.
There is no reasonable amount of gun control. A person with half a brain and 4 X 30 round mags can accomplish just as much if not more than a person with a 100 round drum mag. That's the problem with supposed gun control on magazine limitations. It is not a realistic approach to stop the crime, instead, it is a knee-jerk reaction that is designed to appease the masses. It has no bearing on reality.
The 2nd Amendment is very clear in that it states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Any limitations on firearms is an infringement. There are many illegal limitations on firearms as it sits, but the courts are too busy (or are of a biased set) with other issues to properly address them.
-
Pulleeeeeeze! By this reasoning, the best possible course is to leave guns lying around every street corner. Absolute freedom of access is not a reasonable course. We don't allow absolute freedom of access to motor vehicles! A reasonable discourse as Guppy says is not an "attack" on anything. It is what a polite and intelligent and free society does to create itself.
Political discourse in this country has turned into demonizing the other side based on wildly fictitious arguments. I'm relatively certain that I'm not a demon and I'm pretty sure that other folks here are not either. What do we as rational people think? Can we talk? Can we disagree? Can a workable compromise be found? I think we can. I believe we can. I believe that is what America is about.
Take the blinders off. THINK
You want to talk about unreasonable? You are suggesting something completely contrary and biased to push your agenda. There are a plethora of different firearms available (not counting limitations). Assault weapons have been very available since after the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban. Guess what, there is no appreciable raise in gun crime with the use of assault weapons than there was during the ban. It is nothing more than a feel-good measure that accomplished nothing but drive the costs of guns up.
Lastly, I have not created a fictitious argument, I think you have when you said guns should be lying around just for the taking. I certainly never said that. All I have said and support is that the 2nd Amendment does not allow for a infringement on firearms.
Talk about blinder.
-
You don't fix that.... How could you?
Norway: 76 killed, mostly children, in a nation with some of the strictest gun control laws on earth...
just food for thought. how many mass shootings has norway had in the past 10 years. how many have we had? I am all for the second amendment but sometimes i wonder if we lose as many cops in a year as England loses in decades then it's the mentally of people that is wrong. we have a fascination with guns more than other countries and I think that is a big problem. what the solution is? I dont know. it isnt less or more gun laws, it's more about we need to change our attitude.
semp
-
just food for thought. how many mass shootings has norway had in the past 10 years. how many have we had? I am all for the second amendment but sometimes i wonder if we lose as many cops in a year as England loses in decades then it's the mentally of people that is wrong. we have a fascination with guns more than other countries and I think that is a big problem. what the solution is? I dont know. it isnt less or more gun laws, it's more about we need to change our attitude.
semp
I think you're touching on an important issue that often goes overlooked. People often make a faulty causal connection between America's love of guns and gun violence. I would speculate that poverty, drug use, the war on drugs, and crumbling mental health services have a much bigger influence on gun crime than the availability of semi-automatic rifles.
-
Would a bag full of revolvers be as effective as an M-16 with a 100-round capacity magazine? :headscratch:
-
I think you're touching on an important issue that often goes overlooked. People often make a faulty causal connection between America's love of guns and gun violence. I would speculate that poverty, drug use, the war on drugs, and crumbling mental health services have a much bigger influence on gun crime than the availability of semi-automatic rifles.
Economic pressures outside of poverty too I think.
-
The 2nd Amendment allows you to keep and bear arms, not 100 roung mags. Not every single gun law is an encroachment of the 2nd Amendment; that is about as knee-jerk a reaction as banning all guns as a result of such a shooting. Pragmatism over idealism.
-
Economic pressures outside of poverty too I think.
All of that, and I also think population density plays a factor somehow. Canada in general isn't that much different than the states when it comes to gun culture other than handguns, but gun violence is quite a bit less common.
The 2nd Amendment allows you to keep and bear arms, not 100 roung mags. Not every single gun law is an encroachment of the 2nd Amendment; that is about as knee-jerk a reaction as banning all guns as a result of such a shooting. Pragmatism over idealism.
Explain in detail what the 100 round mag accomplished that smaller ones wouldn't have.
Wiley.
-
The 2nd Amendment allows you to keep and bear arms, not 100 roung mags. Not every single gun law is an encroachment of the 2nd Amendment; that is about as knee-jerk a reaction as banning all guns as a result of such a shooting. Pragmatism over idealism.
It doesn't limit ammo at all.
-
It doesn't limit ammo at all.
It doesn't reserve that express right, either. It's meant to be dealt with by elected officials. Prohibiting large-capacity mags violates no Constitutional provision, and evidently the assualt rifle ban didn't either, although I'd disagree with going that far.
Wiley- Like I mentioned a couple posts back, the shooting was only 90 seconds. A few reloads in a stressful situation is less people shot at the end of the day. No, the outcome wouldn't have been drastically different, but it would have been different. Many people argue that the killer could have used homemade explosives with everyday items that you can pick up at your grocery store. However, he didn't. He chose the gun route. Had such a simple regulation been in place, he wouldn't have had easy access to large clips and the result would most likely have been different, as I've already laid out. Furthermore, not being able to shoot 100 round mags at a range is not even really a price to pay for legal gun owners.
-
I thought they would outlaw large passenger planes after 911. :headscratch:
-
Well why would you want a gun without ammo?
-
It doesn't reserve that express right, either. It's meant to be dealt with by elected officials. Prohibiting large-capacity mags violates no Constitutional provision, and evidently the assualt rifle ban didn't either, although I'd disagree with going that far.
Wiley- Like I mentioned a couple posts back, the shooting was only 90 seconds. A few reloads in a stressful situation is less people shot at the end of the day. No, the outcome wouldn't have been drastically different, but it would have been different. Many people argue that the killer could have used homemade explosives with everyday items that you can pick up at your grocery store. However, he didn't. He chose the gun route. Had such a simple regulation been in place, he wouldn't have had easy access to large clips and the result would most likely have been different, as I've already laid out. Furthermore, not being able to shoot 100 round mags at a range is not even really a price to pay for legal gun owners.
So... instead of 90 seconds of firing, he would've had 84 seconds of firing. You said so yourself, the outcome wouldn't have been drastically different, then why bother? If you're going to propose something to help a problem, doesn't it make sense to propose something that actually does something, rather than a measure that you yourself admitted would be virtually ineffective?
Wiley.
-
A few reloads in a stressful situation is less people shot at the end of the day. No, the outcome wouldn't have been drastically different, but it would have been different. Many people argue that the killer could have used homemade explosives with everyday items that you can pick up at your grocery store. However, he didn't. He chose the gun route. Had such a simple regulation been in place, he wouldn't have had easy access to large clips and the result would most likely have been different, as I've already laid out. Furthermore, not being able to shoot 100 round mags at a range is not even really a price to pay for legal gun owners.
Witnesses say the shooter was cool as a cucumber.
His 100 round magazine jammed. He came nowhere near emptying it. He switched to shotgun and pistol.
-
For those of you who are harping on the high cap magazine aspect, you might want to consdider something. It was the high cap mag that jammed his gun cutting short his shooting session with the rifle. Had he stuck with the standard mags and just swapped them out he probably would have gotten more folks. In this case, blaming the high cap magazine is silly since it hindered rather than helped the shooter.
-
I say drastically, as in such a law wouldn't prevent the shooting, or halve the casualties. Instead, it might save 5-10 people from being shot or killed. Given the scenario, that is very effective if you ask me. A law with such benefits and no loss of freedom makes sense to me.
-
I say drastically, as in such a law wouldn't prevent the shooting, or halve the casualties. Instead, it might save 5-10 people from being shot or killed. Given the scenario, that is very effective if you ask me. A law with such benefits and no loss of freedom makes sense to me.
Or, as stated, they most likely wouldn't have jammed and he might have killed 5-10 more people. Playing 'what if' with this kind of thing is meaningless.
Wiley.
-
Unfortunately, I can not respond to five people arguing with different facets of each post I make, so I will respectfully bow out and hope that some may realize that not every regulation is an attack on the 2nd Amendment, and can actually have benefits. :salute
-
I say drastically, as in such a law wouldn't prevent the shooting, or halve the casualties. Instead, it might save 5-10 people from being shot or killed. Given the scenario, that is very effective if you ask me. A law with such benefits and no loss of freedom makes sense to me.
I would disagree. If the shooter had stuck with regular magazines, it is likely more would be dead. Further, you are forgetting a very important aspect here. That is the 2nd Amendment. It expressly forbids infringement on arms. A magazine ban is an infringement.
-
Unfortunately, I can not respond to five people arguing with different facets of each post I make, so I will respectfully bow out and hope that some may realize that not every regulation is an attack on the 2nd Amendment, and can actually have benefits. :salute
Forget about the second amendment, I'm talking purely about effectiveness. Every single time something like this happens, the public rallies around the idea that Something Must Be Done! Gun laws are easy to do, they can spend a bunch of time writing up legislation and people can feel better because the Government Did Something. Whether the legislation has any impact on crime is irrelevant.
Wiley.
-
serious question here - how many of you take a gun with you every time you go to the movies?
-
Forget about the second amendment, I'm talking purely about effectiveness. Every single time something like this happens, the public rallies around the idea that Something Must Be Done! Gun laws are easy to do, they can spend a bunch of time writing up legislation and people can feel better because the Government Did Something. Whether the legislation has any impact on crime is irrelevant.
Wiley.
There are numerous instances of large capacity mags being used. They've been used in Tucson, Aurora, Long Island Railroad, Fort Hood, and Virginia Tech. Coincedentally, the shooter involved in the Long Island Railroad shooting was subdued while reloading. A ban on such magazines would make them harder to get, and could lessen the damage in future shootings for virtually zero price to legal firearms owners. I believe the effectiveness of the ban would not be as small as many who say that "they will find ways" seem to let on. For the most part, the perpetrators in these massacres aren't hardened criminals with ample access to such accessories. Instead, they use the tools available.
-
serious question here - how many of you take a gun with you every time you go to the movies?
Every time since I got my license.
There are numerous instances of the effectiveness of large capacity mags. They've been used in Tucson, Aurora, Long Island Railroad, Fort Hood, and Virginia Tech. Coincedentally, the shooter involved in the Long Island Railroad shooting was subdued while reloading. A ban on such magazines would make them harder to get, and could lessen the damage in future shootings for virtually zero price to legal firearms owners.
What's your definition of a large capacity magazine?
-
serious question here - how many of you take a gun with you every time you go to the movies?
I have not been to the movies in years. When my wife and daughter go, my wife leaves hers in the truck because the theater they go to is posted.
-
Getting sucked back into the vortex of debate... I would consider anything over 10-15 rounds large-capacity.
-
For the most part, the perpetrators in these massacres aren't hardened criminals with ample access to such weapons. Instead, they use the tools available.
So... you're proposing what, confiscation, or merely halting of production? If halting production, the genie's already out of the bottle, it will be ineffective. If confiscation, are you seriously proposing the rounding up of billions of dollars of peoples' personal property for the actions of what, 10, 12 people over the last 10-15 years?
Wiley.
-
Getting sucked back into the vortex of debate... I would consider anything over 10-15 rounds large-capacity.
Many full sized 9mm pistols come with stock magazines that hold 17-19 rounds.
-
Jay, I would consider those high capacity. I'm sure there are other magazines for the Glock that hold less and would fit the 15 limit.
Wiley, you bring up a very good point, but I'm sure a solution could be worked out. Maybe block all production and further sales, and refund business owners who bought them and still have them for sale. No confiscations of current owners.
-
Jay, I would consider those high capacity. I'm sure there are other magazines for the Glock that hold less and would fit the 15 limit.
Wiley, you bring up a very good point, but I'm sure a solution could be worked out. Maybe block all production and further sales, and refund business owners who bought them and still have them for sale. No confiscations of current owners.
I'm still hung up on 'effectiveness'. I think you seriously underestimate the number of magazines that would fall outside that restriction in circulation. Private sales would keep that going pretty much ad infinitum. Between that and the fact that handguns which generally hold less than 18 rounds anyways, are most often used in crime, again, where's the improvement?
Wiley.
-
I'm still hung up on 'effectiveness'. I think you seriously underestimate the number of magazines that would fall outside that restriction in circulation. Private sales would keep that going pretty much ad infinitum. Between that and the fact that handguns which generally hold less than 18 rounds anyways, are most often used in crime, again, where's the improvement?
Wiley.
The improvement would be less damage in these mass shootings, for the loss of virtually no liberties. A simple law that would pay dividends in saved lives when people snap and go on rampages. My idea on enforcement is definately not set in stone, but the solution I offered would make further sale and production of such magazines for civilian use illegal. Businesses with them in stock would be refunded and the magazines would be taken off the market. Sales would be illegal and carry punishments just like any other illegal sale.
-
You bring up the point of the millions already out there. Most who own them are responsible gun owners with no intentions to shoot others except in the case of protecting his family. However, they are still for sale at gun shops, and that is where the mass murderers get them from when they decide to go on a rampage. These people don't already own guns, and instead purchase them when their mind is made up. If they didn't have this point of access, the magazines would not be nearly as prevalent.
-
It kind of depends on whose definition of "loss of liberties" we use. I personally wouldn't care much if 100 round drums were not available. I would not like to have my magazines limited to 9 rounds.
There are numerous instances of large capacity mags being used. They've been used in Tucson,
You mention a shooter being subdued while reloading. That happened in Tucson when a woman grabbed the end of the magazine he was trying to load. That would have only been possible with an extended length magazine.
Just saying.
You seem to be OK with banning certain things on the principal that no one really needs them, rather than a true benefit analysis. I repeat..........Before banning a legal item, I would like to be assured that the result would be clearer than "There is some chance that it might possibly slow down a person intent on mass murder, maybe a little."
I notice you didn't address the concept that if he hadn't had a gun he could have detonated a bomb. Seems as though he had that ability.
-
I did address your last line a few posts ago by simply saying he didn't choose that route, he went with guns. Obviously he could have used a bomb; he could have done any number of things, but he chose guns, as do many others. Let me refocus the benefit of the law: It would remove the point of access of large-capacity magazines that mass murderers utilize. They would not be able to walk into a store and purchase the magazines. I don't propose banning assault rifles or any type of gun; rather a law that prevents the sale of magazines with a capacity larger than 15.
-
How many of the massacres that have occurred have involved high capacity magazines versus handguns? VT guy was all handguns. I'm not going to quibble about 3 rounds per magazine meaning a thing.
Secondly, in how many of those shootings did those magazines afford the shooter a substantial advantage?
Wiley.
-
I notice you didn't address the concept that if he hadn't had a gun he could have detonated a bomb. Seems as though he had that ability.
Nobody cares about bomb control.
What "could" be done by a person with a bomb isn't nearly as exciting media-wise as what "could" be done with a gun.
A picture of a bomb is boring, too. Nowhere near as emotionally exciting as a person with a "nasty" gun.
-
Secondly, in how many of those shootings did those magazines afford the shooter a substantial advantage?
Wiley.
You'd have to ask them. I can tell you as a very inexperienced shooter, which almost all of these people are, I would much rather have a bigger clip if I were to be in a situation where I had to use a gun.
-
You'd have to ask them. I can tell you as a very inexperienced shooter, which almost all of these people are, I would much rather have a bigger clip if I were to be in a situation where I had to use a gun.
I may not. I certainly wouldn't choose a 100 round magazine because I know they are prone to jamming, I can reload my AR in a decent time. I've also never been a big fan of the 33 rounders that Glock makes, throws off my balance and you've got this big stick out of the bottom, I'm faster and more accurate with my stock 15 round magazine. I can switch out my Glock magazine in less than 2 seconds.
-
I may not. I certainly wouldn't choose a 100 round magazine because I know they are prone to jamming, I can reload my AR in a decent time. I've also never been a big fan of the 33 rounders that Glock makes, throws off my balance and you've got this big stick out of the bottom, I'm faster and more accurate with my stock 15 round magazine. I can switch out my Glock magazine in less than 2 seconds.
You'd have to ask them. I can tell you as a very inexperienced shooter, which almost all of these people are, I would much rather have a bigger clip if I were to be in a situation where I had to use a gun.
-
You'd have to ask them. I can tell you as a very inexperienced shooter, which almost all of these people are, I would much rather have a bigger clip if I were to be in a situation where I had to use a gun.
And there-in also lies an issue with magazine capacity limits...
If you were ever in a situation where you "had to use a gun", you'd be limited (as a law-abiding citizen) to just a few government-allowed attempts to protect yourself. After all, if you went over that number you'd be the criminal...
Meanwhile, the criminal (who's a criminal after all...) is only limited in ammo capacity by his conscience. If he cares about the law, he'll limit his magazine size. If he doesn't care about the legal restrictions imposed on him by the law, he won't.
How many rounds do we think is "fair" when it comes to an attempt to defend yourself or others?
-
You'd have to ask them. I can tell you as a very inexperienced shooter, which almost all of these people are, I would much rather have a bigger clip if I were to be in a situation where I had to use a gun.
In other words, you're just speculating that their magazine size had an effect on these crimes.
You seem to have this image that a magazine change is some kind of arduous task. Most guns are built around the concept of making it as easy as possible. Flock shooting a crowd I have no doubt in my mind I could go from empty back to shooting in under two seconds swapping magazines in a rifle or pistol. And I am by NO means fast, nor am I particularly experienced in speed shooting.
You're talking about a very specific crime here. One that generally involves someone sitting down and preparing for a while before they go and do it. A guy that's doing something like this may not have a lot of practical experience, but he's thought about it for a fair bit of time, and he's going to have more than a passing familiarity with the weapon he's chosen.
Wiley.
-
There is no doubt it had an effect. In Tucson, the gunman, with a 33-round clip, got off 31 shots in less than 15 seconds. An inexperienced shooter, that doesn't happen if he suddenly notices he isn't shooting and has to reload. In fact, like someone mentioned earlier, the Tucson shooter was also subdued while reloading.
-
Smaller clips sizes means more reloading, which means less time firing and more time vulnerable to be subdued. Those factors are only amplified when the shooter is inexperienced, and should be reason enough to enact such a law.
-
If some wacko builds bombs and booby traps in his apartment, he can probably jury-rig some bigger magazines too.
And if he is going to break the law by murdering people, he won't have much regard for laws limiting his magazine size.
Making stricter laws will not stop someone this crazy. A bunch of lunatics killed thousands with box cutters.
-
There is no doubt it had an effect. In Tucson, the gunman, with a 33-round clip, got off 31 shots in less than 15 seconds. An inexperienced shooter, that doesn't happen if he suddenly notices he isn't shooting and has to reload. In fact, like someone mentioned earlier, the Tucson shooter was also subdued while reloading.
Yeah by someone who was able to grab the end of his long magazine, She wouldn't have been able to grab a shorter one and would probably would have been killed.
You'd have to ask them. I can tell you as a very inexperienced shooter, which almost all of these people are, I would much rather have a bigger clip if I were to be in a situation where I had to use a gun.
Ironic isn't it? As an experienced shooter, so would I.
-
How about any of the other mass shooting that have been brought up? Did they use explosives? Guns are simple to operate, and are the first choice of many people simply because even the most inexperienced person can operate them to some extent. Obviously there are other just as deadly ways to inflict damage, but there is a reason why guns are used so much.
Jimson, do you feel a 15-round clip is sufficient for self-defense purposes?
Also, according to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-09/justice/arizona.shooting_1_arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-people-shot-doctors?_s=PM:CRIME, he dropped the magazine onto the sidewalk while trying to reload and it was picked up there.
-
Getting sucked back into the vortex of debate... I would consider anything over 10-15 rounds large-capacity.
I don't.... That's standard capacity for handguns, and 50% of many semi-auto rifles..
Sorry TonyJoey, but none of your arguments pass the smell test.
By the way, it's not a "clip", it's a magazine...
-
Obviously 20 or 30 round clips are standard for military or police use. That doesn't mean that for civilian purposes one couldn't consider them large-capacity.
-
Obviously 20 or 30 round clips are standard for military or police use. That doesn't mean that for civilian purposes one couldn't consider them large-capacity.
You can consider them anything you wish... That doesn't make them so.
-
You can consider them anything you wish... That doesn't make them so.
Since it suits the definition more accurately, I will now say ban standard-capacity magazines for weapons. 15 bullet max.
-
And what's the violent crime rate in England nowadays? How about Australia? Or Chicago? How does that gun control work out for them?
Guns don't equal freedom. Well what, exactly is freedom? Is it the right to run arond the streets naked with green jello all over your body? Is that freedom? Or is freedom the right to live your life how you see fit, how you deem. The right to choose where you work, where you live, how you live, if you want to raise a family, how you raise your family. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness. That is freedom.
And what is a gun? A gun is a tool. It is a violent, highly capable and extremely effective tool. But more to the point, guns are power. Raw, unfiltered, no nonsense power.
A man with a gun has a power that a man without a gun will never achieve. The power to choose. And choosing is what freedom is all about.
If guns never existed, then strength of arm and skill with a bow would be the equals of that power. Physical size, sharpness of sword and innate hand-eye coordination would be the powers that let you choose your life. A 6 ft 230 lbs. man could choose any life he wanted in such a world, he could very easily choose to dominate or take what he wanted because very very few people could stand up to him. He could become a champion of righteousness, he could become a king, a conqueror, or he could become a murderer, a rapist, a being most vile and foul and very few people could hope to stop him.
A 14 year old girl with a gun has more power than he.
The men who created this nation understood this. They understood that for freedom to exist, for people to be able to choose their lives they must have the power to do so. And power stems not from an idea, not from a belief, not from the vote, or from a government, or divine mandate. The root of all power throughout all of history, is by what one man or woman can physically do. The ultimate form of power on this Earth, is the ability to end life. It has been so for thousands of years. The threat of it has seen nations rise and fall. Has seen people act with extraordinary valor and others with utter deprivation.
How then do you make certain that the people you wish to protect have the power to protect themselves?
You arm them. You let them, as a right of citizenship carry whatever arms they deem necessary to protect themselves. The ultimate power of the Earth then rests, not with a king, not with a priest, or a book of law interpreted by a council, but divided, split 300 million times amongst the people who have no desire to abuse it.
Some will die, there will be accidents, some will abuse this power but others will be there to stop them. In a far more effective manner than any watch, police force, or army.
The tragedy that has taken place is not that guns were used to kill people. If a man is crazy, if a man desires it, he can kill just as effectively, just as many people, if not more, with weapons that aren't guns, and that are far easier to obtain.
The tragedy is that people died, and a man killed them. The tools are irrelevant.
Very well put Hoffman
Lambo
-
How about any of the other mass shooting that have been brought up? Did they use explosives? Guns are simple to operate, and are the first choice of many people simply because even the most inexperienced person can operate them to some extent. Obviously there are other just as deadly ways to inflict damage, but there is a reason why guns are used so much.
Jimson, do you feel a 15-round clip is sufficient for self-defense purposes? That depends. You could face multiple attackers, then perhaps not. Personally I'd be Ok with several 15 round magazines, but I really don't want to be told how effective a firearm I need when my life is on the line.
I have some property near a well traveled smuggling route, I was once told by a BP agent if I ever see anyone pretend I don't and don't reach for my pocket lest they think I'm going for a cell phone. Out there I want a semi auto rifle and some 30 round magazines.
Also, according to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-09/justice/arizona.shooting_1_arizona-congresswoman-gabrielle-giffords-people-shot-doctors?_s=PM:CRIME, he dropped the magazine onto the sidewalk while trying to reload and it was picked up there.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/giffords-shooting-timeline/
"The shooter attempts to reload his weapon when a woman grabs the gun's magazine and rips it away from him. The shooter tries to put another magazine in the gun, but the spring in the magazine fails. Two men subdue him until authorities arrive."
-
Ban Guns.
-
"Authorities said the suspect, 22-year-old Jared Lee Loughner, was tackled by two men when he tried to reload his pistol -- while a woman in the crowd, Patricia Maisch, took away the fresh magazine Loughner had dropped.
"He pulled the magazine out of his pants pocket and it dropped onto the sidewalk. And before he could reach it, I got it," Maisch told CNN. "I just reacted. I didn't have an opportunity to think."
Asked about people calling her a hero, she said, "The two men that secured him were the heroes. I just was an assistant in being able to get that magazine or clip."
-
Maisch looked up and saw the gunman, allegedly Jared Loughner, reaching for a second 31-shot clip from his pants pocket after emptying his first.
"He was pulling the magazine out of his pocket with his left hand, and I was able to grab the magazine when he pulled it out," Maisch said last night.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/incredible_heroism_fzNQYC2zCqYbSN1GqRFFiI#ixzz21gRqoNTc
I guess we could do this all day.
-
Since it suits the definition more accurately, I will now say ban standard-capacity magazines for weapons. 15 bullet max.
That will never happen again... It failed the last time and the Federal ban was lifted. It solved nothing. 600 million AK type magazines in circulation worldwide, probably even more.. Hell, the damn Feds were giving "assault weapons" to Mexican drug cartels (an amazing exercise in stupidity). Good luck keeping those out of the hands of those willing to obtain them. I've got about a dozen extra myself which I don't need (nice East German mags)... Ditto on H&K G3/CETME mags. I'd sell them, but some do-gooder politicians might exercise another empty gesture of futility and ban future sales. So, I'll keep them.
You youngsters have no sense for history, and by and large little knowledge of firearms. No one will be grabbing the shooter if not within arms distance at the outset. Everyone will be running for their lives.
On August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman killed 14 (16 if you count knifing his mother and wife) and wounded 32 others with a 5 round capacity, Remington 700 6mm bolt-action rifle. Go ahead, tell me how banning your so called "high capacity magazines will prevent that...
-
I'm gonna quit it now TJ. You are dug in and I'm not wasting any more time on this. I do think you are predictably taking the easy road and focusing on a feel good measure that is the thing least likely to make any difference.
I'd be looking at better security for high profile events. I'd be wondering how the Colorado POS managed to unnoticed propped a door open so that he could bring his arsenal in through the back, that's not very secure. He sure wouldn't have got it through the front door that easily.
The Tucson POS got thrown out of community college and told not to return by campus police until he had been evaluated to make sure he wasn't dangerous. I don't know why there wasn't some reporting mechanism, as you would think that should be enough to land him on a prohibited possessers list.
I don't know if there was a mental health aspect that could have prevented the Aurora massacre, but apparently the POS sent a "manifesto" to a psychiatrist detailing what he planned to do. Unfortunately it sat unopened until after he had done it.
-
interesting discussion gents, and thanks for keeping it mostly civil :aok
-
How about any of the other mass shooting that have been brought up? Did they use explosives?
Obviously mass SHOOTINGS are going to use guns...
What about Oklahoma City? He didn't use guns.
-
Jimson, do you feel a 15-round clip is sufficient for self-defense purposes?
Seriously?
You propose limiting how many much opportunity a law-abiding citizen has to defend himself? Against a criminal who obviously isn't going to follow any legal limits? Do you see that as logical?
I'm interested in the discussion of course, but don't believe there's any real chance of this type of legislation in the foreseeable future.
-
The improvement would be less damage in these mass shootings, for the loss of virtually no liberties. A simple law that would pay dividends in saved lives when people snap and go on rampages. My idea on enforcement is definately not set in stone, but the solution I offered would make further sale and production of such magazines for civilian use illegal. Businesses with them in stock would be refunded and the magazines would be taken off the market. Sales would be illegal and carry punishments just like any other illegal sale.
your assuming that you could get rid of all high cap magazines .and the next shooter will obey the law and not get one illegally..
mtman beat me to it... see my avatar for further commentary
-
Think the movie theater said no "guns allowed". I'm going to put that on my front door to keep out the bad guys.
-
no guns allowed....
-
Think the movie theater said no "guns allowed". I'm going to put that on my front door to keep out the bad guys.
Genius. This kind of thinking would have saved me some money on a gun of my own.
-
What is the number one assault weapon in the USA? Couldn't be a golf club?
-
7 iron?
-
your assuming that you could get rid of all high cap magazines .and the next shooter will obey the law and not get one illegally..
mtman beat me to it... see my avatar for further commentary
If you would have looked at some of my posts a little more closely, you might have noticed that my proposed solution for enforcement did not propose confiscating every standard-capacity mag that people already own. Rather, future sales and production would be halted, and any business who had them still in stock would forfeit them but be refunded. This would remove the easy access that mass murderers have and use to secure such deadly accessories. Those who currently own them would be allowed to keep them legally.
-
If you would have looked at some of my posts a little more closely, you might have noticed that my proposed solution for enforcement did not propose confiscating every standard-capacity mag that people already own. Rather, future sales and production would be halted, and any business who had them still in stock would forfeit them but be refunded. This would remove the easy access that mass murderers have and use to secure such deadly accessories. Those who currently own them would be allowed to keep them legally.
Would people who own them be allowed to sell them?
-
Jayhawk, my solution would prohibit all further sales. Maybe there could be a program to sell them to the government. Like Widewing mentioned though, there is a good chance those will end up in Mexico.
Obviously mass SHOOTINGS are going to use guns...
You got me there :lol
-
MtnMan, obviously limiting the capacity of a gun used for self-defense would not be the intention; however, it would be a by-product. That's why I asked someone who I percieve to be a gun owner if a 15-round magazine would cause someone who has a gun for self-defense any apprehension. Also, I would wager that most break-ins don't involve a perpetrator with an assault weapon with standard-capacity magazines.
-
MtnMan, obviously limiting the capacity of a gun used for self-defense would not be the intention; however, it would be a by-product. That's why I asked someone who I percieve to be a gun owner if a 15-round magazine would cause someone who has a gun for self-defense any apprehension. Also, I would wager that most break-ins don't involve a perpetrator with an assault weapon with standard-capacity magazines.
It doesn't matter to me what type of weapon a perpetrator uses (assault weapon or not). I'm concerned that you would expect a law-abiding citizen to retrain him/herself to "legal" limits when it comes to how much self-defense they can use to save their lives. Sure, we could agree that 15 rounds are enough; what makes you think others wouldn't settle on 2 or 3 rounds? Or single-shot for that matter?
MANY criminals already use "illegal" weapons in illegal ways. How would your proposal stop that? Handguns are illegal in Chicago, right? It's one of the strictest anti-gun cities, but is still full of illegal handguns. How are they criminals getting these, if they're not for sale? How are they carrying them if it's illegal to do so? Why aren't they playing by the rules?
-
Yes, I hear that chocolate, cheese and protecting the financial anonymity of the world's richest criminals tends to promote calmness.
Not quite right, so let me enlighten you. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world couple that with a general high average income and very little crime compared to other countrys.
For some reason I always hear that stupid argument that Switzerland has such a low crime rate because of the amount of guns in the civilian population. This is just BS tbh. When you have a good life and the basics are taken care off there is very little motivation to steal and commit crime.
I personally have a military grade SIG 550/II assault rifle (Full Auto for those who want to know) at home. I am a soldier in the swiss armed forces and as such per law I have my service weapon at home. This comes from the old military doctrine to have the whole country ready and armed in less then 24 hours in the case of war. Nowadays this doctrine is rather silly as our neighbours Germany, Austria, France and Italy have been living in peace for the last 65 years.
You don't need a weapon to kill someone, if you are trained like me you can do that just with your hands.
Personally for me it comes down to living circumstances and the higher amounts of anti-depressants. I am almost certain that all recent shootings like this were because these wackos were on some severe meds who skew ones perception of reality. And since most of America is on some form of drugs these days there are certainly gonna be more incidents like this.
-
MANY criminals already use "illegal" weapons in illegal ways. How would your proposal stop that? Handguns are illegal in Chicago, right? It's one of the strictest anti-gun cities, but is still full of illegal handguns. How are they criminals getting these, if they're not for sale? How are they carrying them if it's illegal to do so? Why aren't they playing by the rules?
I don't buy the "if there's a will, there's a way" argument when it comes to the mentally insane that commit these crimes. I'd be very interested to find out who James Holmes could call, besides any gun store currently, to acquire such a magazine. I don't think many people would have access to an M16 with a 30 round magazine, much less 100-rounds in the first place. The biggest thing though was the man was insane; he wasn't in the mob or a drug cartel where illegal weapons are abound. The same with Jared Lee Loughner and Colin Ferguson, and many more. These people aren't hardened criminals with easy access to any illegal weapon or accessory they may want, like the perpetrators in the gang-related shootings in Chicago.
-
If you would have looked at some of my posts a little more closely, you might have noticed that my proposed solution for enforcement did not propose confiscating every standard-capacity mag that people already own. Rather, future sales and production would be halted, and any business who had them still in stock would forfeit them but be refunded. This would remove the easy access that mass murderers have and use to secure such deadly accessories. Those who currently own them would be allowed to keep them legally.
Just out of curiosity, who is providing this refund?
-
I don't buy the "if there's a will, there's a way" argument when it comes to the mentally insane that commit these crimes. I'd be very interested to find out who James Holmes could call, besides any gun store currently, to acquire such a magazine. I don't think many people would have access to an M16 with a 30 round magazine, much less 100-rounds in the first place. The biggest thing though was the man was insane; he wasn't in the mob or a drug cartel where illegal weapons are abound. The same with Jared Lee Loughner and Colin Ferguson, and many more. These people aren't hardened criminals with easy access to any illegal weapon or accessory they may want, like the perpetrators in the gang-related shootings in Chicago.
If your assumption that a ban or prohibition on a product / substance / object precludes it's availability for use by anyone who desired said object were true then prohibition would have ended the use of alcohol in the US in the early 1900's. There would be no issues regarding the use of marijuana, heroin, meth, cocain, coke, PCP, amphetimines, LSD or other substances that are already banned in the US for use by "civilians". The true situation is that prohibition, bans and other laws meant to curb the possession or use of a "thing" has a sorry and predictable outcome. In other words history, as you obviously choose to ignore, has already shown the futility of that line of illogical thinking.
-
What is the number one assault weapon in the USA? Couldn't be a golf club?
I don't know... I'll ask Tiger. :lol
-
Just out of curiosity, who is providing this refund?
:aok
-
I don't buy the "if there's a will, there's a way" argument when it comes to the mentally insane that commit these crimes.
What do you think then? That if they can't go buy a high capacity gun at the store they won't start looking for black market sources? That they won't get in their car and start running people over? That they won't start burning occupied buildings down?
"Well, since I can't buy a big gun that holds lots of bullets, I think I'll just go volunteer at the animal shelter."
-
What do you think then? That if they can't go buy a high capacity gun at the store they won't start looking for black market sources? That they won't get in their car and start running people over? That they won't start burning occupied buildings down?
"Well, since I can't buy a big gun that holds lots of bullets, I think I'll just go volunteer at the animal shelter."
By that logic, why are guns banned on airplanes? Since terrorists will inevitably think of other ways to wreak havoc, what's the point in not letting everyone bring guns on planes?
-
By that logic, why are guns banned on airplanes? Since terrorists will inevitably think of other ways to wreak havoc, what's the point in not letting everyone bring guns on planes?
Some people may believe that guns on a plane are not that big of a deal... :bolt:
-
Would a bag full of revolvers be as effective as an M-16 with a 100-round capacity magazine? :headscratch:
I'd say more effecting. You may get off more shots in one go round as an M16 with a 100 round mag (who in the hell uses a 100 round mag for one anyway?) because the revolver has a higher chance to KILL more people due to the lethality of the round.
As far as this topic goes...
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/562685_392445587488590_725728775_n.jpg)
-
By that logic, why are guns banned on airplanes? Since terrorists will inevitably think of other ways to wreak havoc, what's the point in not letting everyone bring guns on planes?
The difference is that in one scenario (universal ban) you're taking them away entirely, depriving law-abiding people of the opportunity to enjoy them in situations where they are appropriate to possess and use, such as hunting, self-defense, collecting, and in the other scenario (onboard an airplane), you're limiting people's access to them in an environment where they have absolutely no safe and practical utility whatsoever.
I'd say more effecting. You may get off more shots in one go round as an M16 with a 100 round mag (who in the hell uses a 100 round mag for one anyway?) because the revolver has a higher chance to KILL more people due to the lethality of the round.
5.56 Nato rounds aren't as lethal as revolver rounds? You'll have to specify the caliber of the revolver, because last time I checked, unless you're running around with a .44 or 500 Smith and Wesson, the muzzle energy and range of a .223 is in a totally different class than any handgun. That's before you even consider the fact that an AR is far easier to aim and shoot effectively for an average shooter than a heavy revolver.
-
5.56 Nato rounds aren't as lethal as revolver rounds? You'll have to specify the caliber of the revolver, because last time I checked, unless you're running around with a .44 or 500 Smith and Wesson, the muzzle energy and range of a .223 is in a totally different class than any handgun. That's before you even consider the fact that an AR is far easier to aim and shoot effectively for an average shooter than a heavy revolver.
.223 makes nice round holes in 1/4" carbon steel plate at 150 yards. As far as aiming..... might be hampered in a crowded room of anxious folks.
-
.223 makes nice round holes in 1/4" carbon steel plate at 150 yards. As far as aiming..... might be hampered in a crowded room of anxious folks.
You'll get the 30 rounds off faster with an AR's single action than you will with a bag of revolvers. As far as being hampered by a crowded room, there's always this option:
http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=441&CFID=236492927&CFTOKEN=91034999&jsessionid=f03090d04d041046406b (http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=441&CFID=236492927&CFTOKEN=91034999&jsessionid=f03090d04d041046406b)
-
.223 makes nice round holes in 1/4" carbon steel plate at 150 yards. As far as aiming..... might be hampered in a crowded room of anxious folks.
The .223" make a nice entrance hole but make for a nasty exit wound in flesh.
-
The difference is that in one scenario (universal ban) you're taking them away entirely, depriving law-abiding people of the opportunity to enjoy them in situations where they are appropriate to possess and use, such as hunting, self-defense, collecting, and in the other scenario (onboard an airplane), you're limiting people's access to them in an environment where they have absolutely no safe and practical utility whatsoever.
Never have I, nor will I, propose and support a measure to ban all assault rifles. I'm proposing a limit to 15 round magazines, which would not affect hunting, self-defense, or collecting.
Marine- Please read some of my arguments before posting a meme and immediately discounting them.
Von Messa-The government would pick up the tab, after making much needed spending cuts in a number of other areas (Let's try not to open that can of worms too far so that the thread may live). Either that, or there could be a 1 year period during which businesses could still sell off their current inventories. After that the refund system would go into effect, but this time the tab would be much smaller.
-
If your assumption that a ban or prohibition on a product / substance / object precludes it's availability for use by anyone who desired said object were true then prohibition would have ended the use of alcohol in the US in the early 1900's. There would be no issues regarding the use of marijuana, heroin, meth, cocain, coke, PCP, amphetimines, LSD or other substances that are already banned in the US for use by "civilians". The true situation is that prohibition, bans and other laws meant to curb the possession or use of a "thing" has a sorry and predictable outcome. In other words history, as you obviously choose to ignore, has already shown the futility of that line of illogical thinking.
I'm not ignoring history at all. Not once have I implied that a ban of standard-capacity magazines would eradicate them. Rather, I have countless times said that such a ban would remove the point of access that mass murders use to acquire such deadly accessories. The psychopaths that commit such atrosities are not in gangs or the mob. They are mentally insane people who use the tools available to them to commit mass murder. If such a ban were in place, who would James Holmes call to acquire a 100-round magazine for his M-16? He's not a member of a drug cartel or the Crips or a Neo-Nazi organization; to all non-psychologists, he was a college kid.
-
Never have I, nor will I, propose and support a measure to ban all assault rifles. I'm proposing a limit to 15 round magazines, which would not affect hunting, self-defense, or collecting.
Marine- Please read some of my arguments before posting a meme and immediately discounting them.
Von Messa-The government would pick up the tab, after making much needed spending cuts in a number of other areas (Let's try not to open that can of worms too far so that the thread may live). Either that, or there could be a 1 year period during which businesses could still sell off their current inventories. After that the refund system would go into effect, but this time the tab would be much smaller.
In order to sustain my status as a living creature, I would not hold my breath for that to come to fruition...
-
Had a feeling you were waiting for that so you could cherrypick it out of whatever I said. The latter option (Maybe even moved to 2 years) would alleviate that problem for the most part.
-
Had a feeling you were waiting for that so you could cherrypick it out of whatever I said. The latter option (Maybe even moved to 2 years) would alleviate that problem for the most part.
So the market would flood with whatever inventory was left (still allowing access to the items), essentially creating brisk trading in the private sector or black market in which said items would continue to exchange hands, thereby eliminating any regulation at all with regard to who acquires the items in question? On top of this, the Government is expected to "refund" small businesses for any surplus that may be incurred?
:rofl
The last time this was tried, they called it prohibition and business was booming. :aok
-
So the market would flood with whatever inventory was left (still allowing access to the items), essentially creating brisk trading in the private sector or black market in which said items would continue to exchange hands, thereby eliminating any regulation at all with regard to who acquires the items in question? On top of this, the Government is expected to "refund" small businesses for any surplus that may be incurred?
:rofl
The last time this was tried, they called it prohibition and business was booming. :aok
I would think flooding the market would only aid business and the economy. After two years, the gangs, cartels, and mobs will have them whether such a law is in place or not, while mass murderes who snap one day, on the other hand, won't be able to go to the store and buy them.
-
Von Messa-The government would pick up the tab.
The government cannot pick up the tab. It has no money. The best it can do is tax people and redistribute the money.
The taxpayers would be the ones picking up the tab.
I'm not trying to cherry-pick that out of your post, but it's a misconception that the government will "pick up the tab" for anything.
-
I would think flooding the market would only aid business and the economy. After two years, the gangs, cartels, and mobs will have them whether such a law is in place or not, while mass murderes who snap one day, on the other hand, won't be able to go to the store and buy them.
Since when has making a thing illegal stopped anyone from procuring the illegal thing in question?
Gangs and the mob won't sell these illegal items in question? Which motivation will have the greater effect? The way their moral compass points, or because they don't like money?
Our most recent mass murderer had been working on his plan for months, by the way, as most of the mass murderers have, as opposed to "snapping one day". They seemed to find the time to write journals, lists, schematics, stick-figure drawings and manifestos. Seems to me like plenty of time to locate and purchase anything they could afford, provided to them by by a vendor whose only requirement for transacting business is that the purchaser is in possession of cold, hard cash.
Va. Tech
Columbine
Oklahoma City
1996 Olympic Games
Jack the Ripper (No gun, by the way)
Just to name a few...
Your gonna need this:
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Shovel-pic.jpg)
-
Since when has making a thing illegal stopped anyone from procuring the illegal thing in question?
Gangs and the mob won't sell these illegal items in question? Which motivation will have the greater effect? The way their moral compass points, or because they don't like money?
Our most recent mass murderer had been working on his plan for months, by the way, as most of the mass murderers have, as opposed to "snapping one day". They seemed to find the time to write journals, lists, schematics, stick-figure drawings and manifestos. Seems to me like plenty of time to locate and purchase anything they could afford, provided to them by by a vendor whose only requirement for transacting business is that the purchaser is in possession of cold, hard cash.
You make good points, but I would argue that making it illegal would prevent psychopaths such as the killers in the events you mentioned from procuring such accessories. The events you listed involved weapons that were acquired legally. I still don't argee with the idea that people such as Holmes or the VT guy could locate a black market vendor. It's not like these people are set up on street corners. Those two in particular were college students who built up their arsenals primarily through online sales.
Edit: I meant the shootings involved legally acquired guns. I'm not so sure about the bomb components so maybe someone could say if they were actually made of ingredients that could be picked up at a grocery store.
-
Edit: I meant the shootings involved legally acquired guns. I'm not so sure about the bomb components so maybe someone could say if they were actually made of ingredients that could be picked up at a grocery store.
Go back and read my post again. When I mentioned that someone could pick up the components at the grocery store, I wasn't referring to making a bomb or to the components used in the bomb in CO.
-
Go back and read my post again. When I mentioned that someone could pick up the components at the grocery store, I wasn't referring to making a bomb or to the components used in the bomb in CO.
I honestly had no intention of attacking a previous post of yours so I apologize if it came off that way. I just wasn't sure about the legality of the bomb components used, so I wanted to differentiate the bombings from my statement that the weapons were acquired legally before someone provided ample evidence to the contrary.
-
I honestly had no intention of attacking a previous post of yours so I apologize if it came off that way. I just wasn't sure about the legality of the bomb components used, so I wanted to differentiate the bombings from my statement that the weapons were acquired legally before someone provided ample evidence to the contrary.
No, I didn't take it as an attack. I just meant to go back and read it again because I didn't feel like typing it out again.
The point I was trying to make is that if someone is bent on causing a big scene, they can do it with perfectly legal items available at very low cost to anyone who wants to go buy them. All they need is knowledge.
I believe that a big part of the "big magazine" draw some of these nutcases have is due to the shock-value, "coolness", fame, or whatever. They're trying to make a scene, and want to do it in a memorable way. In a sense, making big magazines illegal would probably increase their desire to use them.
-
Not quite right, so let me enlighten you. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world couple that with a general high average income and very little crime compared to other countrys.
For some reason I always hear that stupid argument that Switzerland has such a low crime rate because of the amount of guns in the civilian population. This is just BS tbh. When you have a good life and the basics are taken care off there is very little motivation to steal and commit crime.
I personally have a military grade SIG 550/II assault rifle (Full Auto for those who want to know) at home. I am a soldier in the swiss armed forces and as such per law I have my service weapon at home. This comes from the old military doctrine to have the whole country ready and armed in less then 24 hours in the case of war. Nowadays this doctrine is rather silly as our neighbours Germany, Austria, France and Italy have been living in peace for the last 65 years.
You don't need a weapon to kill someone, if you are trained like me you can do that just with your hands.
Personally for me it comes down to living circumstances and the higher amounts of anti-depressants. I am almost certain that all recent shootings like this were because these wackos were on some severe meds who skew ones perception of reality. And since most of America is on some form of drugs these days there are certainly gonna be more incidents like this.
you notice when you bring out the truth about something everybody ignores it?
semp
-
you notice when you bring out the truth about something everybody ignores it?
semp
I was gonna comment on his...
"You don't need a weapon to kill someone, if you are trained like me you can do that just with your hands." :rolleyes:
you dont need to be "trained" to kill someone with your bare hands.....I have met many many killers that were not trained in the slightest...yet they killed someone.
I figured what the hell is the point.
-
Von Messa-The government would pick up the tab, after making much needed spending cuts in a number of other areas (Let's try not to open that can of worms too far so that the thread may live). Either that, or there could be a 1 year period during which businesses could still sell off their current inventories. After that the refund system would go into effect, but this time the tab would be much smaller.
The government has no tab. You mean all Americans (the people)
-
You make good points, but I would argue that making it illegal would prevent psychopaths such as the killers in the events you mentioned from procuring such accessories. The events you listed involved weapons that were acquired legally. I still don't argee with the idea that people such as Holmes or the VT guy could locate a black market vendor. It's not like these people are set up on street corners. Those two in particular were college students who built up their arsenals primarily through online sales.
Edit: I meant the shootings involved legally acquired guns. I'm not so sure about the bomb components so maybe someone could say if they were actually made of ingredients that could be picked up at a grocery store.
It only takes knowledge and money. Knowledge of where to get it and the money to buy it.
To anyone with a mediocre understanding of chemistry, there are plenty of legal, household items that can be purchased to make a bomb or device to put a big hurt on a large group of people.
As for these vendors "not being set up on street corners"?
I can go downtown right now, to any number of corners, pick up a handgun (probably with all identifying marks removed) with a full magazine for
< $100 without even leaving my car and be back here at my desk before you are finished your oatmeal and coffee. This is not just Philly, either. You will find this in any big city.
Money talks.
-
I was gonna comment on his...
"You don't need a weapon to kill someone, if you are trained like me you can do that just with your hands." :rolleyes:
you dont need to be "trained" to kill someone with your bare hands.....I have met many many killers that were not trained in the slightest...yet they killed someone.
I figured what the hell is the point.
Well yeah Ink, if your trained its just easier, knowing which areas are vulnerable in the human body. My point is that you don't need a gun if you really want to kill someone. You out of all people on this board probably understands this the best.
:salute
-
I'm not ignoring history at all. Not once have I implied that a ban of standard-capacity magazines would eradicate them. Rather, I have countless times said that such a ban would remove the point of access that mass murders use to acquire such deadly accessories. The psychopaths that commit such atrosities are not in gangs or the mob. They are mentally insane people who use the tools available to them to commit mass murder. If such a ban were in place, who would James Holmes call to acquire a 100-round magazine for his M-16? He's not a member of a drug cartel or the Crips or a Neo-Nazi organization; to all non-psychologists, he was a college kid.
I understand that you really think that a ban would remove them from the possession of criminals. The sad fact is that history has shown very plainly that your preposition is not valid. Prohibition has never stopped an individual intent on using / possession of said object from obtaining it. Just like the incendiary devices the aurora hemorrhoid used to wire up his apartment or the propane bombs the columbine shooters tried to use to blow up the school. Even blacklisting books like the anarchists cookbook does not prevent an individual from accessing and using the material it contains to create a weapon or use it to kill / main innocents.
-
You bring up the point of the millions already out there. Most who own them are responsible gun owners with no intentions to shoot others except in the case of protecting his family. However, they are still for sale at gun shops, and that is where the mass murderers get them from when they decide to go on a rampage. These people don't already own guns, and instead purchase them when their mind is made up. If they didn't have this point of access, the magazines would not be nearly as prevalent.
Try educating yourself about the subject. Your fantasy solution of a ban will prevent nothing. Again, there are millions in circulation. Millions will be available after a ban just as they were during the last worthless ban that hey , guess what? Changed nothing.
-
It only takes knowledge and money. Knowledge of where to get it and the money to buy it.
To anyone with a mediocre understanding of chemistry, there are plenty of legal, household items that can be purchased to make a bomb or device to put a big hurt on a large group of people.
As for these vendors "not being set up on street corners"?
I can go downtown right now, to any number of corners, pick up a handgun (probably with all identifying marks removed) with a full magazine for
< $100 without even leaving my car and be back here at my desk before you are finished your oatmeal and coffee. This is not just Philly, either. You will find this in any big city.
Money talks.
dont go to los angeles and try to pick up a gun for $100 bucks at a corner. most likely than not the guy will stick the gun in your face and take you $100 bucks. and even if you get a gun for $100 dont expect to get a top of the line sniper rifle. you will be lucky if you get a .22. besides i can always just go to the store and pick up a used one for less than $100.
semp
-
Not quite right, so let me enlighten you. We have one of the highest standards of living in the world couple that with a general high average income and very little crime compared to other countrys.
For some reason I always hear that stupid argument that Switzerland has such a low crime rate because of the amount of guns in the civilian population. This is just BS tbh. When you have a good life and the basics are taken care off there is very little motivation to steal and commit crime.
I personally have a military grade SIG 550/II assault rifle (Full Auto for those who want to know) at home. I am a soldier in the swiss armed forces and as such per law I have my service weapon at home. This comes from the old military doctrine to have the whole country ready and armed in less then 24 hours in the case of war. Nowadays this doctrine is rather silly as our neighbours Germany, Austria, France and Italy have been living in peace for the last 65 years.
You don't need a weapon to kill someone, if you are trained like me you can do that just with your hands.
Personally for me it comes down to living circumstances and the higher amounts of anti-depressants. I am almost certain that all recent shootings like this were because these wackos were on some severe meds who skew ones perception of reality. And since most of America is on some form of drugs these days there are certainly gonna be more incidents like this.
There is much truth in what you say... Most of America, however, is not on drugs... America has other issues, and Europe is proving not to be immune to these either.
The problem here in the USA is a cultural problem. Politicians never search beyond their noses for the root cause. Our current popular culture promotes violence through film, television and video games, and the younger generations are more likely not to be horrified by it.
I have a H&K G3, a CETME 58 and AKM in my home. Add to that a pair of SKS rifles, Enfields and Mausers. In addition, I have two combat shotguns, various other rifles (I love my old Winchesters), pistols and seven black powder rifles and revolvers. Those folks I shoot with do not glorify violence. Hell, we're all veterans or cops and have had enough violence for a lifetime. We enjoy collecting and shooting as a hobby. Self defense is a byproduct of that. My children were taught gun safety and learned to shoot before their teenage years. We represent that substantial portion of Americans that are safe and responsible gun owners. Invariably, the nut jobs that commit horrific mass murders and criminal are not hobbyists and have little to no training or shooting skills. I wish the rest of the world would recognize that except for criminals and head cases, Americans are not dangerous with firearms.
Here's just a few.... TonyJoey, note the "high capacity magazines"..... ;)
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/10968_1291743179047_7409864_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/10968_1291743219048_1363423_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/312793_2624005884782_403817816_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/304165_2624006244791_1473414730_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/380865_2627264726251_1683090746_n.jpg)
-
That's one great looking G3 WW.
-
Some pages back in this thread I asked for concrete suggestions of new laws that might have prevented this attack in Aurora (or similar ones), without unduly restricting our liberties. The only one so far put forth is to limit magazines to 15 rounds or less. The arbitrariness of the proposed solution, the problems of implementing such a scheme, and it's likely unefficacy in preventing an intelligent but unbalanced individual from commiting mass murder leads me to discount this suggestion. Any one else got any ideas?
Incidentally, I was watching the news and they had Sen Diane Fienstein (mother of the assault weapons ban) on, and her basic argument for banning all semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds really boiled down to, "civilians just don't need these kinds of weapons." Forget the fact that (contrary to her assertions) the AWB had no affect on number of deaths from guns). The bigger problem is, anytime the government tells you what you can and can't have, it represents a loss of liberty, in which are sown the seeds of tyranny. And where does it stop? Do I need an F350, dually pickup truck? I'm not a contractor, and I don't have a fifth-wheel trailer. Freedom means I don't need a reason to have one, other than, "Because they're cool!" Yet, there are those that argue that to save the planet, these vehicles should be restricted to those with a "legitimate need" (as determined by un-elected beaurocrats). Today it's semi-automatic weapons; what will it be tomorrow?
Case in point: Once upon a time, and not all that long ago, fully automatic weapons (i.e. real assault weapons) were legal to own without any kind of special license. Similar arguments to those being made today were made back then, resulting in a general ban on private ownership of such. It didn't end, or even lesson gun violence. We gave up a bit of our liberty to purchase safety, and have less of both today. Now, let's say insanity prevails and the AWB is reinstated. As history has already demonstrated back in the '90s, this too will be ineffective. Then, 10 or 15 years down the road someone packing a winchester repeater and a brace of six-guns (or maybe 8 semi-auto pistols strapped all over their body, all with legal 15-round mags) walks into a shopping mall on Black Friday and slews 20 folks. The hew and cry would begin anew and soon enough the only legal guns will be blackpowder rifles and single-shot blackpowder pistols...and on and on until all freedom is gone and we wake up at last in Orwell's 1984. So, before we trade yet another piece of our liberty, I'd like something more than, "it might" or "it could", in regards to effectiveness. No, guns don't automatically equal freedom, but the right to have them does!
-
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/553504_328866983874262_1636586958_n.jpg)
-
I want to go shooting with Widewing. I'd like to go shooting with Melvin too, but I'm afraid there might be an 'accident' brought about by suppressed rage over my flying activities in the DA :old:
I think Sabre, as an external observer, that a change can only be made by altering social aspects of your culture and not by moderating equipment. Ironically I expect I could get shot for suggesting such in certain circles.
-
I want to go shooting with Widewing. I'd like to go shooting with Melvin too, but I'm afraid there might be an 'accident' brought about by suppressed rage over my flying activities in the DA :old:
I think Sabre, as an external observer, that a change can only be made by altering social aspects of your culture and not by moderating equipment. Ironically I expect I could get shot for suggesting such in certain circles.
Any time you visit NYC or long Island, let me know. You are always welcome...
Another great poster...
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295353_316014221826205_152352279_n.jpg)
-
Any time you visit NYC or long Island, let me know. You are always welcome...
Thank you sir, very kind offer :salute
Another great poster...
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/295353_316014221826205_152352279_n.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :aok
-
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/598403_303903833037244_442148236_n.jpg)
-
A knee-jerk reaction from Congress...as expected.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure
Democratic senators offer gun control amendment for cybersecurity bill
By Ramsey Cox - 07/26/12 07:29 PM ET
Tweet
Democratic senators have offered an amendment to the cybersecurity bill that would limit the purchase of high capacity gun magazines for some consumers.
Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some “reasonable” gun control measures.
The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.
The amendment is identical to a separate bill sponsored by Lautenberg. Feinstein was the sponsor of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.
Note that this would make the standard mags for most 9mm and 10mm semi-auto handguns illegal, as well as many others. Notice their definition of "large capacity": 11+ rounds. I think it would be interesting to see if this has been effective in reducing violent crime (or even JUST gun deaths) in California, where such a measure has been in place for some time now.
-
Widewing, I love the prayer post you did. Where did you find that? Pity you are in the NYC area. We just don't travel to that area of the country. Way to close to bloomberg and assorted idiots.
-
Widewing, I love the prayer post you did. Where did you find that? Pity you are in the NYC area. We just don't travel to that area of the country. Way to close to bloomberg and assorted idiots.
A buddy posted it to his Facebook page...
I live way out on Long Island, but have to pass through the Kingdom of Bloomberg to get off the island, unless I take a ferry to Connecticut...
-
Try educating yourself about the subject. Your fantasy solution of a ban will prevent nothing. Again, there are millions in circulation. Millions will be available after a ban just as they were during the last worthless ban that hey , guess what? Changed nothing.
I'm not ignoring history at all. Not once have I implied that a ban of standard-capacity magazines would eradicate them. Rather, I have countless times said that such a ban would remove the point of access that mass murders use to acquire such deadly accessories. The psychopaths that commit such atrosities are not in gangs or the mob. They are mentally insane people who use the tools available to them to commit mass murder. If such a ban were in place, who would James Holmes call to acquire a 100-round magazine for his M-16? He's not a member of a drug cartel or the Crips or a Neo-Nazi organization; to all non-psychologists, he was a college kid.
Mav, I just saw your last post repsponding to the above. Again, I didn't say it would keep them out of the hands of criminals. Gangs, mobs, etc. would still have them. You're right, no one is arguing that. I'm arguing that psychopaths wouldn't.
Serious question- Were the components that made up the bombs in such events acquired legally?
-
I'd like to go shooting with Melvin too, but I'm afraid there might be an 'accident' brought about by suppressed rage over my flying activities in the DA :old:
Oh bollocks. :lol
You know you're always welcome to come kill some inanimate objects with me.
-
What gangs and other criminals can get psychopaths can as well. There is no "criminal ID card" needed to gain objects illegally. Why would you think someone bent on killing people is not going to be able to get what they want merely because they do not have a criminal background beforehand? As far as the bomb components are concerned in the incidents I mentioned are concerned I really don't know. I do know that the assembly of them is illegal. The use of them in that manner certainly is. Then again someone who is bent on murder is already ignoring a law anyhow so breaking a few others is hardly a concern.
-
Oh bollocks. :lol
You know you're always welcome to come kill some inanimate objects with me.
(http://i1114.photobucket.com/albums/k526/rwrk2/JamesBond.gif) :banana: :salute
-
What gangs and other criminals can get psychopaths can as well. There is no "criminal ID card" needed to gain objects illegally. Why would you think someone bent on killing people is not going to be able to get what they want merely because they do not have a criminal background beforehand? As far as the bomb components are concerned in the incidents I mentioned are concerned I really don't know. I do know that the assembly of them is illegal. The use of them in that manner certainly is. Then again someone who is bent on murder is already ignoring a law anyhow so breaking a few others is hardly a concern.
I've noticed a common theme in these rampages; legally acquired, illegally used. That's why I continue making a big deal about the background of these people. They use the tools available to them. Even the tear gas Holmes used is legal in Colorado.
Messa- You made the point about being able to acquire an illegal weapon right now if you wanted to. You have to admit Aurora, Colorado is not Philadelphia, Pennsylvania crime-wise.
WW- To my credit, I have referred to them correctly as standard-capacity magazine ever since. ;)
-
I think TonyJoey has done a splendid job of trying to think of a solution and has argued his case in the spirit of good debate and without resorting to derision or insult. :salute to you young man.
-
I've noticed a common theme in these rampages; legally acquired, illegally used. That's why I continue making a big deal about the background of these people. They use the tools available to them. Even the tear gas Holmes used is legal in Colorado.
Messa- You made the point about being able to acquire an illegal weapon right now if you wanted to. You have to admit Aurora, Colorado is not Philadelphia, Pennsylvania crime-wise.
WW- To my credit, I have referred to them correctly as standard-capacity magazine ever since. ;)
I'm kind of on the fence about these automatic weapons. I think they should certainly be legal, but should require a more rigorous licensing process. What specifically that is, I don't know, but I think being a member of a gun club, logging a certain number of hours, getting gun club professionals to sign off on you, is a starting point.
On the flip side of it, I don't think there will ever be a solution to stopping these massacres. There will always be a way with months of planning, like the colorado shooter had, to kill dozens of people. Taking away personal liberties is not the way to go. One thing I do think that can be learned from this is if the red flagging system can be improved. From the sounds of it, there were a lot of red flags just based off his ammunition/gun purchasing habits.
By the way JT, it's easy to get sucked into the American "Life is A Rainbow" fantasy, but the world is a dangerous, unstable place. Disarming a society does not make you safer.
-
I've noticed a common theme in these rampages; legally acquired, illegally used. That's why I continue making a big deal about the background of these people. They use the tools available to them. Even the tear gas Holmes used is legal in Colorado.
Yup, that's true. That's a common theme in a lot of wrongful deaths.
Take alcohol and motor vehicles... Legally purchased, but used illegally (drinking and driving), results in many, many deaths, and would be a logical choice to go after if we wanted to ban something to potentially save a bunch of lives. I'd even go so far as to say that if someone INTENTIONALLY bought alcohol and then chose to drive, the results of that intentional decision should be classified as intentional as well...
If it were up to me, drunk driving deaths would be classified as (or very close to) murder.
So, what do we ban in this instance? Alcohol? Or motor vehicles? Maybe certain container sizes of alcohol? Or horsepower of vehicles?
Obviously, the vast majority of alcohol drinkers and motor vehicle users are probably using those items legally, but a few aren't... Is the logical choice to ban the item, or look at the individual person as the problem?
"Solving" the drunk driving issue would save far more people than "solving" the magazine-size argument.
-
Yup, that's true. That's a common theme in a lot of wrongful deaths.
Take alcohol and motor vehicles... Legally purchased, but used illegally (drinking and driving), results in many, many deaths, and would be a logical choice to go after if we wanted to ban something to potentially save a bunch of lives. I'd even go so far as to say that if someone INTENTIONALLY bought alcohol and then chose to drive, the results of that intentional decision should be classified as intentional as well...
If it were up to me, drunk driving deaths would be classified as (or very close to) murder.
So, what do we ban in this instance? Alcohol? Or motor vehicles? Maybe certain container sizes of alcohol? Or horsepower of vehicles?
Obviously, the vast majority of alcohol drinkers and motor vehicle users are probably using those items legally, but a few aren't... Is the logical choice to ban the item, or look at the individual person as the problem?
"Solving" the drunk driving issue would save far more people than "solving" the magazine-size argument.
That is a wonderful analogy sir. :aok
-
<snip>
Never have I, nor will I, propose and support a measure to ban all assault rifles. I'm proposing a limit to 15 round magazines, which would not affect hunting, self-defense, or collecting.
One more point about the idea that these people will find ways to acquire illegal weapons to aid their rampages. Are fully-automatic weapons (registered after 1986) illegal? Why are fully-automatic weapons not showing up at the sites of these rampages?
Shida- :salute I appreciate it, sir.
Mtn- Yes, solving the drunk driving issue would save far more people than solving the magazine size argument. But the solution would be at the cost of much more liberty.
-
Well yeah Ink, if your trained its just easier, knowing which areas are vulnerable in the human body. My point is that you don't need a gun if you really want to kill someone. You out of all people on this board probably understands this the best.
:salute
this is what the difference is
training gives you the ability to NOT have to kill....whereas if you are not trained you will kill without meaning to.
not sure if I am explaining properly
in other words say its just a typical bar fight...not combat or someone breaking into the house....a bar fight...the guy with training such as a Marine whatever......Training......h e will know how much force or when to "stop" or like you say know what parts of the body will kill faster....someone who is not trained will just go for broke say to speak and not know when to stop or what to avoid to NOT kill the guy.
training gives that person the Ability to take down an enemy and NOT kill them.
thats the difference IMO :salute
-
One more point about the idea that these people will find ways to acquire illegal weapons to aid their rampages. Are fully-automatic weapons (registered after 1986) illegal? Why are fully-automatic weapons not showing up at the sites of these rampages?
Shida- :salute I appreciate it, sir.
Mtn- Yes, solving the drunk driving issue would save far more people than solving the magazine size argument. But the solution would be at the cost of much more liberty.
Joey, I'm not saying they will get their hands on illegal weapons I'm saying they will kill as many people as they can by any means possible if they are crazy enough. What's to stop someone from driving a semi truck 50 mph into a New York City crosswalk and killing dozens? Or training to be a bus driver and driving off a bridge? The options are limitless if you use your imagination.
-
Joey, I'm not saying they will get their hands on illegal weapons I'm saying they will kill as many people as they can by any means possible if they are crazy enough. What's to stop someone from driving a semi truck 50 mph into a New York City crosswalk and killing dozens? Or training to be a bus driver and driving off a bridge? The options are limitless if you use your imagination.
By that logic, why are guns banned on airplanes? Since terrorists will inevitably think of other ways to wreak havoc, what's the point in not letting everyone bring guns on planes?
-
I feel like you are just practicing your debating skills now with silly points like that. Good fights, gotta run. :salute
-
Actually, at this point I'm just recycling posts I've made responding to the same arguments made by others. The fact that people will find other ways to wreak havoc is no reason not to impose a law to limit one common avenue of attack. :salute
-
it'll all blow over..and faster then that Traygone guy to. probably with 0 changes being made to weapons laws. everytime there is multiple people killed from guns everyone is up in arms about it. but what we never care to talk about is all the people that die in car crashes every day,stabbings,and even electricution from your moms toaster.
the true meaning of assault weapon-A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. chances are in your life you will never shoot an accual assault weapon, its just a media term trying to scare people.
Remember this is the same America that was up in arms about a black teenager being killed by a mexican and calling it a national tragedy.isnt that an every day occurence?
In memory of Trayvon "Skittles" Martin
February 5, 1995 - February 26, 2012
-
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/598403_303903833037244_442148236_n.jpg)
weird how the biggest massacres have happened on the battlefield when everyone had guns.
semp
-
weird how the biggest massacres have happened on the battlefield when everyone had guns.
semp
Yes semp, it certainly is weird that soldiers from warring nations might have guns. :rolleyes:
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m157/smreagan/Idiot.jpg)
-
One more point about the idea that these people will find ways to acquire illegal weapons to aid their rampages. Are fully-automatic weapons (registered after 1986) illegal? Why are fully-automatic weapons not showing up at the sites of these rampages?
Shida- :salute I appreciate it, sir.
Mtn- Yes, solving the drunk driving issue would save far more people than solving the magazine size argument. But the solution would be at the cost of much more liberty.
Illegal full autos have shown up. Google LA bank robbery and go from there.
-
Illegal full autos have shown up. Google LA bank robbery and go from there.
First off, I believe that there is a distinction between rampages such as Aurora where the only goal is to kill and wreak havoc on innocent civilians and a bank robbery gone horribly wrong. Obviously havoc on police and innocent civilians alike was definitely the result of the North Hollywood shootout, but the goal was to steal money. They didn't draw stick figures, or write a letter telling of the impending carnage to a psychologist, or write a manifesto. They were criminals trying to steal money and had used the heavily armed tactic before. I couldn't tell you if they had purchased the guns legally or not, but it doesn't make much of a difference. People such as them, true criminals who want to rob and steal and kill if necessary to accomplish the aforementioned, or gang members, or neo-nazis, etc. would not be affected much, if at all, by a standard-capacity magazine ban, and I've said as much many times. I'm talking about psychopathic mass murderers such as the perpetrators in Tucson, Aurora, etc. In almost every instance they have legally acquired weapons (even the tear gas Holmes used is legal in Colorado) and use them to deadly effect. They don't have the black market access that true criminals have and rely on the available tools instead. Full-auto weapons are not available to those people and are consequently not used even though their killing potential is much greater. Ban further sale of standard capacity magazines and people like Jared Lee Loughner and James Holmes don't have them.
-
Yes semp, it certainly is weird that soldiers from warring nations might have guns. :rolleyes:
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m157/smreagan/Idiot.jpg)
my response was to someone who posted that no massacres happen at shooting ranges. due to everyone having a gun. perhaps you should get that paper bag on fire off your head and Google how many have happened in our bases where just about every body had a gun. either by our own soldiers or allies.
semp
-
my response was to someone who posted that no massacres happen at shooting ranges. due to everyone having a gun. perhaps you should get that paper bag on fire off your head and Google how many have happened in our bases where just about every body had a gun. either by our own soldiers or allies.
semp
What do you mean "our bases?" I'm no expert, but in many domestic military bases, soldiers are not allowed to have firearms on base.
-
weird how the biggest massacres have happened on the battlefield when everyone had guns.
semp
Civilian life isn't supposed to be war. That's the whole point of society. And before you respond, no, guns are not the only variable that defines that difference.
-
What do you mean "our bases?" I'm no expert, but in many domestic military bases, soldiers are not allowed to have firearms on base.
our bases in iraq and Afghanistan. I remember at least two americans shooting other americans at our bases in iraq and several afghans or Iraq troops opening fire on coalltion forces (or whatever you call them). point is just because everybody has a gun it doesnt mean it will stop somebody from opening fire and killing as many as he can like widewing posted in his picture that no massacres happens at shooting ranges.
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/598403_303903833037244_442148236_n.jpg)
also you may have forgotten the mom that killed her son and herself at the shooting range. if you google the video you will see people just standing there not understanding what is happening. she could've just as easy walk down the isle and shoot many more if that was her intention before anybody else noticed it.
semp
-
Civilian life isn't supposed to be war. That's the whole point of society. And before you respond, no, guns are not the only variable that defines that difference.
you have to read the quote i am responding to in order to understand what my comment is about.
semp
-
Civilian life isn't supposed to be war. That's the whole point of society. And before you respond, no, guns are not the only variable that defines that difference.
southern california rush hour traffic is the next closest thing. I've seen people get out with box cutters and pull people from their cars.
ever been in the ER on a friday night? I've never seen so many drunken stabbed people in one place in my life. the only thing missing is the 64's buzzin over cookin off rockets. In a way civi life is war
-
Yes semp, it certainly is weird that soldiers from warring nations might have guns. :rolleyes:
(http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m157/smreagan/Idiot.jpg)
:rofl Epic picture.
-
:rofl Epic picture.
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q197/turbotom20g/random%20pictures/untitled-1.jpg)
semp
-
It's a waste of time. After banning some type of gun or accessory, they will pat themselves on the back and think they solved something while people continue to die, when you could have spent that effort trying to improve something with the mental health system.
I already mentioned how Jared Loughner was kicked out of college and the campus police informed him he couldn't return until he was evaluated for the potential to be dangerous, but there is no provision in all this for him to be put on a prohibited possessors list.
Now we are learning that this Holmes guy may have been under psychiatric care.
-
It's a waste of time. After banning some type of gun or accessory, they will pat themselves on the back and think they solved something while people continue to die, when you could have spent that effort trying to improve something with the mental health system.
I already mentioned how Jared Loughner was kicked out of college and the campus police informed him he couldn't return until he was evaluated for the potential to be dangerous, but there is no provision in all this for him to be put on a prohibited possessors list.
Now we are learning that this Holmes guy may have been under psychiatric care.
An improvement to the mental health system might prevent these rampages before they happen, while a standard-capacity magazine ban would lessen the carnage when they do. Now we're getting somewhere. :)
-
An improvement to the mental health system might prevent these rampages before they happen, while a standard-capacity magazine ban would lessen the carnage when they do. Now we're getting somewhere. :)
I fully support a major improvement in the mental health system. In the long term, it can actually save a state a lot of money. Unfortunately, people's memories are short and politicians want something that appears a quick fix, but I digress. Just because people acquire things when they are legal, doesn't mean they won't acquire them when they're illegal. It doesn't matter if you make it illegal or not (guns, alcohol, drugs), people who want it, will get it.
-
I fully support a major improvement in the mental health system. In the long term, it can actually save a state a lot of money. Unfortunately, people's memories are short and politicians want something that appears a quick fix, but I digress. Just because people acquire things when they are legal, doesn't mean they won't acquire them when they're illegal. It doesn't matter if you make it illegal or not (guns, alcohol, drugs), people who want it, will get it.
I've used the case of full-auto guns to support my case that the psychopaths that go on these rampages don't acquire their weapons illegally. No doubt full-auto guns would aid their deadly intentions, but they don't have or use them. True criminals still use them, and Slash pointed out the example of the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout, but I believe there is a distinction and explained it more in-depth a couple posts back.
-
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q197/turbotom20g/random%20pictures/untitled-1.jpg)
Aaah don't worry about it Semp, you learn more from your failures anyway, we still love you.
-
An improvement to the mental health system might prevent these rampages before they happen, while a standard-capacity magazine ban would lessen the carnage when they do. Now we're getting somewhere. :)
I can reload a M4 in 2 seconds. so say only had a 10 round magazine. 100 rounds reloaded in 10 seconds. maybe if the theater allowed people to carry defence tools into the theater and someone had 1, this wouldn't have nearly been as bad. where he messed up was using the caliber he did, wether it was an AK or AR. had he used a .300 or .308 probably 90% of the victims would have been dead.
but the story will continue..a few people get killed by someone using a gun in 1 incident and all the gun control freaks will emerge from their cave.
-
where he messed up was using the caliber he did, wether it was an AK or AR. had he used a .300 or .308
The AK-47 is 7.62mm while the AR is 5.56mm.
-
Aaah don't worry about it Semp, you learn more from your failures anyway, we still love you.
dont need your love bro, i already know enough morons in my life, no need for you to want to be on my list too :).
semp
-
dont need your love bro, i already know enough morons in my life, no need for you to want to be on my list too :).
:rofl :aok
-
What I dont understand about gun control advocates is who they expect to protect them if they themselves dont?
Usually the first thing out of their mouths are "I couldnt believe it was happening". That is if they can talk at all.
Govt. or the Police CAN'T protect you. Thats from the Horses mouth. We have set up a system thats created a huge criminal underclass, along with a huge undocumented alien presence. The courts cant deal with it. The Police have been obstructed more and more. So who is going to protect you?
The UN ? :huh
-
...
We have set up a system thats created a huge criminal underclass
...
And how do you suppose *that* happened? :rolleyes:
-
An improvement to the mental health system might prevent these rampages before they happen, while a standard-capacity magazine ban would lessen the carnage when they do. Now we're getting somewhere. :)
No we're not getting anywhere because you are still focused on banning some accessory that "might" lesson the carnage, provided they don't instead carry more smaller capacity guns instead, don't have a friend in the shooting sports from whom the can steal a pre-ban magazine, don't try to find them on the black market, don't spent weeks practicing reloading smaller magazines quickly, don't learn how to make explosives, don't block the exits of an occupied building and set it afire etc.
-
i already know enough morons in my life
:rofl Awesome, I totally believe you.
-
4Prop, please refer to some of my earlier posts in this thread where I dealt with the notion that an inexperienced shooter can reload as fast as an experienced gun owner. The basic point is that more reloads means less bullets fired and more time vulnerable to be subdued. Those factors are only amplified when dealing with an inexperienced shooter. At the end of the day, this means less people shot and less lives ruined. Furthermore, I think that a second shooter would not have helped anything, expecially in a dark theater against someone wielding heavy firepower and with a bullet proof vest. But I digress.
Jimson, you continue to argue that because they will find other ways, that such a ban should not be put in place. Again, why should guns be illegal on planes? Yes, terrorists could make IEDs or bombs or drive a bus off a cliff, so what's the point in stopping them from bringing guns on planes? The fact that people will find other ways to wreak havoc is no reason not to impose a law to limit one common avenue of attack.
-
I've used the case of full-auto guns to support my case that the psychopaths that go on these rampages don't acquire their weapons illegally. No doubt full-auto guns would aid their deadly intentions, but they don't have or use them. True criminals still use them, and Slash pointed out the example of the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout, but I believe there is a distinction and explained it more in-depth a couple posts back.
What makes an AK semi-auto or full auto is the design of the hammer latch and sear. With a Dremel multi-tool (under $50) using the bits that come with it, I could modify my AK to full auto only in less than 5 minutes at my kitchen table... Easy to do. I don't do it because it is illegal and I obey the law... Kinda like the Shelby I owned in the mid 80s... It was capable of speeds well in excess of 150 mph. I didn't drive it that fast on the public streets because it was illegal to do so...
-
4Prop, please refer to some of my earlier posts in this thread where I dealt with the notion that an inexperienced shooter can reload as fast as an experienced gun owner. The basic point is that more reloads means less bullets fired and more time vulnerable to be subdued. Those factors are only amplified when dealing with an inexperienced shooter. At the end of the day, this means less people shot and less lives ruined. Furthermore, I think that a second shooter would not have helped anything, expecially in a dark theater against someone wielding heavy firepower and with a bullet proof vest. But I digress.
Jimson, you continue to argue that because they will find other ways, that such a ban should not be put in place. Again, why should guns be illegal on planes? Yes, terrorists could make IEDs or bombs or drive a bus off a cliff, so what's the point in stopping them from bringing guns on planes? The fact that people will find other ways to wreak havoc is no reason not to impose a law to limit one common avenue of attack.
When you have some time, do some reading on the Washington Naval Treaty. It was designed to prevent nations who had previously been belligerent, from acquiring a large, very powerful naval force. It placed restrictions on the size on battleships and cruisers as well as the number allowed for a given nation. It failed when some nations who signed the treaty, then ignored it. Germany, Italy and Japan were the main violators. Meanwhile, the west adhered to it and found themselves at a disadvantage when war came. Compare the treaty battleships of the King George V class to non-treaty Tirpitz.... Slower, less well armed and armored...
When you restrict good guys, you give a greater advantage to the bad guys. Always, always. Politicians are all about superficial fixes. It's quick and easy and they can point to it and say, "hey, I did something". The reality is that they did nothing at all, but appease the uproar. Like a bandaid on road rash, it does nothing at all and is painful to remove later.
Whether you understand this or not, the only true security you have is that which you provide for yourself. The Police have no legal obligation to protect you. None whatsoever. If they happen to see someone assault you, then they can intervene. Otherwise, you are on your own. Even an order of protection is nothing more than writing on paper. If the bad guy choses to ignore it, they will arrest him later. Maybe too late for you. It seems to me that the police are, due never ending restrictions, becoming more of crime statistics collection organization... You must get used to the fact that you are responsible for your own safety...
-
4Prop, please refer to some of my earlier posts in this thread where I dealt with the notion that an inexperienced shooter can reload as fast as an experienced gun owner. The basic point is that more reloads means less bullets fired and more time vulnerable to be subdued. Those factors are only amplified when dealing with an inexperienced shooter. At the end of the day, this means less people shot and less lives ruined. Furthermore, I think that a second shooter would not have helped anything, expecially in a dark theater against someone wielding heavy firepower and with a bullet proof vest. But I digress.
Jimson, you continue to argue that because they will find other ways, that such a ban should not be put in place. Again, why should guns be illegal on planes? Yes, terrorists could make IEDs or bombs or drive a bus off a cliff, so what's the point in stopping them from bringing guns on planes? The fact that people will find other ways to wreak havoc is no reason not to impose a law to limit one common avenue of attack.
Yes I continue to argue that such a ban should not be put in place. I don't believe it will have the effect you desire and will needlessly affect collectors and those who use these magazines for recreational shooting and sport shooting competitions, if not the limited circumstances when one may have to defend themselves against multiple attackers.
I want to see the effort directed to things that I think would have a greater effect.
The airplane comparison is invalid. Any discharge of a firearm on on airplane could pierce the skin and result in catastrophic cabin depressurization. There is no chance that good guys on an airplane will be vulnerable to bad guys with guns. This kind of security cannot be enabled everywhere at large.
-
WW- A 15-round magazine limit does not limit the good guys in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I have tried to make a distinction between true criminals, such as those who rob and steal and kill to accomplish the aforementioned, and psychopaths who write manifestos, draw stick figures, or write letters about the damage they intend to do. The former have black market access and have the knowledge needed to acquire illegal weapons or illegally modify their weapons, and would be relatively unaffected by such law. Case in point, the North Hollywood shootout, where true criminals, intent on robbing a bank using a heavily-armed and armored tactic they had previously used, did exactly what you said you were capable of in about five minutes to convert their weapons to full-auto. On the other hand, psychopathic mass-murderers don't have such access and use the available weapons and accessories. The mass shootings that have been brought up all support this thesis. Tucson, Columbine, VT, and Aurora all involved weapons that could be converted to full-auto and people with the murderous intentions to want to make such a modification, but were not. Columbine involved sawed-off shotguns but even I could figure out how to cut off the end of a barrel.
The airplane comparison is not valid, any discharge of a firearm on on airplane could pierce the skin and result in catastrophic cabin depressurization. There is no chance that good guys on an airplane will be vulnerable to bad guys with guns. This kind of security cannot be enabled everywhere at large.
What exactly do you mean by this? Jimson, I aree that you may have something with your ideas on improving the mental health system, but some concrete suggestions would aid the discussion. I'm also glad we agree that the fact that people will find other ways to wreak havoc doesn't constitute a reason not to limit a common avenue of attack and we can proceed to debate the effectiveness of such a law. ;)
-
The airplane comparison is invalid. Any discharge of a firearm on on airplane could pierce the skin and result in catastrophic cabin depressurization. There is no chance that good guys on an airplane will be vulnerable to bad guys with guns. This kind of security cannot be enabled everywhere at large.
A little 9mm hole in the cabin fuselage will do nothing more than whistle.... Every aircraft has pressure leaks and lots more bleed air capacity than needed to maintain pressure, even with multiple small holes in the cabin. Normal total leakage from a typical well maintained Boeing 737 is about 6 square inches... A few small holes in the fuselage would not be catastrophic.
We had the fuselage of our C-118 punctured by a forklift in Panama. We flew it back to GTMO with a sheet metal patch duct-taped in place (on the inside of the cabin). We had no problem maintaining cabin pressure at 15,000 feet. It didn't even whistle.. ;)
-
Just because the Aurora shooting and other recent shooters didn't use automatic weapons, doesn't mean they couldn't acquire them. I would speculate that the choice of semi-automatic was a specific choice. He wanted to pull that trigger every time, it was very personal for him. If his objective was to kill as many people as he could, he would have been much better off using a bomb. So it's not that the shooters COULDN'T get an automatic weapon, it's that they didn't want one. My point it, criminals, psychopaths, will get what they want, illegal or not.
Also, your point that if there were smaller magazines, there would be less dead. That is total speculation, it sounds nice, but there is no proof that would actually work. The fact is, as terrible as these shootings are, they are very rare. We can't give up personal freedoms because a ban on high cap magazines could possibly prevent a shooter from getting one which could possibly add a second or two to a mass shooting which could possibly save a person.
Finally, as a point not specifically to the magazine issue, but rather to the gun control, here's one of my favorite quotes:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
-
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/179136_329529460474681_2144776086_n.jpg)
-
A 15-round magazine limit does not limit the legal gun owners in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I repeat, a 15-round magazine limit does not limit the good guys in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I can say it 10 more times if that's what it takes to get through.
Jay- Your idea that they purposely chose not to use a fully-automatic gun is pure speculation. The simple fact is that they didn't, which supports my thesis that psychopaths use the tools available to them. On the other hand, I don't think that the idea that someone forced to use 15-round magazines would do less damage than someone with a 33 or 100 round magazine is speculation. Barring a malfunction or jam, in the same amount of time, a person who has to stop and reload a couple of times will get off less rounds than someone who doesnt. Period. Less rounds, less injured or dead. More reloads, more chance to be subdued.
-
A 15-round magazine limit does not limit the legal gun owners in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I repeat, a 15-round magazine limit does not limit the good guys in terms of hunting, self-defense, or collecting. I can say it 10 more times if that's what it takes to get through.
Most states have restrictions of 5 rounds for hunting... Hunting on private preserves may have different rules.
For self defense, you can't state for fact that 15 rounds would not limit self defense. Especially if you died while reloading in the dark, pumped to the max with adrenalin where your fine motor skills go to hell (unless well trained). A larger capacity magazine means you may not have to have spare magazines on your person. Grab your weapon and only your weapon and go. Very important when seconds count. Beats fumbling in the dark to find that spare mag while bad guys are kicking in the door of your daughter's bedroom.
Plan for the worst case, hope for better.
Collectors don't want non-original magazines. They are worthless to a collector and diminish the value of a collectible weapon.
So yeah, restricting magazine size can or will have a negative effect on two of the three you list.
One more point... No one has the right to tell me how I choose to defend myself, my family and my property. Just like no one has the right to tell me what constitutes an immediate threat. That is solely my decision and my determination. If I'm wrong, I have to live with the consequences. If I'm right, I get to live. No politician, be they in Washington or a State House, sitting on their sizable backsides, has the right to tell me how to protect the people I love and the things I've worked a lifetime for.
-
By collecting I meant you'd still be able to own your AK47's or Ar-15's or whatever else you fancy. Not only that, but the standard capacity magazines you already own would not be confiscated.
On self-defense, before I go any further, is there any magazine limit that you feel would not hinder self-defense?
-
Jay- Your idea that they purposely chose not to use a fully-automatic gun is pure speculation. The simple fact is that they didn't, which supports my thesis that psychopaths use the tools available to them. On the other hand, I don't think that the idea that someone forced to use 15-round magazines would do less damage than someone with a 33 or 100 round magazine is speculation. Barring a malfunction or jam, in the same amount of time, a person who has to stop and reload a couple of times will get off less rounds than someone who doesnt. Period. Less rounds, less injured or dead. More reloads, more chance to be subdued.
It's not really speculation (even though I did use that word), it more comes from my degree in Psychology. Besides the very personal nature of a psychopath's actions, it also relates a lot to control. A semi-automatic makes the killings very personal, and keeps the shooter very much in control. These events are well thought out, well planned, and often, well documented. You don't hear about these individuals trying and failing to acquire fully automatic weapons, which only strengthens my point, that they choose these weapons not because of their legality, but because it is how they want to carry out their actions.
Yes, a person who has to reload will not get as many shots off. However, less rounds ≠ less deaths. A Gatling gun fires 200 rounds per minute, but a M24 only fires about 20 rounds per minute. Which one is more deadly? Which one get's more deaths per round fired? It's not about magazine capacity, it's not about speed, it's about the shooter's accuracy. That is something we have no control over and reducing magazine capacity will have no effect on. **This also goes with the assumption that they wouldn't buy a high cap magazine because they are illegal and wouldn't be able to acquire them.**
-
The AK-47 is 7.62mm while the AR is 5.56mm.
I know that. im saying had he used a bigger caliber, it would've been much worse
-
All factors the same, less bullets = less injured/deaths. In this case, the only factor that would change would be the amount of bullets that the shooter got off. Same person, same accuracy, same weapon, less bullets.
-
Okay, I'll bend even further to the right, but some of you guys have got to be willing to compromise a bit as well. How about simply an extended-magazine ban. Whatever magazine size comes standard with the weapon would be legal i.e. a glock 17 could have 17 rounds, an M-16/AR-15 could have 30 round magazines. Self defense would be entirely up to the homeowner. If he didn't feel safe with revolver, he could buy an M1911 with a 7-round magazine, an M9 with 15 rounds, or even a Glock with 17. Maybe he wanted an assault rifle for home defense; he could do that and have 30 rounds at his disposal. Whatever he felt the safest with, with he could purchase. On the other hand, mass murderers wouldn't have 33 round mags for their Glocks or 100 round mags for their M-16s. I think such a law would balance the interests of gun owners and public safety very well. That rectifies the collecting and self-defense issues Widewing brought up while limiting the output of a mass murderer on a rampage.
-
How about a ban of all guns and weapons for anyone that was going to shoot up a place. I think that is most fairest.
-
:rofl Awesome, I totally believe you.
see nshida here's the numero uno.
semp
-
see nshida here's the numero uno.
I know, I think Melvin is a fantastic bloke too :salute
-
All factors the same, less bullets = less injured/deaths. In this case, the only factor that would change would be the amount of bullets that the shooter got off. Same person, same accuracy, same weapon, less bullets.
Unfortunately, in the real world, all factors don't stay the same. There are too many variables to make a statement like that. Maybe he would have practiced his reloading more, maybe he would have changed his strategy, who knows. I'm not saying it would have been worse, but you can't say for sure that less people would have died if he didn't have those magazines.
-
Okay, I'll bend even further to the right, but some of you guys have got to be willing to compromise a bit as well. How about simply an extended-magazine ban. Whatever magazine size comes standard with the weapon would be legal i.e. a glock 17 could have 17 rounds, an M-16/AR-15 could have 30 round magazines. Self defense would be entirely up to the homeowner. If he didn't feel safe with revolver, he could buy an M1911 with a 7-round magazine, an M9 with 15 rounds, or even a Glock with 17. Maybe he wanted an assault rifle for home defense; he could do that and have 30 rounds at his disposal. Whatever he felt the safest with, with he could purchase. On the other hand, mass murderers wouldn't have 33 round mags for their Glocks or 100 round mags for their M-16s. I think such a law would balance the interests of gun owners and public safety very well. That rectifies the collecting and self-defense issues Widewing brought up while limiting the output of a mass murderer on a rampage.
(http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll149/jimsom88/Imok.jpg)
Widewing: I didn't know that bullet holes were not a big danger to aircraft, guess i assumed that.
-
For the record, I don't think I'll ever own a 33 round magazine or one of those silly 100 round magazines. I just don't see the point of them, not to mention the cost of filling them up. That being said, I reference back my previous posts that I don't think banning them will have any real impact on crime rates or these massacres.
-
Okay, I'll bend even further to the right, but some of you guys have got to be willing to compromise a bit as well. How about simply an extended-magazine ban. Whatever magazine size comes standard with the weapon would be legal i.e. a glock 17 could have 17 rounds, an M-16/AR-15 could have 30 round magazines. Self defense would be entirely up to the homeowner. If he didn't feel safe with revolver, he could buy an M1911 with a 7-round magazine, an M9 with 15 rounds, or even a Glock with 17. Maybe he wanted an assault rifle for home defense; he could do that and have 30 rounds at his disposal. Whatever he felt the safest with, with he could purchase. On the other hand, mass murderers wouldn't have 33 round mags for their Glocks or 100 round mags for their M-16s. I think such a law would balance the interests of gun owners and public safety very well. That rectifies the collecting and self-defense issues Widewing brought up while limiting the output of a mass murderer on a rampage.
what about the doomsday crowd? they want as many mags and ammo as they can buy. I've got a friend who is a prepper. hes got over 5000 acres of land in 6 different states,50+ guns, and probably 50k rounds of ammunition. a few REAL assault rifles (semi-full auto) M-16s.
should they be deprived of their beleifs of what they will need?
-
I know, I think Melvin is a fantastic bloke too :salute
Aww nrshida, you're going to make me blush.
P.S. I think you're pretty super too.
-
For those of you to young to remember, or even on earth at the time, we had a draconian magazine limit ban from 1994 to 2004. It included bans on assault weapon attachements and magazine of more then 5 rounds in them. Handguns were limited to 10 rounds. Assault weapons, so called, couldnt have bayonets on them, folding stocks, flash suppresors, pistol grips. Shotguns couldnt have more then 5 round magazines or attachments.
The effect on crime was zero. ZERO! I was there. I saw it. All it did was jam up otherwise honest working people cause the truth is crimes with assault rifles are so rare as to be almost nonexistant. Besides the gangsters had no problem getting high cap mags for their pistols anyways. Rifles, any and all rifles, make up for less % of gun murders then shotguns do. I work in the Murder capitol and we often go an entire year without ANY murder by assault rifle. And this is between 500 to 700 murders a year. And many thousands of shootings.
I never even owned a duty gun that holds more then 9 rounds of ammo.
-
I work in the Murder capitol and we often go an entire year without ANY murder by assault rifle.
ever think it might be they are to complex for them to operate?
-
ever think it might be they are to complex for them to operate?
If a goat herder in Pakistan can figure out how to operate an AK-47, the typical criminal will figure it out. Load a magazine, cycle the bolt and shoot....
-
For those of you to young to remember, or even on earth at the time, we had a draconian magazine limit ban from 1994 to 2004. It included bans on assault weapon attachements and magazine of more then 5 rounds in them. Handguns were limited to 10 rounds. Assault weapons, so called, couldnt have bayonets on them, folding stocks, flash suppresors, pistol grips. Shotguns couldnt have more then 5 round magazines or attachments.
The effect on crime was zero. ZERO! I was there. I saw it. All it did was jam up otherwise honest working people cause the truth is crimes with assault rifles are so rare as to be almost nonexistant. Besides, the gangsters had no problem getting high cap mags for their pistols anyways.
I've addressed this almost five times in previous posts.
Jay, he could practice all he wanted but that would only serve to limit the time that otherwise wouldn't have been lost if he could of just kept shooting. And then he has to deal with many of the factors Widewing outlined such as fumbling with another magazine in the dark. If he changes strategy, then he changes strategy. The goal of such a ban is to limit the currently most used avenue of attack for mass murderers.
4prop, There is no limit to the amount of ammo one could own, just a limit on the amount of bullets in each magazine. They could still have 5000 rounds in standard 30 round magazines if they wanted.
-
ever think it might be they are to complex for them to operate?
Please tell me you're joking. Please?
-
I've addressed this almost five times in previous posts.
Jay, he could practice all he wanted but that would only serve to limit the time that otherwise wouldn't have been lost if he could of just kept shooting. And then he has to deal with many of the factors Widewing outlined such as fumbling with another magazine in the dark. If he changes strategy, then he changes strategy. The goal of such a ban is to limit the currently most used avenue of attack for mass murderers.
4prop, There is no limit to the amount of ammo one could own, just a limit on the amount of bullets in each magazine. They could still have 5000 rounds in standard 30 round magazines if they wanted.
We're about to go in circles here, but I'll make this last point. In the Aurora shooting, had he chosen 30 round magazines, it's quite possibly he would have killed even more people.
-
We're about to go in circles here, but I'll make this last point.
I was about to say the exact same thing whenever you responded. :lol
In the Aurora shooting, had he chosen 30 round magazines, it's quite possibly he would have killed even more people.
Although I disagree, assuming that's true, that would be the exception, not the rule.
-
Well someone mentioned it earlier, but props to you for keeping your cool in an often heated debate. :salute
-
Well someone mentioned it earlier, but props to you for keeping your cool in an often heated debate. :salute
:salute, I appreciate you reciprocating as well.
-
Although I disagree, assuming that's true, that would be the exception, not the rule.
I don't know about that. Super high capacity beta magazines are notoriously prone to jamming, are super heavy (throwing off the balance of the rifle) and very cumbersome.
3 or 4 30-round clips are far more reliable, far more portable, are easy to swap, allow for the same amount of firepower to be delivered, and if one malfunctions, you're only losing access to part of your ammo supply, not the vast majority or all of it.
There's a reason those drum magazines aren't popular with the military, and are popular with pretenders and weekend warriors. They're just not that practical or effective.
-
Well, I'd rather just ban extended-capacity magazines than hope they jam. I've named plenty of example where they didn't and a ban of extended mags would have made a difference. If you're unwilling to concede anything at this point, then repeating points I've already made does little good.
-
Well, I'd rather just ban extended-capacity magazine than hope they jam.
Be my guest. I was always a fan of this alternative.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/stuff%20006.jpg)
-
Be my guest. I was always a fan of this alternative.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/stuff%20006.jpg)
Assault rifles aren't the only thing affected. Glocks with 33-round extended mags are a common choice.
-
Although I disagree, assuming that's true, that would be the exception, not the rule.
What's the rule? I wasn't aware of a specific rule. Why do you think that 100 round magazines are not used by the military on M16s or M4s? Think about it for a bit. There's several reasons.
-
For those of you to young to remember, or even on earth at the time, we had a draconian magazine limit ban from 1994 to 2004. It included bans on assault weapon attachements and magazine of more then 5 rounds in them. Handguns were limited to 10 rounds. Assault weapons, so called, couldnt have bayonets on them, folding stocks, flash suppresors, pistol grips. Shotguns couldnt have more then 5 round magazines or attachments.
The effect on crime was zero. ZERO! I was there. I saw it. All it did was jam up otherwise honest working people cause the truth is crimes with assault rifles are so rare as to be almost nonexistant. Besides the gangsters had no problem getting high cap mags for their pistols anyways. Rifles, any and all rifles, make up for less % of gun murders then shotguns do. I work in the Murder capitol and we often go an entire year without ANY murder by assault rifle. And this is between 500 to 700 murders a year. And many thousands of shootings.
I never even owned a duty gun that holds more then 9 rounds of ammo.
That isn't accurate. You could buy any of the large capacity magazines during that time, there just wasn't new production. All it meant was all those millions of surplus mags in circulation went up in price. You could still buy 'pre-ban' weapons that were in circulation or buy 'ban' weapons with the little changes the 'ban' required. All that "Ban" did was drive prices up. It had no bite to it at all. It was pure window dressing. It had no impact because it didn't do anything but help the gun manufacturers and sellers make more money.
My two ARs. Top one is a "ban" time frame purchase. Bottom one is a no-ban purchase. Big deal I couldn't put a bayonet on the top one. Haven't had much use for a bayonet. The stock isn't collapsible on the top AR. No flash supressor. I actually like the look of the top one better. In terms of what they can do, they are identical.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/IMG_1787-1.jpg)
My oldest son liked AKs and their history. The bottom one was built on a Polish kit during the 'ban'. A bead weld kept the folding stock from working. Another bead weld kept a bayonet from being attached. Wanna know how long it took him to get those two bead welds off the day the 'ban' died? about 2 minutes. So please don't use any talk of a previous ban. It was not a ban on anything.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s199/guppy35/IMG_1786-1.jpg)
-
What's the rule? I wasn't aware of a specific rule. Why do you think that 100 round magazines are not used by the military on M16s or M4s? Think about it for a bit. There's several reasons.
I wasn't aware that the phrase, "exception, not the rule" implied a specific rule existed. I know you disagree with my position, but you don't have to find something wrong with every phrase I choose. The fact that the military chooses not to use extended capacity magazines lets on that they don't fit their interests as much as a standard-capacity 30 round magazine. That doesn't mean that the jams occur so frequently as to not constitute an exception. Cost and ease of production are also factors in that decision that wouldn't affect a mass murderer. And this is only dealing with the huge 100-round mags in the Aurora example. As I mentioned to Mick, the 33-round magazines for Glocks used in VT and Tucson would also be affected.
-
If a goat herder in Pakistan can figure out how to operate an AK-47, the typical criminal will figure it out. Load a magazine, cycle the bolt and shoot....
yeah thats very true. but the taliban are known for not being able to hit water if they were in the middle of the ocean. holding it sideways doesnt help it anymore eitherPlease tell me you're joking. Please?
uhh no
-
Assault rifles aren't the only thing affected. Glocks with 33-round extended mags are a common choice.
A common choice for what? You can't easily conceal it with the mag in place. Besides, a 9mm pistol is a pipsqueak compared to almost any rifle.
-
A common choice for what? You can't easily conceal it with the mag in place. Besides, a 9mm pistol is a pipsqueak compared to almost any rifle.
For shooting places up.
-
I wasn't aware that the phrase, "exception, not the rule" implied a specific rule existed. I know you disagree with my position, but you don't have to find something wrong with every phrase I choose. The fact that the military chooses not to use extended capacity magazines lets on that they don't fit their interests as much as a standard-capacity 30 round magazine. That doesn't mean that the jams occur so frequently as to not constitute an exception. Cost and ease of production are also factors in that decision that wouldn't affect a mass murderer. And this is only dealing with the huge 100-round mags in the Aurora example. As I mentioned to Mick, the 33-round magazines for Glocks used in VT and Tucson would also be affected.
I'm not picking on you per se, but it is obvious that you have very little knowledge of these weapons.
The reasons the military does not utilize 100 round magazines are:
1) Too damn heavy to lug around. Any guy who is assigned the SAW will tell you that it's no fun carrying the SAW with a full belt of ammo. Lug around a Mk47 or worse, an M60, and you'll appreciate the light weight of an M4. MY G3 and CETME both have 20 round mags. Sure, you could design and manufacture 30 round mags, but that extra weight is unwanted.
2) That much weight unbalances the rifle, effecting accuracy.
3) If a 30 rd magazine fails to feed properly, you drop it and load another. No more than 30 rounds are lost. If a 100 round mag mis-feeds, nearly half or your basic ammo load is dropped.
4) The mags in question make it difficult to properly sling the weapon.
Another thing to consider... Slow aimed fire is far more effective than blasting away as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.
-
The military and mass murderers have different interests in mind when selecting weapons and accessories.
-
I'm not picking on you per se, but it is obvious that you have very little knowledge of these weapons.
The reasons the military does not utilize 100 round magazines are:
1) Too damn heavy to lug around. Any guy who is assigned the SAW will tell you that it's no fun carrying the SAW with a full belt of ammo. Lug around a Mk47 or worse, an M60, and you'll appreciate the light weight of an M4. MY G3 and CETME both have 20 round mags. Sure, you could design and manufacture 30 round mags, but that extra weight is unwanted.
2) That much weight unbalances the rifle, effecting accuracy.
3) If a 30 rd magazine fails to feed properly, you drop it and load another. No more than 30 rounds are lost. If a 100 round mag mis-feeds, nearly half or your basic ammo load is dropped.
4) The mags in question make it difficult to properly sling the weapon.
Another thing to consider... Slow aimed fire is far more effective than blasting away as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.
<--- Any guy.
Any guys agrees :aok :aok
-
The military and mass murderers have different interests in mind when selecting weapons and accessories.
To a large extent, the interests of both of the aforementioned are very much the same. They both want to throw the most lead in a more or less controlled manner. We can argue the psychology of the soldier versus the psycho, but I think the point that you don't need a giant magazine to kill a lot of people is very valid. Banning beta mags, specifically will just cause your next mass murderer to defer to 30 round clips - which, in the hands of somebody with just a bit of discipline, will be more effective than the armchair commando's choice.
I also don't see much deterrent effect in 'limiting' a handgun user to just 17 rounds, down from 33.
But going back to your original point, I'm not against getting rid of these silly magazines. It's not going to change anything at all for practical shooters. Unfortunately, a practical shooter, by my definition, is a person who knows how to effectively exploit the capabilities of his weapon. What he does with those capabilities, be it self defense, hunting or shooting up a strip mall, is left to the whim of the operator.
-
I just came across this article and immediately thought of this thread. I'm not familiar with the site, but I do live about 70 miles from Kenesaw, Ga and it's reputation for gun ownership requirements is talked about quite often.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/the-most-pro-gun-low-crime-city-in-the-united-states/
Lambo
-
For shooting places up.
Never ever heard of one being used in a shooting. Not even once.
-
There is a rather popular saying about the definition of insanity. Something along the lines about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Tony is living proof that there are folks who never ever learn that lesson by trying to bring up the same failed ideas that didn't work time and again in the past. What's worse is he also typifies the truism that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.....over and over and over and over again. Punishing the many for the act of the few is hardly logical or just.
Prohibition and bans have never worked in human history yet here it is again. The salvation of human kind, another ban or prohibition. :rock :rolleyes:
This is not and never has been an equipment problem. It has and continues to be a people behavioral problem, perhaps fueled by a cultural bias and mass media sensationalism in both popular entertainment and news.
Having attempted to make this clear on more than one post I regret that I was unable to impress on tony the futility of legislating morality on those who are never impressed by laws. Given that it is also futile to continue to attempt enlighten those who refuse to admit the possibility of light I have to say I'm not going to continue to do the same thing and expect a different response. To do so would make me as guilty as tony. :bhead
I hope you learn to think for yourself, be responsible for your own actions and learn to respect the fact that others are responsible for their own actions rather than continue to try to mandate your opinion on them against their will....and better judgement. Freedom has a price and only those willing to accept it are ever going to remain free rather than submit to a master dictating their lives for them.
-
Never ever heard of one being used in a shooting. Not even once.
Tucson is one. VT he used Glocks, but I'm not sure the mag size.
-
Just dug up this essay I wrote a couple years ago, where I used many of the exact same points you guys use to argue against an assault weapons ban. That doesn't mean my views haven't evolved enough to favor a much smaller gun control measure, but it's still pretty ironic.
Assault is a Behavior
“No Free man shall ever be debarred of arms” – Thomas Jefferson. The controversial subject of gun control and more specifically semi-automatic weapons, more commonly referred to as “assault weapons”, has been debated for decades by politicians. Webster’s dictionary defines an assault weapon as “any of various semiautomatic or automatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.” Following in the footsteps of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban, many politicians today are attempting to reinstate a similar plan. In my view, having the right to bear arms, assault weapons in this case, is a right given in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, a form of self-defense and sport, and not any more likely to cause murder or mayhem.
The 2nd Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment was made by our Founding Fathers to ensure that the government never had a monopoly of force it could use to oppress the citizens. With many people owning weapons, no future tyrant would be able to impose his will on a helpless population as has happened many times in the past such as China and the Soviet Union. Once a government gains enough power to take away certain rights, there is no limit to what is possibly attainable. While banning assault weapons may not directly lead to a tyranny of any sort, it lays the seed for such oppression to thrive ten, fifty, or one hundred years from now.
Many ban supporters claim that assault type weapons are simply unnecessary. However, what about the legitimate people who use them for self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting. Last time I checked, owning a 48” widescreen TV wasn’t very necessary either, when having a black-and white 12” TV would work just fine. The same could be said about having the latest cell-phone. Why do you need one when you could have a Maxwell Smart shoe-phone? The concepts of freedom and personal choice shouldn’t just be disregarded in the matter of gun control.
Another argument brought up by pro-ban groups is that banning assault weapons will cause a reduction in violent crimes. Many cite a report done by the National Institute of Justice in 1999 on the impact of the 1994 Assault weapon ban saying that overall violent crime was reduced by an overall 9% between 1994 and 1995. What many fail to recognize is that the violent crime rate was already on a descending trend, with violent crime rate dropping about 5% between 1993 and 1994. This crime rate occurred in a time when assault weapons were on the market and were relatively easy to access. This mass banning of a certain product has been done before in the example of Prohibition, but that didn’t stop thousands from creating their own “homebrews.” The bottom line is that if people want to commit a violent crime, there are plenty of illegal ways for criminals to gain access to assault weapons. National renowned publisher Alan Korwin summed it up pretty well when he said that “Assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware.”
This hot topic has been argued for many years, and for good reason. Let's face it: assault weapons are deadly and were designed with the intention of killing people. But the reality of it is that most use them responsibly and for genuine reasons: they are a very effective form of self-defense and offer competitive opportunities in hunting and sport shooting. Not only that, but according to the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, it is well within our rights as American citizens to bear arms, including assault weapons. It is for the aforementioned reasons that I believe that assault weapons should not be banned in the United States.
-
Tucson is one. VT he used Glocks, but I'm not sure the mag size.
Tucson when.... I'd like to see where a long long clip was used.
-
Regarding the ban of firearms on commercial airplanes, the situation is entirely different. While possible sudden decompression certainly makes a firefight on a pressurized aircraft more dangerous (though not automatically catastrophic, as has been pointed out), that is not the real reason they've been banned (successfully) on airliners. As has been demonstrated, this ban did not guarantee safer airtravel, since boxcutters were responsible for over 3,000 deaths on 9/11. The airline gun ban has, aurguably been effective and reasonable, but ONLY because of the physical security measures that accompanied the law. You see, it is immoral (and unconstitutional) to deny a person the ability to defend themselves, unless adequate measures are take to insure that those who won't voluntarily comply with the law (i.e. criminals/psychopaths) are likewise disadvantaged.
In the case of airline travel, it has become very difficult in deed for someone to ilegally sneak a firearm on the plane, due to the multilayered physical security measures in place. It is, however, very expensive to so so, and would be impractical but for the limited number of commericial airports in the country. In the case of commercial businesses, limiting the lawful carry without cooresponding physical measures to prevent the unlawful carry is not just immoral, but in fact invites the evil doer to choose these spots for their crimes (who will stop them?). But with many hundreds of thousands of commerical businesses, the cost of doing so would be astronomical. Hence, there are no laws requiring businesses to ban guns. This is perfectly fine, since patrons can choose not to enter a business, if they don't like the policy.
Case in point: Here in Colorado, it was until very recently against the law to conceal carry on University of Colorado campuses. A suit was brought, where the plaintiffs argued that this policy created killing zones, since it deprived the law abiding a reasonable means to counter the criminal. The CO supreme court (in a rare show of common sense, in my view) agreed with the plaintifs. They ordered the CSU regents to discontinue the ban on any building, UNLESS, every entrance to every facility on campus normally unlocked to the public had a working metal detector installed and manned anytime said access points were open.
The bottom line is, asside from the mag restriction already pummelled to death here (and historically, tried with little to no effect), I still haven't heard any other ideas. Any time you ban anything, it represents a loss of liberty. Sometimes that is deemed acceptable by the majority in society. However, liberties give up have a tendency to never return (the ASW Ban being an acception, but only because it had a sunset clause included...otherwise it would never have passed). Before any item or behavior is banned by government, it MUST be reasonably established that doing so will be effective. Remember, what they ban today may be of no concern of yours, but what they ban tomorrow, using similar or even the exact same rationale, may be something very dear to your heart. If you won't stand up to another's rights, what expectations should you have that others will stand up for yours?
-
Shuff- The 2011 Tucson shooting, where US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280.htm
"The Tucson gunman demonstrated those qualities all too vividly. Loughner is said to have emptied his 33-round clip in a minute or two, a feat requiring no special skill."
-
TonyJoey, your willingness to repost your "Assault is a Behavior" article speaks well of your intellectual honesty. That said, you must realize that all the arguments you make as to why banning so-called assault weapons, from a liberty viewpoint, apply equally to banning large-capacity mags for those same said weapons.
-
Just dug up this essay I wrote a couple years ago, where I used many of the exact same points you guys use to argue against an assault weapons ban. That doesn't mean my views haven't evolved enough to favor a much smaller gun control measure, but it's still pretty ironic.
Assault is a Behavior
“No Free man shall ever be debarred of arms” – Thomas Jefferson. The controversial subject of gun control and more specifically semi-automatic weapons, more commonly referred to as “assault weapons”, has been debated for decades by politicians. Webster’s dictionary defines an assault weapon as “any of various semiautomatic or automatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use.” Following in the footsteps of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban, many politicians today are attempting to reinstate a similar plan. In my view, having the right to bear arms, assault weapons in this case, is a right given in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, a form of self-defense and sport, and not any more likely to cause murder or mayhem.
The 2nd Amendment states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment was made by our Founding Fathers to ensure that the government never had a monopoly of force it could use to oppress the citizens. With many people owning weapons, no future tyrant would be able to impose his will on a helpless population as has happened many times in the past such as China and the Soviet Union. Once a government gains enough power to take away certain rights, there is no limit to what is possibly attainable. While banning assault weapons may not directly lead to a tyranny of any sort, it lays the seed for such oppression to thrive ten, fifty, or one hundred years from now.
Many ban supporters claim that assault type weapons are simply unnecessary. However, what about the legitimate people who use them for self-defense, hunting, or sport shooting. Last time I checked, owning a 48” widescreen TV wasn’t very necessary either, when having a black-and white 12” TV would work just fine. The same could be said about having the latest cell-phone. Why do you need one when you could have a Maxwell Smart shoe-phone? The concepts of freedom and personal choice shouldn’t just be disregarded in the matter of gun control.
Another argument brought up by pro-ban groups is that banning assault weapons will cause a reduction in violent crimes. Many cite a report done by the National Institute of Justice in 1999 on the impact of the 1994 Assault weapon ban saying that overall violent crime was reduced by an overall 9% between 1994 and 1995. What many fail to recognize is that the violent crime rate was already on a descending trend, with violent crime rate dropping about 5% between 1993 and 1994. This crime rate occurred in a time when assault weapons were on the market and were relatively easy to access. This mass banning of a certain product has been done before in the example of Prohibition, but that didn’t stop thousands from creating their own “homebrews.” The bottom line is that if people want to commit a violent crime, there are plenty of illegal ways for criminals to gain access to assault weapons. National renowned publisher Alan Korwin summed it up pretty well when he said that “Assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware.”
This hot topic has been argued for many years, and for good reason. Let's face it: assault weapons are deadly and were designed with the intention of killing people. But the reality of it is that most use them responsibly and for genuine reasons: they are a very effective form of self-defense and offer competitive opportunities in hunting and sport shooting. Not only that, but according to the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, it is well within our rights as American citizens to bear arms, including assault weapons. It is for the aforementioned reasons that I believe that assault weapons should not be banned in the United States.
You haven't grown wiser with age I see LOL.
By the way, I met Alan Korwin and have a signed copy of one of his books.
-
You haven't grown wiser with age I see LOL.
I knew that was coming. :rofl
-
I just came across this article and immediately thought of this thread. I'm not familiar with the site, but I do live about 70 miles from Kenesaw, Ga and it's reputation for gun ownership requirements is talked about quite often.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/the-most-pro-gun-low-crime-city-in-the-united-states/
Lambo
I mentioned this earlier. I'm not too far from Kennesaw which is why I brought it up then.
I've never felt safer than when I had to spend some time there when I had to make a trip back from Tennessee.
First off - to live in America, being psychotic is a requirement. ;)
Oh, those countries where religious extremist run everything isn't safe? I'm sorry. I didn't realize that affected my gun ownership.
Let me direct you all to a little town called Kennesaw, Georgia. It's a town where everyone who isn't a convicted felon/rapist etc. is required (more like asked) to own at least a hand gun. Guess what? One of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Why? Who in the hell wants to rob a house where there is someone who they KNOW has a gun?
Who would want to rob a car where they KNOW that it's owner has a gun?
It's a beautiful thing. You can call it dream land but I'll take my right to bear arms and beat you with it as I smile at a liberty that our European friends do not get to enjoy.
-
I knew that was coming. :rofl
Couldn't resist :devil
While I don't think it would do any good, I wouldn't really be that opposed to banning 100 round mags for rifles and 30 round mags for handguns, if there was a guarantee it would end there, but it never does, it's always just another incremental step.
You may have noticed Sarah Brady and her group didn't declare victory and disband after the Brady bill was signed.
"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal." Pete Shields, Chairman, Handgun Control Inc. "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58] (Note: Pete Shields was the founder of HCI and its first Chairman.)
-
Shuff- The 2011 Tucson shooting, where US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_04/b4212052185280.htm
"The Tucson gunman demonstrated those qualities all too vividly. Loughner is said to have emptied his 33-round clip in a minute or two, a feat requiring no special skill."
That guy used multiple clips not one long clip.
-
He used a Glock with a 33 round magazine, which you said you had never heard even once as being involved in a massacre.
-
It has been cited multiple times that Loughner used a 33 round magazine. Do you have some information that challenges that?
-
He used a Glock with a 33 round magazine, which you said you had never heard even once as being involved in a massacre.
Never heard that he used a 33 round magazine. Must have been a lot of folks there not paying attention or minding their own business. Just like in aurora.
It amazes me that this guy was able to do what he did and no one even noticed him carrying the weapons.
In the theater incident I'm amazed someone there was not carrying... that is unless they were not because it is posted. In that case this mental midget was at least able to descern that he would be the only one armed. That would explain his relaxed state.
You would think that in that case the theater could be held partially responsible..... of course they could argue that you knew the rules and could have not entered the theater.
-
Yeah, Loughner used an extended magazine. It was a well known fact here but I`m local.
-
Ok I think I've exhausted just about all of my arguments, but before I stop all together, let me just leave with a list of mass shootings that involved extended capacity magazines.
*Fort Hood-FN 5.7 with both standard 20-round magazines and 30-round extended magazines
*101 California street massacre-Tec-9 with 40 and 50-round extended mags.
*Tucson- Glock with 33-round extended magazine
*Aurora- Ar-15 with 100 round extended magazine
*Stockton school shooting- Ak-47 import with 75-round extended magazine.
*Hartford Distributors- 15 round Ruger SR-9. I'm under the understanding that 10 rounds is the standard capacity of the SR-9, so 15 would be extended.
Those are six mass shootings that I believe would have been positively affected by such a simple law as banning further sale of extended magazines. On the other hand, legal owners would not see any effect on hunting, collecting, or self-defense. Thanks for the lively debate. Now time for someone else to suggest something and get put in the hot seat for a change. :)
:salute
-
Ok I think I've exhausted just about all of my arguments, but before I stop all together, let me just leave with a list of mass shootings that involved extended capacity magazines.
*Fort Hood-FN 5.7 with both standard 20-round magazines and 30-round extended magazines
*101 California street massacre-Tec-9 with 40 and 50-round extended mags.
*Tucson- Glock with 33-round extended magazine
*Aurora- Ar-15 with 100 round extended magazine
*Stockton school shooting- Ak-47 import with 75-round extended magazine.
*Hartford Distributors- 15 round Ruger SR-9. I'm under the understanding that 10 rounds is the standard capacity of the SR-9, so 15 would be extended.
Those are six mass shootings that I believe would have been positively affected by such a simple law as banning further sale of extended magazines. On the other hand, legal owners would not see any effect on hunting, collecting, or self-defense. Thanks for the lively debate. Now time for someone else to suggest something and get put in the hot seat for a change. :)
:salute
North Hollywood bank robbery: suspects had multiple 75 round drum mags,multiple weapons with "Hi-Cap" mags. 0 dead. these guys had more fire power in the trunk of their car then all the above
-
Well you are entitled to your opinion. I certainly don't understand the notion that quickly changing a magazine is some sort of accomplishment.
The only possible time this could be an impediment would be when there is someone within arms length who was still able and had the nerve to try to physically stop the shooter while reloading.
You are not going to even be able to cross 5 feet before even a novice will have the weapon loaded and you will die.
When shots are fired, people run. Fewer people would have died if the whole theater charged him right after he started shooting, but that's not realistic, some of the chargers would have been the "fewer people" and instinct is to try to escape.
The former situation is what happened in Tucson. The shooter went to change magazines and a woman intervened, but he was standing in the midst of people, not a short distance away aiming up into theater seats. According to reports I read, she grabbed the magazine while it was in his hand. It's quite possible the only reason she was able to was because it was long enough for her to get a hold of it.
Apparently after losing that magazine, no one was able to stop him from loading another standard length magazine, but luckily it malfunctioned.
I don't know and you don't know if not having a 30 round magazine would have lessened the carnage in this incident.
In the Aurora shooting, it appears that he chose the time to stop shooting, no one was able to attempt to stop him when his AR-15 finally jammed and he changed to another gun.
Therefore it seems to me likely that no one would have been able or willing to try to stop him while reloading and having to change magazines would have likely had no effect on how many people he was able to shoot.
I wasn't there, neither were you. No one really knows.
I need more than conjecture to start down the slippery slope of banning any firearms or accessories because it's possible it "might" do something.
-
North Hollywood bank robbery: suspects had multiple 75 round drum mags,multiple weapons with "Hi-Cap" mags. 0 dead. these guys had more fire power in the trunk of their car then all the above
And this proves...they were bad shots?
Jim-Thanks for keeping it civil, I enjoyed the debate and respect your opinion. :salute
-
:salute TonyJoey
-
And this proves...they were bad shots?
Indeed they were. The suspects fired ~1,100 rounds, wounding eleven police officers and seven civilians. The police fired ~650 rounds with ten landing as hits on each suspect*. Unfortunately for the Police they were outgunned. Luckily there was a gun store nearby that handed out AR-15's to the lawmen, thus allowing them to better deal with the situation.
^^^^ Fact
In this case the criminals would have had the weapons no matter what the law said, fortunately the law allowed legal sales of assault rifles. This legal trade in high cap weaponry saved numerous lives that day, due to the fact (I believe) that the Cops were able to up-gun in the middle of the firefight.
^^^^ Opinion
*Edited for "hit count".
:salute
-
One thing we're forgetting....why in the hell did it take police TWENTY minutes to get there? :uhoh :bolt:
-
One thing we're forgetting....why in the hell did it take police TWENTY minutes to get there? :uhoh :bolt:
Not sure. Looks like closest station (which is HQ) is 1/2 mile away. :headscratch:
-
When seconds count...
-
Never heard that he used a 33 round magazine. Must have been a lot of folks there not paying attention or minding their own business. Just like in aurora.
It amazes me that this guy was able to do what he did and no one even noticed him carrying the weapons.
In the theater incident I'm amazed someone there was not carrying... that is unless they were not because it is posted. In that case this mental midget was at least able to descern that he would be the only one armed. That would explain his relaxed state.
You would think that in that case the theater could be held partially responsible..... of course they could argue that you knew the rules and could have not entered the theater.
I don't know about Texas, but here, in PA...
“No Firearm” signs in Pennsylvania have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is
specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in
a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you
refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you
are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who
may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you
even if you are within the law.
Places specifically mentioned in the PA laws are Federal/State buildings, schools and courthouses(but you can check-in your firearm with the Sherrifs at the entrance to the courthouse) My wife and I have done it a few times.
-
I don't know about Texas, but here, in PA...
“No Firearm” signs in Pennsylvania have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is
specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in
a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you
refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you
are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who
may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you
even if you are within the law.
Places specifically mentioned in the PA laws are Federal/State buildings, schools and courthouses(but you can check-in your firearm with the Sherrifs at the entrance to the courthouse) My wife and I have done it a few times.
Pretty much the same here.
-
I just came across this article and immediately thought of this thread. I'm not familiar with the site, but I do live about 70 miles from Kenesaw, Ga and it's reputation for gun ownership requirements is talked about quite often.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/07/the-most-pro-gun-low-crime-city-in-the-united-states/
Lambo
lambo on the other hand los angeles has a very high rate of gun ownership. there's also a high rate of murders. so my guess is that kenesaw's death rate is not related to the mandatory ownership of guns. I remember when Kenesa's law was first enacted many years ago, it was more to make a statement than to put a dent on crime as crime was really low there anyway.
now read this article
http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-9000-murders-by-gun-in-us-39-in-uk.html
we had 9000 murders in the usa while england had 39.
this is the other article in the BBC that it is refering to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
which goes back to what I originally said. is not the need for more or less gun laws, but the need for all of us to change our attitude towards guns. and I say that as a country not as individual
you want more statistics? sorry I dont do pie chars: every year more police officers are murdered in the united states than in the past 100 years in england.
you have here two countries that have laws that are far apart. it is easier to get a gun in the us that it is to get a license to drive. while in England it is very hard to get one. you can say that england has a very strict gun laws, but they still have a lot of guns out in the population. there has been mass murders in england too, but I dont think it's tied to the lack of guns. I am pretty sure you can buy guns there on the black market too. just like here in the usa.
semp
-
lambo on the other hand los angeles has a very high rate of gun ownership. there's also a high rate of murders. so my guess is that kenesaw's death rate is not related to the mandatory ownership of guns. I remember when Kenesa's law was first enacted many years ago, it was more to make a statement than to put a dent on crime as crime was really low there anyway.
now read this article
http://www.juancole.com/2011/01/over-9000-murders-by-gun-in-us-39-in-uk.html
we had 9000 murders in the usa while england had 39.
this is the other article in the BBC that it is refering to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
which goes back to what I originally said. is not the need for more or less gun laws, but the need for all of us to change our attitude towards guns. and I say that as a country not as individual
you want more statistics? sorry I dont do pie chars: every year more police officers are murdered in the united states than in the past 100 years in england.
you have here two countries that have laws that are far apart. it is easier to get a gun in the us that it is to get a license to drive. while in England it is very hard to get one. you can say that england has a very strict gun laws, but they still have a lot of guns out in the population. there has been mass murders in england too, but I dont think it's tied to the lack of guns. I am pretty sure you can buy guns there on the black market too. just like here in the usa.
semp
Those stats are so arbitrary and taken out of context that they are laughable.
How do they look, percentage-wise when based upon population difference or against total murders?
I'm sure there are plenty of other homicides in the UK from others methods.
The only difference in man's capacity to murder other men is the tools that they use, not the motivation.
-
No comment, just to put this link up.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
-
Ok I think I've exhausted just about all of my arguments, but before I stop all together, let me just leave with a list of mass shootings that involved extended capacity magazines.
*Fort Hood-FN 5.7 with both standard 20-round magazines and 30-round extended magazines
*101 California street massacre-Tec-9 with 40 and 50-round extended mags.
*Tucson- Glock with 33-round extended magazine
*Aurora- Ar-15 with 100 round extended magazine
*Stockton school shooting- Ak-47 import with 75-round extended magazine.
*Hartford Distributors- 15 round Ruger SR-9. I'm under the understanding that 10 rounds is the standard capacity of the SR-9, so 15 would be extended.
Those are six mass shootings that I believe would have been positively affected by such a simple law as banning further sale of extended magazines. On the other hand, legal owners would not see any effect on hunting, collecting, or self-defense. Thanks for the lively debate. Now time for someone else to suggest something and get put in the hot seat for a change. :)
:salute
I feel they would have been positively impacted by not letting the mental types run loose. Quit lowering everyone to the weakest link. As long as they are a protected species folks will pay the price... guns or no guns.
-
Ban the car.
Too many senseless deaths are happening.
-
*Hartford Distributors- 15 round Ruger SR-9. I'm under the understanding that 10 rounds is the standard capacity of the SR-9, so 15 would be extended.
:salute
standard SR-9 actually carries 17 in the mag standard, 10 is only for states that have a magazine limit. Big brother SR-40 carries 15 standard (I own two of these, well ones the wife's).
:salute
BigRat
-
As long as "youth" mobs are in #'s greater than a clip can hold, I see no reason to limit clip capacity.
Still, I would prefer and own smaller, more reliable clips. To each his own, imo.
-
lambo on the other hand los angeles has a very high rate of gun ownership. there's also a high rate of murders. so my guess is that kenesaw's death rate is not related to the mandatory ownership of guns.
So what is your guess semp?
I have a feeling I know what it is, I just want to see you spell it out for us.
:uhoh
-
lambo on the other hand los angeles has a very high rate of gun ownership. there's also a high rate of murders. so my guess is that kenesaw's death rate is not related to the mandatory ownership of guns.
Very high (50-60%) and 100% are two very very different things. In the first scenario, breaking into a home is a gamble, in the other, it's almost a guaranteed shootout... Plus, Kenesaw is a small city, where as LA is a massive metropolis with an extremely culturally, educationally and economically diverse population.
In small communities consisting of more or less similar, like-minded people, a gun in every home most likely makes a huge difference when it comes to criminal activity. It's one of the salient characteristics of the town, and everyone, including prospective criminals, are well aware of the dangers of trying to rob a house.
In a place like LA, I doubt that criminals think too much about the rate of gun ownership before breaking into a home. And in the gang territories, where I once had the pleasure of living, it's no deterrent at all. Somehow I doubt there are many Bloods or Crips running around Kenesaw looking to make a reputation.
-
Those stats are so arbitrary and taken out of context that they are laughable.
How do they look, percentage-wise when based upon population difference or against total murders?
I'm sure there are plenty of other homicides in the UK from others methods.
The only difference in man's capacity to murder other men is the tools that they use, not the motivation.
vonmessa neither was using that town as a proof that if everybody had a gun then crime rate would go down. crime rate wont go down untill it happens like in switzerland where the population has a job and hope and basically not just sit around waiting for something to happen like we do here in the usa. we are far from being a messed up country but I believe there's a lot of things we can improve. beginning with out own thinking that if we wait long enough we'll be ok.
semp
-
we had 9000 murders in the usa while england had 39.
In my opinion, it is the cultural variables which account for this disproportional difference.
-
Europe is not free. Countries like England and Germany will jail you for using defamitory speech. This is not freedom.
Actually it's fairly hard to get jailed in UK for anything,
burglary "he's from a broken home" 6 month supervision order
burglary and 150 TIC's "he's got a drug habit to support" 6 month supervision order to run concurrent with first
Steal a car, run from the police, crash it, resist arrest CPS throw it out for Insuff Evidence despite 3 video cars filming the whole thing.
70 year old lady refuses to fill in polling card : 1 month in jail
Speeding on open road on motorcycle : 12 months in jail
The Public Order Act 1986 covers some freedom of speech. In as much as it makes it an offense to be threatening, abusive or insultive to use words or display slogans etc liable to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
Freedom of speech is unaffected un til you start speaking like a dick, loudly, and in public.
-
In small communities consisting of more or less similar, like-minded people, a gun in every home most likely makes a huge difference when it comes to criminal activity. It's one of the salient characteristics of the town, and everyone, including prospective criminals, are well aware of the dangers of trying to rob a house.
I suspect the low crime rates come from the fact that they are small communities of similar, like-minded people who all know each other, and that the gun ownership is almost irrelevant in these cases. you see the same effect in countries with very low gun ownership.
-
See Rule #4
-
yes but of the 9000, how many WEREN'T involved with the jungle bunnies and their little game of tribal warfare? I've heard that in CA theres 1 gang member in 3 people.
most of those would resemble "guns obtained illegally" and therefore I dont think they qualify for the argument.
edit...
truth is iffy to post.
-
edit...
truth is iffy to post.
haha, i saw it already.
they are included in it. I'm just saying of those 9000, how many were motivated by something other then "he gew up on that side of the concrete"
how many were what you might call "white collar murder" such as robbery gone bad or shooting someone over an argument
-
So what is your guess semp?
I have a feeling I know what it is, I just want to see you spell it out for us.
:uhoh
it was to the fact that crime rate in the city was low to begin with. guns or lack of had nothing to do with it.
I am 47 years old and nobody has ever broken into my house. and since I got my 2 guns about 15 years ago nobody has broken into my house either. so I guess the reason nobody has broken into my house is because I have guns there. even though i spend 1/2 the day WORKING and my house is empty. just like the people in Kenesaw, unless you expect me to believe that there's somebody in every house with a gun in Kenesa 24/7 just in case somebody tries to commit a crime.
I own guns and I am for the second amendment, but I am not naive to think that the reason Kenesa has a low crime rate is due to gun ownership. It is due to attitude in their little town. everybody knows everybody and try to do what's right. that is the true reason why Kenesa has a low crime rate, which it already had BEFORE they passed the law requiring everybody to own guns. and just in case you missed it, not everybody in Kenesa owns a gun, there's lots of people that due to different circumstances arent allowed or wont get one and guess what their crime rate isnt higher than in those homes that own guns.
semp
-
Those stats are so arbitrary and taken out of context that they are laughable.
How do they look, percentage-wise when based upon population difference or against total murders?
I'm sure there are plenty of other homicides in the UK from others methods.
The only difference in man's capacity to murder other men is the tools that they use, not the motivation.
I really don't see the point in comparing other countries stats with the USA - you're comparing apples with oranges. The simple fact is that firearm crime and firearm homicide rates in the US are high compared to other countries - but no law is going to be able to correct this given the amount of firearms (illegal and legal). It's a part of the culture.
-
it was to the fact that crime rate in the city was low to begin with. guns or lack of had nothing to do with it.
I am 47 years old and nobody has ever broken into my house. and since I got my 2 guns about 15 years ago nobody has broken into my house either. so I guess the reason nobody has broken into my house is because I have guns there. even though i spend 1/2 the day WORKING and my house is empty. just like the people in Kenesaw, unless you expect me to believe that there's somebody in every house with a gun in Kenesa 24/7 just in case somebody tries to commit a crime.
I own guns and I am for the second amendment, but I am not naive to think that the reason Kenesa has a low crime rate is due to gun ownership. It is due to attitude in their little town. everybody knows everybody and try to do what's right. that is the true reason why Kenesa has a low crime rate, which it already had BEFORE they passed the law requiring everybody to own guns. and just in case you missed it, not everybody in Kenesa owns a gun, there's lots of people that due to different circumstances arent allowed or wont get one and guess what their crime rate isnt higher than in those homes that own guns.
semp
I see your point Semp. It goes back to the saying " Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Lambo
-
yes but of the 9000, how many WEREN'T involved with the jungle bunnies and their little game of tribal warfare? I've heard that in CA theres 1 gang member in 3 people.
most of those would resemble "guns obtained illegally" and therefore I dont think they qualify for the argument.
That racial slur is so far over the line I hardly know what to say, except that there should be no place on this board for such insulting and derogatory terms.
I *think* its possible to have a discussion of race and violence if we stick to facts and avoid generalizations. I also think its OK to say "Blacks" or African American. But your choice of terms here is completely unacceptable.
-
vonmessa neither was using that town as a proof that if everybody had a gun then crime rate would go down. crime rate wont go down untill it happens like in switzerland where the population has a job and hope and basically not just sit around waiting for something to happen like we do here in the usa. we are far from being a messed up country but I believe there's a lot of things we can improve. beginning with out own thinking that if we wait long enough we'll be ok.
semp
Many here are jobless by choice. They make their living off of the working folks.
I was talking to a girl at the chevy house yesterday. She works there. She was telling me about an uncle of hers that never gets invited to family gatherings because he makes his living off sueing folks. No one in the family visits him or invites him over. :rofl
Many others just like living off the working class.... the ones we call "on the dole".
I doubt more jobs would affect roberies much.
-
I just think it's a darn good thing guns are illegal in Mexico. For many of the anti gun folks they have a safe haven to go to should they so decide.
-
I just think it's a darn good thing guns are illegal in Mexico. For many of the anti gun folks they have a safe haven to go to should they so decide.
this is a lie. I grew up there and we had legal guns. it was just a matter of going to the store, no paperwork needed. You were also allowed to carry one in your vehicle as long as it wasn't loaded. I also remember old timers walking around with a gun, looking just like your normal cowboy. they probably grew up in little towns where it was the norm.
Our secondary school teacher would bring one to school since he would cash all paychecks for the 40 or so teachers we had.
I also remember going up to a small town up in the mountains. remember seeing a group of kids on a field trip walking up the mountain. they had two rifles with them, they told me it was to get their lunch. I still have a good laugh thinking about it.
semp
-
That racial slur is so far over the line I hardly know what to say, except that there should be no place on this board for such insulting and derogatory terms.
I *think* its possible to have a discussion of race and violence if we stick to facts and avoid generalizations. I also think its OK to say "Blacks" or African American. But your choice of terms here is completely unacceptable.
:aok
-
this is a lie. I grew up there and we had legal guns. it was just a matter of going to the store, no paperwork needed. You were also allowed to carry one in your vehicle as long as it wasn't loaded. I also remember old timers walking around with a gun, looking just like your normal cowboy. they probably grew up in little towns where it was the norm.
Our secondary school teacher would bring one to school since he would cash all paychecks for the 40 or so teachers we had.
I also remember going up to a small town up in the mountains. remember seeing a group of kids on a field trip walking up the mountain. they had two rifles with them, they told me it was to get their lunch. I still have a good laugh thinking about it.
semp
I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker
-
this is a lie. I grew up there and we had legal guns.
I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker
Maybe you're both right and the law has changed! :O
-
At the core of these debates is what the cause of violence is. I'm not naive enough to say the availability of weapons (not just firearms) has an effect, but I don't believe it is a causal effect. People constantly throw out examples of high gun control/low violence populations, then someone shows a high gun control/low violence population, followed by a high gun control/high violence, followed by a low gun control/high violence. That tells me that gun control has a very small (if any) effect on violence. If your true goal is to reduce violence, then you'll be much better served spending your time and energy focusing on some of the causal effects of violence such as poverty, abuse, and mental illness.
-
I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker
perhaps they should meet my uncles. All 4 of them own them legally.
semp
-
At the core of these debates is what the cause of violence is. I'm not naive enough to say the availability of weapons (not just firearms) has an effect, but I don't believe it is a causal effect. People constantly throw out examples of high gun control/low violence populations, then someone shows a high gun control/low violence population, followed by a high gun control/high violence, followed by a low gun control/high violence. That tells me that gun control has a very small (if any) effect on violence. If your true goal is to reduce violence, then you'll be much better served spending your time and energy focusing on some of the causal effects of violence such as poverty, abuse, and mental illness.
And then we reach the debate of whether the government should have a role in alleviating poverty and provding things such as healthcare, and to what extent.
-
And then we reach the debate of whether the government should have a role in alleviating poverty and provding things such as healthcare, and to what extent.
Ooy! You'll get us locked for sure, if we go there! :bolt: On a side note, I caught a few minutes of the O'Reilly Factor last night, and heard some looney suggestions Bill made on the issue of gun control, including suggesting a requirement that any AK or AR sales (single gun or otherwise) be reported to the DEA. Again, and like so many others, he put zero thought into some of these suggestions, acting on pure feelings. Is there any reasonable argument to be made that such a requirement would have prevented the Aurora shootings, or decreased the death toll? He also repeated a number of other feel-good suggestions, without any better reasoning behind them except, "civilians don't need these weapons". Et tu, Bill?
-
At the core of these debates is what the cause of violence is. I'm not naive enough to say the availability of weapons (not just firearms) has an effect, but I don't believe it is a causal effect. People constantly throw out examples of high gun control/low violence populations, then someone shows a high gun control/low violence population, followed by a high gun control/high violence, followed by a low gun control/high violence. That tells me that gun control has a very small (if any) effect on violence. If your true goal is to reduce violence, then you'll be much better served spending your time and energy focusing on some of the causal effects of violence such as poverty, abuse, and mental illness.
this is a good post
I agree, and feel like a society's culture has a lot to do with it
the UK these days has a pretty scummy and often violent culture, and although I personally think the gun control there is a good thing, it evidently doesn't do much to curb the large amount of violent crime, as has already been pointed out
the US also has an awful culture and widespread availability of guns, and has become a prime example for much of the civilized world as to why it's a bad thing to make guns easily obtainable
plenty of countries out there have more lax gun control laws, but in a healthier society you don't see the same problems as you do elsewhere
guns aren't the problem, people are, and have always been, the problem. but equally, guns make it a hell of a lot easier for the average person to end a lot of lives with minimal effort :(
-
The bottom line here is that any regulations of the types of firearms , or accessories, is still infringement of the right to bear arms.
The debate of how morality cannot be regulated can go 'round and 'round.
Do I, personally, think that 100 round magazines are necessary? No. I actually think that most hi capacity magazines are junk, jam and waste more ammo than they fire in a lot of cases.
My every day carry is a 1930's Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver (used to be standard NYPD issue back in the day) It is not a "man stopper" as a 9mm or .45 would be, but I keep it loaded with hollow point rounds. It is one of the most accurate revolvers that I have ever had the pleasure of firing. For personal or family self-defense, I think it would suffice just fine and I hope to never have to use it. If I couldn't hit my target with 5 of the 6 rounds, I would use the 6th round on myself for lack of target discipline. I doubt that I would ever need to have more than those 6 rounds in most any situation where I would have to defend myself barring a zombie apocalypse. It is ancient, accurate and reliable.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Revolver/DSC00827.jpg)
However, the 2nd amendment is not really geared towards self-defense from criminal intent but rather to defend one's self in the event of a tyrannical government. In that case, my 6 rounds wouldn't amount to much. A lot of folks feel the same way and prefer higher capacity magazines. I spent many years behind an M-16 using 30 round magazines. It does not take much time to change them and they are fairly easy to carry. It is what I would prefer.
Just because I prefer them or see no particular advantage to high capacity magazines, it does not mean that I am against others owning them.
If someone has intent to kill another human being or a group of human beings, they will find a way whether it be through the use of high capacity magazines, rocks, flame throwers, grenades, poison or the simple and intentional spread of disease. Limiting one route will just make them resort to another. Humans are a very ingenious bunch.
-
Here is an interesting interview that Justice Scalia, arguably the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, did on Sunday on FOX, where he touches on many topics, including gun control.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/
Sabre- O'Reilly suggested reporting heavy weapons sales to the FBI so the sales could be cross-referenced with things like terror lists. He also suggested mandatory sentences for crimes involving guns.
-
The bottom line here is that any regulations of the types of firearms , or accessories, is still infringement of the right to bear arms.
The debate of how morality cannot be regulated can go 'round and 'round.
Do I, personally, think that 100 round magazines are necessary? No. I actually think that most hi capacity magazines are junk, jam and waste more ammo than they fire in a lot of cases.
My every day carry is a 1930's Smith & Wesson .32 caliber revolver (used to be standard NYPD issue back in the day) It is not a "man stopper" as a 9mm or .45 would be, but I keep it loaded with hollow point rounds. It is one of the most accurate revolvers that I have ever had the pleasure of firing. For personal or family self-defense, I think it would suffice just fine and I hope to never have to use it. If I couldn't hit my target with 5 of the 6 rounds, I would use the 6th round on myself for lack of target discipline. I doubt that I would ever need to have more than those 6 rounds in most any situation where I would have to defend myself barring a zombie apocalypse. It is ancient, accurate and reliable.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Revolver/DSC00827.jpg)
However, the 2nd amendment is not really geared towards self-defense from criminal intent but rather to defend one's self in the event of a tyrannical government. In that case, my 6 rounds wouldn't amount to much. A lot of folks feel the same way and prefer higher capacity magazines. I spent many years behind an M-16 using 30 round magazines. It does not take much time to change them and they are fairly easy to carry. It is what I would prefer.
Just because I prefer them or see no particular advantage to high capacity magazines, it does not mean that I am against others owning them.
If someone has intent to kill another human being or a group of human beings, they will find a way whether it be through the use of high capacity magazines, rocks, flame throwers, grenades, poison or the simple and intentional spread of disease. Limiting one route will just make them resort to another. Humans are a very ingenious bunch.
A proper hit with a .32 or even a .22 will be a stopper. :)
-
The bottom line here is that any regulations of the types of firearms , or accessories, is still infringement of the right to bear arms.
thats not really a bottom line though is it? - the constitution isnt written in stone, its a bunch of stuff generally agreed to a coupla hundred years ago. and then changed (or amended) constantly ever since, depending on what society at the time deemed right.
any well-regulated militia today would need access to nukes, attack choppers, tanks, SAMS etc to effectively deal with a tyrannical government.
gun control laws are a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting rights. does anyone really think its sensible that people should be able to legally walk around with an RPG, grenades, a Stinger or a flamethrower?
-
thats not really a bottom line though is it? - the constitution isnt written in stone, its a bunch of stuff generally agreed to a coupla hundred years ago. and then changed (or amended) constantly ever since, depending on what society at the time deemed right.
any well-regulated militia today would need access to nukes, attack choppers, tanks, SAMS etc to effectively deal with a tyrannical government.
gun control laws are a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting rights. does anyone really think its sensible that people should be able to legally walk around with an RPG, grenades, a Stinger or a flamethrower?
While I agree with the general gist of your post that government has the right to regulate guns, I disagree with the bolded. What is bolded is the job of the legislature. The Constitution is what it is; it isn't a living organism that bends to whatever belief you hold. Rather, it sets in place certain limitations and leaves the rest to the legislature and the democratic process. Roe V. Wade is a perfect example of judicial activism. The Court took on the role of Congress and took the values of the Fourth Amendment and made it fit their agenda. The Fourth Amendment does not address abortion, and as such, it should be left up to the democratic process.
-
Crime exists because we allow it to. I can write pages on how and why we allow it but whats the point?
You cant compare Europe to here. European countries have history's where Monarchies held all the power and the lower classes were forbidden any weapons. They dont have a recent history of wilderness expansion that we do. They have a far more homogeneous populations. Have far less, if any, immigration. They have almost no illegal aliens and their populations are far more documented. The powers of their police forces are not as limited as they are here. A German cp stops you and asks for ID and see what squealing about rights will get you.
They have hunting and sport shooting but its mostly for the rich. Here its everymans sport.
100 years ago we had far, far more guns per capita in America then we have now. You could buy a Tommie gun thru a magazine add. So whats changed between then and now and you have your answer.
-
thats not really a bottom line though is it? - the constitution isnt written in stone, its a bunch of stuff generally agreed to a coupla hundred years ago. and then changed (or amended) constantly ever since, depending on what society at the time deemed right.
I apologize if I wasn't succinct enough. I didn't mean that statement to be indicative of the constitution being a static device of law. I meant it to state that infringing upon the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights and this includes all of them. As a quick analogy: Black coffee is black until cream is added. Even adding a minuscule amount of cream added changes that. If someone says to me "You can possess black coffee, but only if we add a tiny bit of cream", I would feel compelled to think that I really cannot posses black coffee, but the next closest thing to it.
any well-regulated militia today would need access to nukes, attack choppers, tanks, SAMS etc to effectively deal with a tyrannical government.
I recall the Afghan's giving the Soviet Army a good dose of heartburn, without access to half the firepower (including "donations" to them by foreign governments) For any government to enforce it's leadership, in a manner conflicting with the will of the citizens, it would require boots on the ground at some point. If the citizens are well armed, it makes the occupation by invading forces that much more difficult. Even with the use of more advanced weaponry ,the hope of their way of life remaining the same is bolstered by the fact that they have access to a means of defending themselves
gun control laws are a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting rights. does anyone really think its sensible that people should be able to legally walk around with an RPG, grenades, a Stinger or a flamethrower?
Of course not, but improvised devices to mimic the weapons you have mentioned will still be around. Humans are a resourceful lot. As many have stated, it is more of a matter of people being the problem.
-
Crime exists because we allow it to. I can write pages on how and why we allow it but whats the point?
You cant compare Europe to here. European countries have history's where Monarchies held all the power and the lower classes were forbidden any weapons. They dont have a recent history of wilderness expansion that we do. They have a far more homogeneous populations. Have far less, if any, immigration. They have almost no illegal aliens and their populations are far more documented. The powers of their police forces are not as limited as they are here. A German cp stops you and asks for ID and see what squealing about rights will get you.
They have hunting and sport shooting but its mostly for the rich. Here its everymans sport.
100 years ago we had far, far more guns per capita in America then we have now. You could buy a Tommie gun thru a magazine add. So whats changed between then and now and you have your answer.
this bolded part is just factually wrong :(
-
thats not really a bottom line though is it? - the constitution isnt written in stone, its a bunch of stuff generally agreed to a coupla hundred years ago. and then changed (or amended) constantly ever since, depending on what society at the time deemed right.
any well-regulated militia today would need access to nukes, attack choppers, tanks, SAMS etc to effectively deal with a tyrannical government.
gun control laws are a pragmatic way of dealing with conflicting rights. does anyone really think its sensible that people should be able to legally walk around with an RPG, grenades, a Stinger or a flamethrower?
The Constitution isn't written in stone? I'd say it is. Try changing it... The amendments to the Constitution have been minimal considering the 220+ years since its adoption.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't bestow any rights. It recognized an existing right and is the written promise to protect and preserve that right.
-
People have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean regulations and restrictions cannot be put in place. There were arms limits in place at the time of the Constitution about the nature of weapons that people could have.
-
I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker
Ah, so then they've all already previously told you this for themelves then, that there is no legal gun ownership in Mexico? :devil
-
I'll tell the three guys I know that are from there. They'll be glad to know they can own firearms there now. snicker
here shuffler, have google translate or perhaps ask your 3 friends from mexico to translate from you. it is from the mexican constitution and tells you which arms you are legally allowed or not for private ownership.
hope this puts to rest the lies spread by some that guns are illegal in mexico.
http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/102.pdf
semp
-
They got boatloads of guns down in Old Mexico. Just ask Eric Holder.
:aok
-
They got boatloads of guns down in Old Mexico. Just ask Eric Holder.
:aok
:lol
-
People have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean regulations and restrictions cannot be put in place. There were arms limits in place at the time of the Constitution about the nature of weapons that people could have.
If you want to debate, you gotta throw a bone here and cite an example :)
EDIT:
It took almost 46 years after the 2nd amendment was ratified until the 1st attempt at a firearm law was put forth.
2nd amendment ratified in 1791
1837 The state of Georgia tried to pass a ban on handguns. It was found to be unconstitutional and thrown out.
-
They got boatloads of guns down in Old Mexico. Just ask Eric Holder.
:aok
you act like it's the first time we ever did that. remember when we allowed arms to be sold to Iran despite us having an arms embargo :rofl :rofl :rofl.
semp
-
you act like it's the first time we ever did that. remember when we allowed arms to be sold to Iran despite us having an arms embargo :rofl :rofl :rofl.
semp
Well... ummm, that particular deal was a bit more complex. :headscratch:
You see, the U.S. government used the Israelis to secretly ship arms into Iran with the intent of freeing seven American hostages. Inevitably a resourceful Colonel got the bright idea to funnel the funds from the illegal, and thus "black" operation to anti-communist rebels in Central America. It was a win-win for the advancement of the western military machine (especially when you stop to think of all the Iraqi's killed by the bought arms, as well as all the communists killed by the dollars we sent to the rebels).
Fast and furious was child's play in comparison.
And never mind all of the innocent lives lost in either instance because, you know, there is always an acceptable amount of collateral damage when the interests of the power players are at stake. Peasants like you and me are merely grist for the mill in their eyes. This is one reason I prefer to be part of a well armed civilian population.
:rock
-
If you want to debate, you gotta throw a bone here and cite an example :)
Firearms are not the only thing contained in the word arms. Watch that interview I posted, he mentions a couple, including an "afrighting" law, which prohibited people from openly carrying "scary" weapons, such as a headaxe. The 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, just as freedom of speech is not either, i.e. laws against yelling fire in a movie theatre don't violate the First Amendment.
-
Firearms are not the only thing contained in the word arms. Watch that interview I posted, he mentions a couple, including an "afrighting" law, which prohibited people from openly carrying "scary" weapons, such as a headaxe. The 2nd Amendment is not unlimited, just as freedom of speech is not either, i.e. laws against yelling fire in a movie theatre don't violate the First Amendment.
A head axe has an obvious purpose...
A little common sense goes a long way.
-
2nd Amendment is not unlimited
This is true, which is why one must jump through major hoops in order to own full auto or heavy caliber weapons.
And that's fine with me, just keep your mitts off of my high cap mags.
:aok
-
A head axe has an obvious purpose...
A little common sense goes a long way.
That was just one example of something that fell under the law. I'm sure there were others.
PS: One could argue that an M16 or AK47 is made with one purpose in mind.
-
One could argue that an M16 or AK47 is made with one purpose in mind.
This would be awful for killing food or splitting firewood.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0EXn0WAQtAKokU0n3MV9XbRYPtwH0eIbGF_qJas47_bdCz8WI)
However, one of these is magnificent for putting food on the table, as well as sport and self defense.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpfOUwyHkhbcf8InBYhd14a-KX-lqmQNR22RnCjeUfP5qq3rf7)
And yes, they are both good for killing. However, how they are used is up to the person in possession.
-
From the Supreme Court's opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, written by Scalia, arguably the most conservative justice on the Court:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
-
From the Supreme Court's opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, written by Scalia, arguably the most conservative justice on the Court:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Uh yeah, don't you get it yet? This is why we can't all cruise around with M2 .50 cals on top of our jeeps when we take our kids to school. And that's fine with me (although I would really like to sometimes.)
:)
-
This would be awful for killing food or splitting firewood.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0EXn0WAQtAKokU0n3MV9XbRYPtwH0eIbGF_qJas47_bdCz8WI)
However, one of these is magnificent for putting food on the table, as well as sport and self defense.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpfOUwyHkhbcf8InBYhd14a-KX-lqmQNR22RnCjeUfP5qq3rf7)
And yes, they are both good for killing. However, how they are used is up to the person in possession.
He brought up purpose. I don't think the M-16 was developed with hunting in mind...
-
Uh yeah, don't you get it yet? This is why we can't all cruise around with M2 .50 cals on top of our jeeps when we take our kids to school. And that's fine with me (although I would really like to sometimes.)
:)
Mel, Vonmessa believes any regulations or restritions on arms violate the Constitution. My post is responding to him.
-
And nuclear fission wasn't discovered with the intent of producing clean energy... but here we are.
So what's your point?
(In response to the "purpose" argument.)
-
And nuclear fission wasn't discovered with the intent of producing clean energy... but here we are.
So what's your point?
(In response to the "purpose" argument.)
He said it takes common sense to understand the ban of openly carrying a weapon with the obvious purpose of killing someone. My point is that one could argue that an M16 was made with a similarly obvious purpose. But I digress.
-
He brought up purpose. I don't think the M-16 was developed with hunting in mind...
The 2nd Amendment has no basis in hunting... Let's leave hunting out of the debate... It's a strawman used falsely to justify limiting the type of weapon owned. All guns are designed to kill something. Rapists, murderers, and the like as well as some venison if the need arises. Any weapon that kills can take game.
-
People have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean regulations and restrictions cannot be put in place. There were arms limits in place at the time of the Constitution about the nature of weapons that people could have.
Reasonable restrictions... Like Scalia stated... Not in schools, courthouses and other similar sensitive locations. What arms restrictions were in place related to the nature of weapons in 1789? No artillery in public outhouses?
-
Reasonable restrictions... Like Scalia stated... Not in schools, courthouses and other similar sensitive locations. What arms restrictions were in place related to the nature of weapons in 1789? No artillery in public outhouses?
He touched on the idea that only weapons that could be "borne" were protected. So, like he states, cannons are not protected.
-
That was just one example of something that fell under the law. I'm sure there were others.
PS: One could argue that an M16 or AK47 is made with one purpose in mind.
PPS: Not very successfully...
-
Well... ummm, that particular deal was a bit more complex. :headscratch:
You see, the U.S. government used the Israelis to secretly ship arms into Iran with the intent of freeing seven American hostages. Inevitably a resourceful Colonel got the bright idea to funnel the funds from the illegal, and thus "black" operation to anti-communist rebels in Central America. It was a win-win for the advancement of the western military machine (especially when you stop to think of all the Iraqi's killed by the bought arms, as well as all the communists killed by the dollars we sent to the rebels).
Fast and furious was child's play in comparison.
And never mind all of the innocent lives lost in either instance because, you know, there is always an acceptable amount of collateral damage when the interests of the power players are at stake. Peasants like you and me are merely grist for the mill in their eyes. This is one reason I prefer to be part of a well armed civilian population.
:rock
I am pretty sure the Iranians kept those weapons from hurting anybody as oposite to what happened somewhere "else".
semp
-
I am pretty sure the Iranians kept those weapons from hurting anybody as oposite to what happened somewhere "else".
semp
:huh You're kidding right?
EDIT: I mean really, during the height of the Iran/Iraq war you believe that the Iranians never used any of the weapons we sold them (to include TOW missile systems)?
You must be trolling me.
And where exactly is the somewhere "else"?
-
:huh You're kidding right?
EDIT: I mean really, during the height of the Iran/Iraq war you believe that the Iranians never used any of the weapons we sold them (to include TOW missile systems)?
You must be trolling me.
And where exactly is the somewhere "else"?
you do understand sarcasm right? because it was in reply to your comment here.
Well... ummm, that particular deal was a bit more complex. :headscratch:
You see, the U.S. government used the Israelis to secretly ship arms into Iran with the intent of freeing seven American hostages. Inevitably a resourceful Colonel got the bright idea to funnel the funds from the illegal, and thus "black" operation to anti-communist rebels in Central America. It was a win-win for the advancement of the western military machine (especially when you stop to think of all the Iraqi's killed by the bought arms, as well as all the communists killed by the dollars we sent to the rebels).
Fast and furious was child's play in comparison.
And never mind all of the innocent lives lost in either instance because, you know, there is always an acceptable amount of collateral damage when the interests of the power players are at stake. Peasants like you and me are merely grist for the mill in their eyes. This is one reason I prefer to be part of a well armed civilian population.
:rock
there's no difference between one and the other. we allowed guns to be sold to people we shouldnt have. so basically pick a side and stick to it.
semp
-
there's no difference between one and the other. we allowed guns to be sold to people we shouldnt have. so basically pick a side and stick to it.
Some people believe that Col. North is a hero for his actions during the Iran/Contra affair.
Nobody feels the same way about the current Attorney General's handling of this latest fiasco.
-
Some people believe that Col. North is a hero for his actions during the Iran/Contra affair.
Nobody feels the same way about the current Attorney General's handling of this latest fiasco.
11 people were convicted for that roll. some where vacated but most on technicalities then the president pardon the others. and even the secretary of defense mentioned on his memoirs that the vp was present at the meetings and that it was a lie when he denied it. actually 2 people said that in their memoirs.
I wouldnt call anybody that violates us laws a hero. but on the bright he did make 20k per speech. not bad for somebody with a felony conviction.
but I am more interested in your explanation of how somebody that violates us laws can be considered a hero. you do know that there was a us embargo on selling arms to Iran.
as for the attorney general saying nobody feels the same way is pretty much a lie.
semp
-
This would be awful for killing food or splitting firewood.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0EXn0WAQtAKokU0n3MV9XbRYPtwH0eIbGF_qJas47_bdCz8WI)
However, one of these is magnificent for putting food on the table, as well as sport and self defense.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTpfOUwyHkhbcf8InBYhd14a-KX-lqmQNR22RnCjeUfP5qq3rf7)
And yes, they are both good for killing. However, how they are used is up to the person in possession.
Just out of curiosity, what are you hunting for food with an AR15? Eating a lot of varmint are ya?
I don't know about where you live, but they aren't legal for deer in Minnesota. Too small of a round.
-
Von, your assertion that a ban of extended-magazines is an infringement of your rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment does not seem to be supported by the relevant case-law.
*From US v. Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
*From US v. Heller, an excerpt of what the court in Heller has to say about Miller.
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “Ordinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
You guys have made it abundantly clear that extended-magazines are not “part of the ordinary military equipment,” and are, “typically not used for lawful purposes like self-defense.” Most, including the military, find standard-capacity magazines much more reliable and effective, and choose them over extended magazines for lawful purposes such as self-defense or sport. Just as sawed-off shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment, neither are extended-capacity magazines.
-
Von, your assertion that a ban of extended-magazines is an infringement of your rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment does not seem to be supported by the relevant case-law.
*From US v. Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
*From US v. Heller, an excerpt of what the court in Heller has to say about Miller.
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “Ordinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
You guys have made it abundantly clear that extended-magazines are not “part of the ordinary military equipment,” and are, “typically not used for lawful purposes like self-defense.” Most, including the military, find standard-capacity magazines much more reliable and effective, and choose them over extended magazines for lawful purposes such as self-defense or sport. Just as sawed-off shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment, neither are extended-capacity magazines.
While you have done an excellent job at comparing apples to oranges (short barreled shotguns to extended magazines on rifles), you fail to show me the correlation.
A short-barreled shotgun is fairly useless in all but very close-quarters fighting. Shortening the barrel effectively creates a bigger spread of the shot group of the ammo (not as concentrated) and neuters the accuracy. In essence, unless extremely close, a short-barreled shotgun will not kill as effectively, although it may be effective in clearing a path for an escape route. It is also useless for small game hunting and clay shooting because of the aforementioned reasons.
An extended magazine, however, is still effective for lawful purposes and great for sport (when they are functioning properly). The weapon itself is not modified by the size of the magazine and neither are the operating parameters, just the duration of sustained fire.
Just as sawed-off shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment, neither are extended-capacity magazines.
You see this where?
-
Just out of curiosity, what are you hunting for food with an AR15? Eating a lot of varmint are ya?
I don't know about where you live, but they aren't legal for deer in Minnesota. Too small of a round.
I thought your minimum is a .220 or larger centerfire :headscratch:
-
While you have done an excellent job at comparing apples to oranges (short barreled shotguns to extended magazines on rifles), you fail to show me the correlation.
A short-barreled shotgun is fairly useless in all but very close-quarters fighting. Shortening the barrel effectively creates a bigger spread of the shot group of the ammo (not as concentrated) and neuters the accuracy. In essence, unless extremely close, a short-barreled shotgun will not kill as effectively, although it may be effective in clearing a path for an escape route. It is also useless for small game hunting and clay shooting because of the aforementioned reasons.
An extended magazine, however, is still effective for lawful purposes and great for sport (when they are functioning properly). The weapon itself is not modified by the size of the magazine and neither are the operating parameters, just the duration of sustained fire.
You see this where?
The correlation is that neither are "part of the ordinary military equipment." The military chooses not to use them becuase they jam, affect accuracy, are too heavy, and make it very hard to sling the weapon properly. They are also "typically not used for lawful purposes." What I mean is not that when they are used, they are typically used illegaly. Rather legal owners, for lawful purposes, do not typically choose extended magazines, just as they don't choose shortened shotguns.
-
The correlation is that neither are "part of the ordinary military equipment." The military chooses not to use them becuase they jam, affect accuracy, are too heavy, and make it very hard to sling the weapon properly. They are also "typically not used for lawful purposes." What I mean is not that when they are used, they are typically used illegaly. Rather legal owners, for lawful purposes, do not typically choose extended magazines, just as they don't choose shortened shotguns.
Way off base... just wrong.
I have a mossy shorty with pistol grip in my truck... always. I know many more that keep shorties. None are criminals.
-
Way off base... just wrong.
I have a mossy shorty with pistol grip in my truck... always. I know many more that keep shorties. None are criminals.
I should have said this:
What I mean is not that when they are used, they are typically used illegaly. Rather legal owners, for lawful purposes, do not typically choose extended magazines, just as they didn't choose sawed-off shotguns in 1939, when the Miller case was decided. In 1939, the Court unanimously found that a shortened shotgun had no reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. In 2012, an extended magazine has no such relationship either.
-
as for the attorney general saying nobody feels the same way is pretty much a lie.
Who do you know that thinks Operation Fast and Furious was a good thing and that the Attorney General is a hero for the way he and his staff are handling the situation. Certainly you don't, do you?
I don't know about where you live, but they aren't legal for deer in Minnesota. Too small of a round.
You can check my location by looking slightly to the left. And I recommend you check your facts again as to the legality of deer hunting in Minnesota with a .223.
:salute
-
this bolded part is just factually wrong :(
Very well thought out, and researched, response. :huh
My response to your responce ? No...your wrong. :P
-
Who do you know that thinks Operation Fast and Furious was a good thing and that the Attorney General is a hero for the way he and his staff are handling the situation. Certainly you don't, do you?
i never said that operation fast and furious was a good thing. but on the other hand your comment below is a lie.
Some people believe that Col. North is a hero for his actions during the Iran/Contra affair.
Nobody feels the same way about the current Attorney General's handling of this latest fiasco.
seriously nobody? based on the fact that most people dont really care and going based on the number who actually show to vote. I would point out that most dont even know who oliver north is, and most think that fast and the furious was a move about racing cars.
semp
-
seriously nobody? based on the fact that most people dont really care and going based on the number who actually show to vote. I would point out that most dont even know who oliver north is, and most think that fast and the furious was a move about racing cars.
semp
And this shows that there are people who think Eric Holder is a hero because he helped funnel guns to drug cartels one of which was used to kill a Border Patrol Officer how?
-
And this shows that there are people who think Eric Holder is a hero because he helped funnel guns to drug cartels one of which was used to kill a Border Patrol Officer how?
see there it goes again. I never said he was a hero. all my argument was that Melvin's statement that everybody is against the fast and the furious is not a truthful statement.
most people dont care. and to be honest with you, they cartel would have gotten those guns anyway from other sources. unless you mean to tell me that the 2000 guns used are the only ones the cartel has obtained so far? so it's not like if the fast and the furious wasnt done that the border patrol officer would have been alive. it's possible that he could have gotten killed with other guns, like it has happen to other border patrol agents.
semp
-
see there it goes again. I never said he was a hero. all my argument was that Melvin's statement that everybody is against the fast and the furious is not a truthful statement.
most people dont care. and to be honest with you, they cartel would have gotten those guns anyway from other sources. unless you mean to tell me that the 2000 guns used are the only ones the cartel has obtained so far? so it's not like if the fast and the furious wasnt done that the border patrol officer would have been alive. it's possible that he could have gotten killed with other guns, like it has happen to other border patrol agents.
semp
The fact remains that the agent WAS killed with a Fast and Furious gun, which may not have happened if the gun wasn't sold to the drug runners. Any other conclusion entails ignoring the facts....
-
Semp is pro America.
-
Yep, anytime anything remotely looks like it's anti-gun, the prices go through the roof as folks panic buy thinking they'll never get another chance. Ahh don't you love the free market. The joy of suckers born every minute :)
ahh... you all have the wrong perspective... its a buying opportunity(and I'm not talking about guns...)... spend away suckers!
so tell me, how many of you bought your guns on plastic?
-
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html
(http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html) They should ban knives because as they are Assault Weapons and can be used too fast.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html
(http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html) They should ban knives because as they are Assault Weapons and can be used too fast.
Had the same thought when I saw that article today. Didn't some politician in England propose a ban on knifes a couple years back? Seems that because guns were harder to obtain so death and assaults using knifes had skyrocketed.
-
Had the same thought when I saw that article today. Didn't some politician in England propose a ban on knifes a couple years back? Seems that because guns were harder to obtain so death and assaults using knifes had skyrocketed.
Next it will be rocks...
-
politicians propose all sorts of nonsense all the time just to get airtime ...
we have fairly sensible laws for knives - if your going hunting or camping you're good. if you're walking through the local shopping centre with a machete, you're gonna get busted. however plenty of kinds of bladed weapons are illegal because they are only useful for one thing - trying to kill people.
same with guns - go hunting with a shotgun or rifle (assuming you've got a licence for it, which is pretty easy to get if your not a crim or insane) and you're good. if you're walking through the local shopping centre with an unsecured gun, you're gonna get busted. or more likely shot - we dont mess around here. however some kinds of guns are illegal because they are only used for one thing - trying to kill people.
and before 20 people pile in I'm not saying this approach is right for everywhere, just that its what we have decided is good for the UK.
-
A while back some woman was quoted in Britain about wanting to ban baseball bats because some whacko (pun intended) went off and assaulted a bunch of folks with one. She said there was no need of a dangerous weapon like that in Britain.
If making a law really did work and actually solved anything, this would have been a perfect world decades ago with all the laws on the books. For some strange reason folks just can't get their head around the concept that criminals really don't follow laws.
-
I propose we ban cheese. Fox can quote me on that.
btw team GB just won a gold medal in the double trap using ... a gun. some of you guys are gonna have alot of trouble processing that :lol
-
I propose we ban cheese. Fox can quote me on that.
btw team GB just won a gold medal in the double trap using ... a gun. some of you guys are gonna have alot of trouble processing that :lol
How much tax will they owe on that?
-
huh? :headscratch:
-
huh? :headscratch:
Tongue-in-cheek.
Just heard about this, today...
http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13085600-rubio-offers-bill-to-waive-taxes-on-olympic-medals-winnings (http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13085600-rubio-offers-bill-to-waive-taxes-on-olympic-medals-winnings)
-
see there it goes again. I never said he was a hero. all my argument was that Melvin's statement that everybody is against the fast and the furious is not a truthful statement.
semp
AND, a lot of people had no problem with what Hitler was doing. And Stalin.
Just sayin
-
AND, a lot of people had no problem with what Hitler was doing. And Stalin.
Just sayin
but as disgusted as they were it would not be an accurate statement that everyone is for or against them.
semp
-
The fact remains that the agent WAS killed with a Fast and Furious gun, which may not have happened if the gun wasn't sold to the drug runners. Any other conclusion entails ignoring the facts....
no, see guns don't kill people, people kill people. where the gun came from is irrelevant, the criminal would have gotten it from a different place.
semp
-
I misspoke. What I should have said is that nobody should consider Holder or his flunkies as heroes for their implamentation and later bungling of Fast and Furious.
-
He's just trying to play words to fit some agenda. Practicing for his interview with the DNC. ;)
-
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/5451ed22.jpg)
-
I misspoke. What I should have said is that nobody should consider Holder or his flunkies as heroes for their implamentation and later bungling of Fast and Furious.
I totally agree with you.
semp
-
no, see guns don't kill people, people kill people. where the gun came from is irrelevant, the criminal would have gotten it from a different place.
semp
You're using circular logic.... You're making assumptions.... You're drawing conclusions where there exists no evidence to support said conclusion.... In other words, you're full of baloney.
You cannot say that the killer would have obtained another weapon. You can't know that even if he had, whether or not that weapon would be as lethal as a 7.62mm rifle (a pistol round would not penetrate a ballistic vest). In short, you know nothing beyond the facts and the facts are that the weapon (likely illegally) provided by ATF was used to kill the Border Patrol Officer....
-
You're using circular logic.... You're making assumptions.... You're drawing conclusions where there exists no evidence to support said conclusion.... In other words, you're full of baloney.
You cannot say that the killer would have obtained another weapon. You can't know that even if he had, whether or not that weapon would be as lethal as a 7.62mm rifle (a pistol round would not penetrate a ballistic vest). In short, you know nothing beyond the facts and the facts are that the weapon (likely illegally) provided by ATF was used to kill the Border Patrol Officer....
Wait, so assuming criminals will get weapons if they want to, even if they are illegal, is circular logic? Nice to know.
-
(http://i906.photobucket.com/albums/ac270/puma44/5451ed22.jpg)
:aok puma, I've stolen that for future use.
-
A teenager killed eight people with a knife and wounded five more in northeast China after falling out with his girlfriend, state media say.
The teen killed two of her family members and six more people before fleeing, the state-run Legal Daily newspaper said. It reported he was caught, but did not describe the circumstances.
The official Xinhua News Agency said the attack took place Wednesday night (local time) in Liaoning province. Media said the 17-year-old suspect is from Fushun city and his surname is Li. The attack happened in Yongling town.
Police in Xinbin county, which oversees the town, declined to comment.
Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50.
- AP
-
You're using circular logic.... You're making assumptions.... You're drawing conclusions where there exists no evidence to support said conclusion.... In other words, you're full of baloney.
You cannot say that the killer would have obtained another weapon. You can't know that even if he had, whether or not that weapon would be as lethal as a 7.62mm rifle (a pistol round would not penetrate a ballistic vest)[/color]. In short, you know nothing beyond the facts and the facts are that the weapon (likely illegally) provided by ATF was used to kill the Border Patrol Officer....
With all due respect Widewing, you might want to research this. In many cases, yes they can. I am not expressing an opinion on any other part of your statement, just the part in red.
:salute
Fred
-
With all due respect Widewing, you might want to research this. In many cases, yes they can. I am not expressing an opinion on any other part of your statement, just the part in red.
:salute
Fred
Fred, the INS issues type IIIa vests. These should protect against all standard handgun rounds. You would need a type III or IV vest for protection against 7.62x39 FMJ ammo.
-
Wait, so assuming criminals will get weapons if they want to, even if they are illegal, is circular logic? Nice to know.
Circular, because he returns to the same, badly flawed argument as the basis for his entire rant....
-
Fred, the INS issues type IIIa vests. These should protect against all standard handgun rounds. You would need a type III or IV vest for protection against 7.62x39 FMJ ammo.
You are correct, they should protect against all standard pistol rounds, but you will find no ballistic vest manufacturer that will state their vests are 100% bullet proof, there are just to many variables. For example one Teflon coated pistol round will pretty much makes any vest without a trauma plate worthless, and they are not that hard to come by. I was not trying to get into any real debate here, I was just responding to your generalized statement "a pistol round would not penetrate a ballistic vest" when in fact they have.
Fred
-
:aok puma, I've stolen that for future use.
Please do. I stole it from someone else. :salute
-
You're using circular logic.... You're making assumptions.... You're drawing conclusions where there exists no evidence to support said conclusion.... In other words, you're full of baloney.
You cannot say that the killer would have obtained another weapon. You can't know that even if he had, whether or not that weapon would be as lethal as a 7.62mm rifle (a pistol round would not penetrate a ballistic vest). In short, you know nothing beyond the facts and the facts are that the weapon (likely illegally) provided by ATF was used to kill the Border Patrol Officer....
isn't that what you are doing? You are assuming that the criminal would have been unarmed if the operation hadn't been started. or perhaps the only guns criminals have are those provided by the atf.
I am not going to argue that fast and Furious was a messed up op and people should have been terminated beginning with the one who authorized it.
However only way holder would be responsible for the death would be if him or an agent personally handed the rifle to the criminal and told him where the officer was.
semp
-
However only way holder would be responsible for the death would be if him or an agent personally handed the rifle to the criminal and told him where the officer was.
Wrong semp. Let's drop the whole "circular logic" thing for a minute and draw a straight line from the rifle that killed the agent (I actually had thought two agents died). This line goes from the gun to the shooter to the store it was bought at to the seller (ATF) to the seller's boss (Holder).
Basically Holder did hand the shooter that weapon and the outcome was tragic.
EDIT: basically what the ATF was trying to do was a "Bait Car" scenario. Put the object out there and snatch up the villains. Unfortunately one cannot turn the motor off and lock the doors on a gun. It was a ridiculous premise and I can't believe someone thought it would work.
-
Wrong semp. Let's drop the whole "circular logic" thing for a minute and draw a straight line from the rifle that killed the agent (I actually had thought two agents died). This line goes from the gun to the shooter to the store it was bought at to the seller (ATF) to the seller's boss (Holder).
Basically Holder did hand the shooter that weapon and the outcome was tragic.
EDIT: basically what the ATF was trying to do was a "Bait Car" scenario. Put the object out there and snatch up the villains. Unfortunately one cannot turn the motor off and lock the doors on a gun. It was a ridiculous premise and I can't believe someone thought it would work.
This I agree with. Negligent Homicide is where your mistake kills. If a child gets hold of my gun and kills himself I am responsible for not taking precautions to prevent it even though I didn't pull the trigger. But the ATF did it on purpose! If you assist a criminal you have broken the law. Many in Govt. think they are above the law (and they are). Who has been brought up on charges for that fiasco? :furious
If average Joe did it he would be in lockup awaiting trial.
-
(http://i46.tinypic.com/2w6ucfk.jpg)
(http://i48.tinypic.com/29fz3w3.jpg)
-
a nook doesnt kill people, the guy who authorised its use did.
therefore everyone should be allowed to own a nook.
-
a nook doesnt kill people, the guy who authorised its use did.
therefore everyone should be allowed to own a nook.
I was looking for a photo of a nook when I came across this... I thought it was worth sharing.
(http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n486/df881/NOOK-4464.jpg)
Anyway I think you are referring to a "nuke", and if that is the case it is a completely ridiculous comparison. Please try a little harder next time.
:salute
-
When people ask me what they can do about crime I usually respond by saying, "move out of the city". Ive got enough time on to tell them the truth and not worry.
Honestly, concealed carry permits for citizens is probably the only real effective crime prevention measure Ive seen in all my time on the job. Prisons might as well have turnstyles in them and inmates given "return to jail cards" on their way out.
-
Anyway I think you are referring to a "nuke", and if that is the case it is a completely ridiculous comparison. Please try a little harder next time.
I was using your argument and taking it to its logical, and ridiculous extreme - reductio ad absurdum
and yes that was definitely worth sharing :aok
-
I was using your argument and taking it to its logical, and ridiculous extreme - reductio ad absurdum
and yes that was definitely worth sharing :aok
:aok
-
When people ask me what they can do about crime I usually respond by saying, "move out of the city". Ive got enough time on to tell them the truth and not worry.
Honestly, concealed carry permits for citizens is probably the only real effective crime prevention measure Ive seen in all my time on the job. Prisons might as well have turnstyles in them and inmates given "return to jail cards" on their way out.
right you tell us that it's okay for a police officer to look at someone with his hand on his gun and on the other to carry a concealed weapon. I have no doubt that had I been carrying mine in plain view like I'm allowed by the second amendment, I would have been dead.
so I guess you mean we should carry a concealed weapon as long as there isn't any officer nearby.
semp
-
isn't that what you are doing? You are assuming that the criminal would have been unarmed if the operation hadn't been started. or perhaps the only guns criminals have are those provided by the atf.
I am not going to argue that fast and Furious was a messed up op and people should have been terminated beginning with the one who authorized it.
However only way holder would be responsible for the death would be if him or an agent personally handed the rifle to the criminal and told him where the officer was.
semp
Semp,
I said. "You cannot say that the killer would have obtained another weapon. You can't know that even if he had, whether or not that weapon would be as lethal as a 7.62mm rifle". The point, which apparently escapes you, is that there is no way to know if the killer would have otherwise been armed. Probability indicates that if he were armed, it would have been less likely to have been a 7.62mm rifle, which would easily penetrate the agent's vest.
For want of a nail, the horseshoe was lost. For want of the horseshoe, the King's horse was lost. For want of a horse, the king was lost... Tragic progressions are often started by seemingly small mistakes.
Even though I didn't even mention Holder, yes, Holder has some responsibility here... It was his agency that made this tremendous error in judgment. Government entities are like cesspools; the big turds always rise to the top. It is however, the small turds that splash ones ass.... Someone well below Holder ran this idiotic Op, and that person or persons need to account for their negligence that cost one life for sure, and who knows how many others in Mexico.
-
right you tell us that it's okay for a police officer to look at someone with his hand on his gun and on the other to carry a concealed weapon. I have no doubt that had I been carrying mine in plain view like I'm allowed by the second amendment, I would have been dead.
so I guess you mean we should carry a concealed weapon as long as there isn't any officer nearby.
semp
:lol Dude you live in a jacked up fantasy where every cop wants to kill you.
I have NEVER - not EVER - even in the bigger cities, while carrying (no need for a permit if it's open carry) who, instead of SHOOTING you; ASK you ABOUT your weapon, where you got it, how much it costs and how accurate it is. Not because they're suspicious but because folks who own guns talk to each other like guys do with cars and trucks.
You need to get out of the house more and off YouTube less. It's affecting your ability to have a grasp on reality.
-------------------------
EDIT: Do yourself a favor; go on a ride-along. They're very easy to do. Just go on one or two. They're fun.
You'll get to chill with a cop and see what they do during the day. It's pretty cool.
EDIT: Meant to say OFF youtube lol not on. xD
-
:lol Dude you live in a jacked up fantasy where every cop wants to kill you.
I have NEVER - not EVER - even in the bigger cities, while carrying (no need for a permit if it's open carry) who, instead of SHOOTING you; ASK you ABOUT your weapon, where you got it, how much it costs and how accurate it is. Not because they're suspicious but because folks who own guns talk to each other like guys do with cars and trucks.
You need to get out of the house more and on YouTube less. It's affecting your ability to have a grasp on reality.
-------------------------
EDIT: Do yourself a favor; go on a ride-along. They're very easy to do. Just go on one or two. They're fun.
You'll get to chill with a cop and see what they do during the day. It's pretty cool.
really? marine usa, I dont know where you live, but where I live there's no drive by shootings, there's no gang members sitting on every corner selling dope, there's no gunfire heard at night. and I dont carry a weapon with me because I dont feel unsafe going outside to the store. the only time I have felt threatened by anybody in a long time is when that officer put his hand on his gun. and my only crime was to stop at the store to buy a beer. I didnt give the officer a mean look, I actually looked at him and smiled while looking at him in the eye. which is what I do to everybody. I say hi or smile as I feel it's the right thing to do with strangers.
and you marineusa, you better stop thinking you are still in afghanistan as you are not. you are the paranoid one who thinks behind every door there's a bad guy. and specially should stop putting your hand on your weapon like you do, because there's only two reason you do it. either to intimidate or you think everybody is out to get you. because to be honest if I was carrying my gun and I saw somebody looking at me while putting his hand on his weapon, I am gonna reach for mine as my thought would be he's damn crazy and I am not sure if he's gonna pull it out or not, but I would rather be safe and shoot. and I would be justified as all I need to say is he was reaching for his weapon and I have no idea why.
and dont give me that bs that you just have your hand there resting, as here in the usa that is considered a threatening move. and you are dreaming if you think a police officer that you dont know is just gonna walk out to you and talk about women and guns if you look at him while putting your hand on your weapon.
semp
-
really? marine usa, I dont know where you live, but where I live there's no drive by shootings, there's no gang members sitting on every corner selling dope, there's no gunfire heard at night. and I dont carry a weapon with me because I dont feel unsafe going outside to the store. the only time I have felt threatened by anybody in a long time is when that officer put his hand on his gun. and my only crime was to stop at the store to buy a beer. I didnt give the officer a mean look, I actually looked at him and smiled while looking at him in the eye. which is what I do to everybody. I say hi or smile as I feel it's the right thing to do with strangers.
and you marineusa, you better stop thinking you are still in afghanistan as you are not. you are the paranoid one who thinks behind every door there's a bad guy. and specially should stop putting your hand on your weapon like you do, because there's only two reason you do it. either to intimidate or you think everybody is out to get you. because to be honest if I was carrying my gun and I saw somebody looking at me while putting his hand on his weapon, I am gonna reach for mine as my thought would be he's damn crazy and I am not sure if he's gonna pull it out or not, but I would rather be safe and shoot. and I would be justified as all I need to say is he was reaching for his weapon and I have no idea why.
and dont give me that bs that you just have your hand there resting, as here in the usa that is considered a threatening move. and you are dreaming if you think a police officer that you dont know is just gonna walk out to you and talk about women and guns if you look at him while putting your hand on your weapon.
semp
I'm not paranoid. Matter of fact, were you part of the group talking about how the cops should not have shot the guy even though he opened the door with one pointed at them? You got freaked over a guy just TOUCHING his....how do you think those cops felt with one pointed out that door? If I was paranoid, I wouldn't want anyone to own a gun. Ever. I carry because I go to the range at random and it's a deterrent. Just because I carry doesn't mean I'm paranoid. (I'm assuming that's why you think I'm paranoid.)
I'm a Marine. I am afraid of no man.....unless he is a Gunnery Sergeant....or a First Sergeant, at which point I avoid them at all costs. :lol
You would honestly put your hand on your gun because a cop put his hand on his? THAT is paranoid.
I want everyone to see that. I bolded, underlined and italicized that just so everyone can see that. I want them to see YOU calling ME paranoid, yet saying you would get ready to draw your weapon on a cop because he rested his hand on his weapon. If ANYONE is paranoid here, it's you bud.
I don't consider it a threat. I and several of my friends have a habit of resting our hands on our sidearm. If he had unhooked it and began a slow or quick upward motion (would mean he is drawing it), then yes it would have been threatening, however; the man was just being cautious. You never know if he had been shot on duty before, he may have been mugged at some point in his life, there are countless variables but instead of thinking outside the box you refuse to see anything but YOUR way no matter WHAT logic is put in front of you.
I was expecting a battle of wits but you seem to have come unarmed and therefore I must step away from this argument literally laughing and feeling pity for you and how closed minded you seem to be.
-
I'm not paranoid. Matter of fact, were you part of the group talking about how the cops should not have shot the guy even though he opened the door with one pointed at them? You got freaked over a guy just TOUCHING his....how do you think those cops felt with one pointed out that door? If I was paranoid, I wouldn't want anyone to own a gun. Ever. I carry because I go to the range at random and it's a deterrent. Just because I carry doesn't mean I'm paranoid. (I'm assuming that's why you think I'm paranoid.)
I'm a Marine. I am afraid of no man.....unless he is a Gunnery Sergeant....or a First Sergeant, at which point I avoid them at all costs. :lol
You would honestly put your hand on your gun because a cop put his hand on his? THAT is paranoid.
I want everyone to see that. I bolded, underlined and italicized that just so everyone can see that. I want them to see YOU calling ME paranoid, yet saying you would get ready to draw your weapon on a cop because he rested his hand on his weapon. If ANYONE is paranoid here, it's you bud.
I don't consider it a threat. I and several of my friends have a habit of resting our hands on our sidearm. If he had unhooked it and began a slow or quick upward motion (would mean he is drawing it), then yes it would have been threatening, however; the man was just being cautious. You never know if he had been shot on duty before, he may have been mugged at some point in his life, there are countless variables but instead of thinking outside the box you refuse to see anything but YOUR way no matter WHAT logic is put in front of you.
I was expecting a battle of wits but you seem to have come unarmed and therefore I must step away from this argument literally laughing and feeling pity for you and how closed minded you seem to be.
so you are in the military and you dont consider somebody looking at you and putting his hand on his gun a threat. ok sure you keep believing that.
but ask yourself somebody knocks on your door in the middle of the night. do you go armed, or do you open the door and smile and say hi, how are you, come in would you like some tea?
semp
-
right you tell us that it's okay for a police officer to look at someone with his hand on his gun and on the other to carry a concealed weapon. I have no doubt that had I been carrying mine in plain view like I'm allowed by the second amendment, I would have been dead.
so I guess you mean we should carry a concealed weapon as long as there isn't any officer nearby.
semp
Oh do quit your sniveling. Now your just babbling nonsense like a baby with a load in his pants.
-
Yeah, I'm completely lost on what guncrasher is trying to say. :huh
-
Yeah, I'm completely lost on what guncrasher is trying to say. :huh
I think that at this point he is just trying to be argumentative.
Trying and failing.
Oh well, that's semp.
:salute
-
so you are in the military and you dont consider somebody looking at you and putting his hand on his gun a threat. ok sure you keep believing that.
but ask yourself somebody knocks on your door in the middle of the night. do you go armed, or do you open the door and smile and say hi, how are you, come in would you like some tea?
semp
Yes I am and no I do not.
I don't do either because they're both stupid. You call the police.
Semp, just give up man. We used logic to shut you down and you're still fighting. Even General Cornwallis surrendered once he knew he was beaten....he may have not been at the ceremony, but he knew it was time.
-
Yeah, I'm completely lost on what guncrasher is trying to say. :huh
why dont you just look up a couple of postings before and read what I said. then also read the responses from others.
a police should protect and serve the public not intimidate. i could understand if I lived in the middle of the ghetto where there's gunfire at all times. but when I live in a neighborhood where the only time i felt in danger was when a police officer was looking at me while having his hand on his gun, then there's something wrong here. and it isnt the people living in my neighborhood that I saw as dangerous but the officer himself.
I dont know about any of you but when somebody looks at me and has his hand on a weapon, I consider it as a threat.
semp
-
semp, have you ever come across a cop that you knew didn't give a shat about you?
Or are you just speculating?
-
speculating
-
why dont you just look up a couple of postings before and read what I said. then also read the responses from others.
a police should protect and serve the public not intimidate. i could understand if I lived in the middle of the ghetto where there's gunfire at all times. but when I live in a neighborhood where the only time i felt in danger was when a police officer was looking at me while having his hand on his gun, then there's something wrong here. and it isnt the people living in my neighborhood that I saw as dangerous but the officer himself.
I dont know about any of you but when somebody looks at me and has his hand on a weapon, I consider it as a threat.
semp
"Cities with less than 10,000 people represent the second-most-likely place for officer deaths, according to the FBI’s groupings of fallen police over the past decade."
http://news.opb.org/article/small-town-police-officers-face-big-risks/ (http://news.opb.org/article/small-town-police-officers-face-big-risks/)
Service is not necessarily safer in smaller communities. What you need to understand is, you always know your intentions, the officer does not.
Fred
-
why dont you just look up a couple of postings before and read what I said. then also read the responses from others.
a police should protect and serve the public not intimidate. i could understand if I lived in the middle of the ghetto where there's gunfire at all times. but when I live in a neighborhood where the only time i felt in danger was when a police officer was looking at me while having his hand on his gun, then there's something wrong here. and it isnt the people living in my neighborhood that I saw as dangerous but the officer himself.
I dont know about any of you but when somebody looks at me and has his hand on a weapon, I consider it as a threat.
semp
So an officer put his hand on his gun once (in what reason or context is unknown) and that's your argument against concealed carry?
-
Even from the way he described it, he made it sound like he cautiously placed it there. Even his description doesn't sound like the guy "John Wayned" it when he put it there. He did it nice and slow.
:rolleyes:
-
Even from the way he described it, he made it sound like he cautiously placed it there. Even his description doesn't sound like the guy "John Wayned" it when he put it there. He did it nice and slow.
:rolleyes:
and when you were in Afghanistan or Iraq if any civilian there put his hand on his gun nice and slow you just looked and smiled and offered him some tea or did you just open fire?. that officer didnt look at me as if I was just another guy walking by. I didnt get the name semp just because I thought it was cool. I was once in the marines and I know the the look of just give me a reason so I can just blast you away. that is the same look that officer had on his face. no expression just a blank stare. that's why I was afraid, and I shouldnt be afraid when there's a police officer around. he didnt cautiously or casually place his hand on his gun, he thought I was a threat. why? I dont know as like I said before i dont live in the ghetto I dont look like a gangbanber, I dont dress like one. I was in my work uniform just stopping at a 711 to get a cold beer after work. and that isnt a crime last I checked.
btw nobody remembers the last time a police officer got shot or killed in my city. and I dont live in a small city. I own 2 guns and I always have one next to me when I play the game as not for the need for it but just I am used to it. both guns I have owned for about 15 years and I have never had the need to use them other than when my gf goes target shooting. I have never wished I had a gun while walking outside as crime is not my main concern. I dont carry one as I dont see the need for it. Like I said you guys can bs yourselves all you want, but I shouldnt be more afraid of the police than of criminals. and since then to be honest I am more concerned of getting shot by the police than by a regular joe smith walking down the street as a regular joe smith hasnt looked at me with that blank look on his face while putting a hand on his gun.
semp
-
Man what messed up town do you live in where teens are always engaging in public sex in the open and all the cops walk around with a menacing glare ready to murder everybody?!?
-
Man what messed up town do you live in where teens are always engaging in public sex in the open and all the cops walk around with a menacing glare ready to murder everybody?!?
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzuuq2RrPS1ql141xo1_250.gif)
-
Man what messed up town do you live in where teens are always engaging in public sex in the open and all the cops walk around with a menacing glare ready to murder everybody?!?
oh great another ava member that feels the need to lie. I am surprised you are even an ava staff member, I thought you guys were held to higher standards of course except for you.
please feel free to quote where i say all cops walk around with menacing glares and all teens are engaging in public sex in the open. I dare you I double dare you. unless of course you lie about it.
semp
-
Oh get over yourself, just jokin around a bit.
Of course it was an exaggeration.
EDIT: Yeah Ok, I thought I was being funny but I guess it wasn't funny to you so I will apologize.
-
Oh get over yourself, just jokin around a bit.
Of course it was an exaggeration.
EDIT: Yeah Ok, I thought I was being funny but I guess it wasn't funny to you so I will apologize.
I thought it was funny. I LOL'd, in fact... :aok :aok
-
oh great another ava member that feels the need to lie. I am surprised you are even an ava staff member, I thought you guys were held to higher standards of course except for you.
please feel free to quote where i say all cops walk around with menacing glares and all teens are engaging in public sex in the open. I dare you I double dare you. unless of course you lie about it.
semp
Calm down semp. They let me in the ava club.
-
and when you were in Afghanistan or Iraq if any civilian there put his hand on his gun nice and slow you just looked and smiled and offered him some tea or did you just open fire?. that officer didnt look at me as if I was just another guy walking by. I didnt get the name semp just because I thought it was cool. I was once in the marines and I know the the look of just give me a reason so I can just blast you away. that is the same look that officer had on his face. no expression just a blank stare. that's why I was afraid, and I shouldnt be afraid when there's a police officer around. he didnt cautiously or casually place his hand on his gun, he thought I was a threat. why? I dont know as like I said before i dont live in the ghetto I dont look like a gangbanber, I dont dress like one. I was in my work uniform just stopping at a 711 to get a cold beer after work. and that isnt a crime last I checked.
btw nobody remembers the last time a police officer got shot or killed in my city. and I dont live in a small city. I own 2 guns and I always have one next to me when I play the game as not for the need for it but just I am used to it. both guns I have owned for about 15 years and I have never had the need to use them other than when my gf goes target shooting. I have never wished I had a gun while walking outside as crime is not my main concern. I dont carry one as I dont see the need for it. Like I said you guys can bs yourselves all you want, but I shouldnt be more afraid of the police than of criminals. and since then to be honest I am more concerned of getting shot by the police than by a regular joe smith walking down the street as a regular joe smith hasnt looked at me with that blank look on his face while putting a hand on his gun.
semp
Actually most people who DO walk around with weapons over there, have their hands on them. You gonna call that BS too or would you like every person on this forum who has ever deployed to answer as well? Oh wait...they'd ALL be liars too.
Until they attempt to LIFT/RAISE the weapon, they are no threat. So, you gonna shoot every civilian in the middle east? According to your logic we'd have to since they all carry weapons and if they aren't slung around on their back they're hands are on them on the front.
Once in the Marines? I guess they teach you to have no pride. No Marine (Royal or US) would would type it out without a capital M. Have some PRIDE.
In short: You don't look like a criminal? Guess what? Your typical Haji in the middle east doesn't look like a terrorist...wait...I meant the terrorist don't look like terrorist. They look like every day people, just like criminals do. Not EVERY criminal dresses like a "gang banger". That's stereotyping/profiling. I bet you think every guy who wears a tight polo and uses hair gel is gay (not that I wear that garbage) too? I got a cop fired because he profiled my car. Deputy Garland of Thomasville GA. You can look him up on their database and see he was let go in 2010.
The only person who can make you afraid of the cops more than the criminals is yourself.
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt
OR (this fits nicely sits we're talking about cops trying to be big shots)
"'A snub' defined the first lady, 'is the effort of a person who feels superior to make someone else feel inferior. To do so, he has to find someone who can be made to feel inferior.'"
I carry because as I stated before (I can quote it if you'd like, Sweetheart), because I go to the range at random. I'm sorry that my life doesn't have a set schedule I must follow like a fourth grader, and it also works as a deterrent. I don't need a deterrent where I live, but I do travel a LOT and go to big cities. I don't always end up in the nice part of town, so having it there is nice.
In short: If you really WERE a Marine and you're freaked by a cop just putting his hand on his weapon; you got scarred and have PTSD from boot camp and probably never set foot out of your country for something other than training.
You can fight this all you want, "Semp" but like I said before: (Oh oh let me add the extra title in there too) General Lord Cornwallis gave up when it was obvious he had lost.
When everyone tells you you've lost your mind, yet you are screaming EVERYONE else is nuts...you need to take a look at your life and reassess it.
-
you are the one screaming dood. and I am sorry if when i joined there was no wars going on, i guess that makes me a less man than you. and pride isnt about how something is spelled or not. I can type united states of america and it doesnt mean I love my country any less that who type with capital letters.
it's useless discussing something with you. there's a difference of opinions no need to come to insults.
semp
-
you are the one screaming dood. and I am sorry if when i joined there was no wars going on, i guess that makes me a less man than you. and pride isnt about how something is spelled or not. I can type united states of america and it doesnt mean I love my country any less that who type with capital letters.
it's useless discussing something with you. there's a difference of opinions no need to come to insults.
semp
You don't understand being a Marine then. Ask ANY Marine here or in real life if MARINE should have a capital M. Do it. It's having pride in what you did. When you take pride in something, you make sure everything about it is as best as it could be.
Not yelling. No ! marks OR ALL CAPS RAAAAAAAAGE on my end. More like frustration from some guy who is too dense to understand when he has been beaten. You keep bringing up tea and how you got scared of a cop. You have yet to really defy the point, only make a piss poor attempt at a topic swap just like the post I'm replying to. The only thing you have done is keep bringing up the ONE time a cop placed his hand on his weapon, didn't unhook or remove it and you felt like you were gonna get shot. Ermaghaud.
And who cares if there was a war or not. Last I checked I didn't mention anything about that (let alone even know), but it was easy to tell you had never deployed by the way you are freaking out about a cop and his sidearm. You need to spend some time a $#!t hole country so you can see what REAL police brutality is.
You're pretty much telling me you're offended. Letting me know you're offended is doing nothing but telling me you can't control your own emotions, so everyone else should do it for you.
I'm calling you out because this argument is going to end. You've dug a hole so deep that you've dug through the earth, popped out the other side and are stacking dirt to get to the moon. If you're upset that I called you out and no one came to back you up, then that is your problem. You kept avoiding the point and only had ONE instance you could bring up in the decades you've been alive and then brought in stereotypes as if we're stuck in the 60's.
I debate to win. When I'm proven wrong, I admit it.
I wasn't yelling, I just quit beating around the bush and being nice. I threw it all on the table and I'm thinking it finally hit you and you've got too much self-pride to let it go.
I'd like to think this is what smacked you and gave you a little sliver of a wake up call.
The only person who can make you afraid of the cops more than the criminals is yourself.
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt
OR (this fits nicely sits we're talking about cops trying to be big shots)
"'A snub' defined the first lady, 'is the effort of a person who feels superior to make someone else feel inferior. To do so, he has to find someone who can be made to feel inferior.'"
And if you think I'm "yelling" because I called you, Sweetheart....I'm just gonna giggle at that one. :lol
-
Oh get over yourself, just jokin around a bit.
Of course it was an exaggeration.
EDIT: Yeah Ok, I thought I was being funny but I guess it wasn't funny to you so I will apologize.
You aren't allowed an opinion because it says "Staffer" on your tag.
-
.
-
Geezus I get back froma 2 week bbs vacay to this crap. Im going back to adultsthatactlikeadults forums.
-
This is a good thing...the more honest citizens who are armed, the more the manics are out numbered....also the police are a bit more respectful & less apt to take a heavy hand immediately...IMO. :old:
-
cops dont prevent crimes, cops are the cleanup crew. while i totally respect them and their jobs, no one is gonna save me, but me. i don't go looking for trouble, but i can defend myself at any time of day or night! as said before, more armed citizens means less problems.
although homeland security is now buying up the bulk of ammo in this country. wonder what thats all about?
-
and when you were in Afghanistan or Iraq if any civilian there put his hand on his gun nice and slow you just looked and smiled and offered him some tea or did you just open fire?. that officer didnt look at me as if I was just another guy walking by. I didnt get the name semp just because I thought it was cool. I was once in the marines and I know the the look of just give me a reason so I can just blast you away. that is the same look that officer had on his face. no expression just a blank stare. that's why I was afraid, and I shouldnt be afraid when there's a police officer around. he didnt cautiously or casually place his hand on his gun, he thought I was a threat. why? I dont know as like I said before i dont live in the ghetto I dont look like a gangbanber, I dont dress like one. I was in my work uniform just stopping at a 711 to get a cold beer after work. and that isnt a crime last I checked.
btw nobody remembers the last time a police officer got shot or killed in my city. and I dont live in a small city. I own 2 guns and I always have one next to me when I play the game as not for the need for it but just I am used to it. both guns I have owned for about 15 years and I have never had the need to use them other than when my gf goes target shooting. I have never wished I had a gun while walking outside as crime is not my main concern. I dont carry one as I dont see the need for it. Like I said you guys can bs yourselves all you want, but I shouldnt be more afraid of the police than of criminals. and since then to be honest I am more concerned of getting shot by the police than by a regular joe smith walking down the street as a regular joe smith hasnt looked at me with that blank look on his face while putting a hand on his gun.
semp
Do you find it difficult, living with such fear and paranoia, or have you gotten used to it by now?
-
I am glad I live in a place where I can sit in a cinema in peace and not have to worry one iota about getting shot while I have a face full of popcorn.
Although i have reconsidered my position on weaponry when that fat guy behind wont stop belly bouncing the back of my seat :furious
-
I am glad I live in a place where I can sit in a cinema in peace and not have to worry one iota about getting shot while I have a face full of popcorn.
Although i have reconsidered my position on weaponry when that fat guy behind wont stop belly bouncing the back of my seat :furious
I have been tempted to shoot the toes off of the mouth-breathers that insist on putting their feet on the seats in front of them...
-
I am glad I live in a place where I can sit in a cinema in peace and not have to worry one iota about getting shot while I have a face full of popcorn.
Although i have reconsidered my position on weaponry when that fat guy behind wont stop belly bouncing the back of my seat :furious
The majority of gun owners don't 'worry' about that either, Dolby.
-
The majority of gun owners don't 'worry' about that either, Dolby.
I was going to mention this, but it seemed as if I would be belaboring that obvious :)
-
I was going to mention this, but it seemed as if I would be belaboring that obvious :)
I know, but people really think it...
"You carry a gun with you? You must be waiting for something to happen!"
How about NO!
It's akin to keeping jumper cables in the car, in case I need them. It's a tool, only a tool for my protection. People just don't get it, especially those who have never had to do so, or those who want to lap out of the government's drink bowl...
-
I know, but people really think it...
"You carry a gun with you? You must be waiting for something to happen!"
How about NO!
It's akin to keeping jumper cables in the car, in case I need them. It's a tool, only a tool for my protection. People just don't get it, especially those who have never had to do so, or those who want to lap out of the government's drink bowl...
I know that my wife worries a lot less when taking the work deposit to the bank or when going on a girl's night out since she started carrying. :D
-
I know that my wife worries a lot less when taking the work deposit to the bank or when going on a girl's night out since she started carrying. :D
Right! :)
There are a lot of bad people in this world. Being prepared doesn't equate to worrying about them. Situational awareness does apply everywhere. Worrying does not.
-
The only time I've ever needed a gun, I had one because I knowingly entered into a situation where it might be needed.
That was very brief period when I was repossessing cars in miami.
Sure, there are instances in normal life such as hiking in an unfamiliar place or through your career that you need guns but my experience has always been to be where the gun's and bad people aren't.
-
Sure, there are instances in normal life such as hiking in an unfamiliar place or through your career that you need guns but my experience has always been to be where the gun's and bad people aren't.
Good luck with that. There is very few places where guns or bad folks may not be.... but probably are.......
Having a CHL is insurance. It gives you another option. One that may be needed but hopefully not.
Being prepared for the worst is not a bad idea at all.
-
Right! :)
There are a lot of bad people in this world. Being prepared doesn't equate to worrying about them. Situational awareness does apply everywhere. Worrying does not.
I have a winch on my Jeep. Not because I think that I will get stuck on the way to work, but in case I get stuck when recreating in my vehicle.
I see nothing wrong with preparedness.
-
The only time I've ever needed a gun, I had one because I knowingly entered into a situation where it might be needed.
That was very brief period when I was repossessing cars in miami.
Sure, there are instances in normal life such as hiking in an unfamiliar place or through your career that you need guns but my experience has always been to be where the gun's and bad people aren't.
Such as in a movie theater with your family, for instance?
-
Such as in a movie theater with your family, for instance?
Ouch
-
1) Its fluffied up to start with that many of you feel like you 'need' to carry a weapon where ever you go... think about that...
2) Usually guns just up the ante, and in the worst situations, are often not expected and as such, even if you had a gun you probably will not be prepared to use it.
3) Its easy to talk tough boy talk.. but for anyone with any moral compass, to actually follow through and kill someone is no easy task and the decision will weigh heavily on you for the rest of your life regardless of the situation.
4) your d1ck is still small with the gun... just saying...
-
1) Its fluffied up to start with that many of you feel like you 'need' to carry a weapon where ever you go... think about that...
2) Usually guns just up the ante, and in the worst situations, are often not expected and as such, even if you had a gun you probably will not be prepared to use it.
3) Its easy to talk tough boy talk.. but for anyone with any moral compass, to actually follow through and kill someone is no easy task and the decision will weigh heavily on you for the rest of your life regardless of the situation.
4) your d1ck is still small with the gun... just saying...
1) Is it fluffed up to feel a need to keep a flashlight in one's house at all times given the fact that one's eyes will adjust to most levels of darkness in a relatively short amount of time. How about keeping an umbrella in the car when it threatens to rain? Just saying...
2) Exactly the reason it is an advantage over a would-be attacker. Most legal concealed carriers are responsible people with a weapon and would not use it to escalate a situation, or solely for intimidation. Also, I always advocate proper firearm training. Not being prepared to use one's firearm is tantamount to the magazine being empty.
3) Perhaps... Then again, for those of us in this country that have seen live, armed combat, the only hesitation would be between the end of an exhalation in the "Breathe, Relax, Aim, Squeeze" mantra before firing. If my life, that of someone in my family or someone under my charge was in danger, I can guarantee you, with utmost certainty, that the morality of the situation would not cross my mind until long after the smell of cordite has left the air and my ears have stopped ringing.
4) Why are you looking at it? :neener:
-
1) Its fluffied up to start with that many of you feel like you 'need' to carry a weapon where ever you go... think about that...
2) Usually guns just up the ante, and in the worst situations, are often not expected and as such, even if you had a gun you probably will not be prepared to use it.
3) Its easy to talk tough boy talk.. but for anyone with any moral compass, to actually follow through and kill someone is no easy task and the decision will weigh heavily on you for the rest of your life regardless of the situation.
4) your d1ck is still small with the gun... just saying...
Stated like a true victim. :aok
-
Stated like a true victim. :aok
:rofl The only victim is you... a victim of fear.
-
:rofl The only victim is you... a victim of fear.
You lose.... No fear here. I'm as relaxed as you are... maybe moreso.
I am armed for preparedness.
-
You lose.... No fear here.
I am armed for preparedness.
:rofl :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ok, big boy
EDIT:
I should be encouraging all of you to purchase guns... SWHC just fell back to 8 from its high of 10... haha
you should be afraid, be very afraid...
-
You lose.... No fear here. I'm as relaxed as you are... maybe moreso.
I am armed for preparedness.
I am armed for fashion.
Getting dressed in the morning is a real biatch. :furious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78o5YE9A0MU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78o5YE9A0MU)
-
I am armed for fashion.
Getting dressed in the morning is a real biatch. :furious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78o5YE9A0MU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78o5YE9A0MU)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
In 30 years of shooting, 20+ years of having a weapon close by, I've never 'needed' one.
I hope I never do. I don't want to shoot anybody, but I won't hesitate one second if I need to do it. I know how I operate.
I'm not going out of my way to find confrontations, and when I have seen them, I've called the police to let them handle them. I'm not a Cop.
You like poking people, Ardy, just for the sake or stirring up things. You did it in the game, and you do it here with insults. Why?
-
You like poking people, Ardy, just for the sake or stirring up things. You did it in the game, and you do it here with insults. Why?
Oh, that wasn't your belly button I 'poked'? ;) :neener:
... (Mir, budy, you actually expect a rational discussion over the inter-dweebs?, esp on the AH bbs?)
-
1) Its fluffied up to start with that many of you feel like you 'need' to carry a weapon where ever you go... think about that...
2) Usually guns just up the ante, and in the worst situations, are often not expected and as such, even if you had a gun you probably will not be prepared to use it.
3) Its easy to talk tough boy talk.. but for anyone with any moral compass, to actually follow through and kill someone is no easy task and the decision will weigh heavily on you for the rest of your life regardless of the situation.
4) your d1ck is still small with the gun... just saying...
1. I never said I felt the need to carry. It's just nice to.
2. Only if you're stupid and pull it out to threaten someone.
3. I help homeless people, I donate, I've built houses for free to help people who needed them, but I would still drop someone in a heartbeat if they were to get stupid and pull out a firearm.
4. *sigh* :rolleyes: Don't make me drag, Vanessa into this.
Semp lost, and now the war is being lead by a new indidual.
To arms! Wait...they don't have any. :neener:
-
Semp lost, and now the war is being lead by a new indidual.
To arms! Wait...they don't have any. :neener:
:rofl :rofl a war where? sounds like I might need to grab my guns :neener:
-
:rofl :rofl a war where? sounds like I might need to grab my guns :neener:
Just so long as you don't grab my gun... :banana:
-
Just so long as you don't grab my gun... :banana:
I can't find it... need to break out with my magnifying glass :D :D
-
Speaking of magnifying....I need my reading glasses. This squinting is killing me. >.<
-
A gun in your fist, allows you to "Refuse".. The option is yours, for whatever reason, with the power to enforce your OWN WILL!
The power to refuse, any illegal unlawful authority, or just plain refuse to be a victim to anyone, of any stripe..
Including movie theater Batbrains, and Kooks who target religious temples of any kind..
The carrying of weapons has always been a symbol of Lordship, or "Freemen"..
Serfs, bonded servants, and slaves, were never allowed to carry weapons..
-
1. I never said I felt the need to carry. It's just nice to.
2. Only if you're stupid and pull it out to threaten someone.
3. I help homeless people, I donate, I've built houses for free to help people who needed them, but I would still drop someone in a heartbeat if they were to get stupid and pull out a firearm.
4. *sigh* :rolleyes: Don't make me drag, Vanessa into this.
Semp lost, and now the war is being lead by a new indidual.
To arms! Wait...they don't have any. :neener:
I lost what? and for your info I have 2 guns in my house. but i dont feel the need to carry them. like I said before in the past 10 years that I have lived in this city the only time I have felt threatened was by that police officer.
semp
-
A gun in your fist, allows you to "Refuse".. The option is yours, for whatever reason, with the power to enforce your OWN WILL!
The power to refuse, any illegal unlawful authority, or just plain refuse to be a victim to anyone, of any stripe..
Including movie theater Batbrains, and Kooks who target religious temples of any kind..
The carrying of weapons has always been a symbol of Lordship, or "Freemen"..
Serfs, bonded servants, and slaves, were never allowed to carry weapons..
Let's say a gunman starts to threat people in a crowded theater. 10 others pack guns. They all draw weapons. How do people tell which one of the gun swingers is the threat? :) I wouldn't want to be the trooper who steps into that situation from outside! Not to mention if one fires, second one fires back - the third may mistake the defender as the attacker etc. Then the legality issues.. let's say you shoot the attacker back and miss - hit a 10 year old child behind him. Or the bullet penetrates.. It's just a can of worms.
The only way to ensure a safe movie experience in a society which has abundance of guns and large socioeconomical problems is to start metal scanners and patdowns when moving in the theater.
-
Sure, it's safer when everyone carries a gun :huh What kind of twisted logic is that.
(http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/4711495_460s_v1.jpg)
-
Let's say a gunman starts to threat people in a crowded theater. 10 others pack guns. They all draw weapons. How do people tell which one of the gun swingers is the threat? :) I wouldn't want to be the trooper who steps into that situation from outside! Not to mention if one fires, second one fires back - the third may mistake the defender as the attacker etc. Then the legality issues.. let's say you shoot the attacker back and miss - hit a 10 year old child behind him. Or the bullet penetrates.. It's just a can of worms.
The only way to ensure a safe movie experience in a society which has abundance of guns and large socioeconomical problems is to start metal scanners and patdowns when moving in the theater.
Let's say a lunatic is the only one armed in a movie theater. He shoots a whole bunch of people and many of them die.
It's all OK though, because at least the victims weren't mistakenly ID'd and shot as attackers.
And they don't have to worry about legality issues, just death.
-
Let's say a gunman starts to threat people in a crowded theater. 10 others pack guns. They all draw weapons. How do people tell which one of the gun swingers is the threat? :) I wouldn't want to be the trooper who steps into that situation from outside! Not to mention if one fires, second one fires back - the third may mistake the defender as the attacker etc. Then the legality issues.. let's say you shoot the attacker back and miss - hit a 10 year old child behind him. Or the bullet penetrates.. It's just a can of worms.
The only way to ensure a safe movie experience in a society which has abundance of guns and large socioeconomical problems is to start metal scanners and patdowns when moving in the theater.
Well, in this case.. We have the fact, which is a fruitloop, shooting people in a crowded room unopposed, Bang Bang Bang...
Then we have the possibility, that even one decent person in the room has a weapon.. So, able to refuse their own murder by the aforesaid fruitloop, and in the process prevent the murder of many others..
OK, lets see.. We have a sure thing, death, vs the possibility of living.. I'll take a chance for life, rather than submit to my own murder! Hold my fate in my own hands, rather than count on the mercy of anyone else.. Just the kind of person I am..
The gun sales show, that the people of Colorado agree with me...
-
Well, in this case.. We have the fact, which is a fruitloop, shooting people in a crowded room unopposed, Bang Bang Bang...
Then we have the possibility, that even one decent person in the room has a weapon.. So, able to refuse their own murder by the aforesaid fruitloop, and in the process prevent the murder of many others..
OK, lets see.. We have a sure thing, death, vs the possibility of living.. I'll take a chance for life, rather than submit to my own murder! Hold my fate in my own hands, rather than count on the mercy of anyone else..
The gun sales show, that the people of Colorado agree with me...
what if NOBODY in the room had a gun? Just living people watching a film in peace.
-
what if NOBODY in the room had a gun? Just living people watching a film in peace.
Take ALL the guns in the whole world away.. Those who seek power over others would just go back to using swords...
Just figure what a Katana could do in a crowded room??? Swing???
Just a reminder.. In the 20th century, some 260million people, were killed by Government policies and programmes..
Keep that in mind!
-
what if NOBODY in the room had a gun? Just living people watching a film in peace.
That would be great, but what about when you go to the bank?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57456714/french-police-capture-gunman-alive-in-toulouse-bank-standoff-freeing-all-hostages-unharmed/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57456714/french-police-capture-gunman-alive-in-toulouse-bank-standoff-freeing-all-hostages-unharmed/)
or when you are just minding your own business while at school?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57456714/french-police-capture-gunman-alive-in-toulouse-bank-standoff-freeing-all-hostages-unharmed/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57456714/french-police-capture-gunman-alive-in-toulouse-bank-standoff-freeing-all-hostages-unharmed/)
-
Just a reminder.. In the 20th century, some 260million people, were killed by Government policies and programmes..
Keep that in mind!
Sure, a 9mm to save the world from the despots :lol Delusional at best.
-
That would be great, but what about when you go to the bank?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57456714/french-police-capture-gunman-alive-in-toulouse-bank-standoff-freeing-all-hostages-unharmed/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57456714/french-police-capture-gunman-alive-in-toulouse-bank-standoff-freeing-all-hostages-unharmed/)
or when you are just minding your own business while at school?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57456714/french-police-capture-gunman-alive-in-toulouse-bank-standoff-freeing-all-hostages-unharmed/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57456714/french-police-capture-gunman-alive-in-toulouse-bank-standoff-freeing-all-hostages-unharmed/)
If I go to the bank and get attacked, I give them what they want and live to see another day! Justice is to be given by pros, not the average Joe (see Trayvon Martin).
-
Sure, a 9mm to save the world from the despots :lol Delusional at best.
Your location and posts say all that is required..
I'll just leave it at that, without getting the thread locked!
Have a nice day!
-
If I go to the bank and get attacked, I give them what they want and live to see another day! Justice is to be given by pros, not the average Joe (see Trayvon Martin).
Sounds like fun.
Pro's?
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Pinkpanthersellers.jpg)
Sorry, Trayvon is not available for questions, right now. Any others I should ask?
-
Your location and posts say all that is required..
I took the time to learn your language, try to understand your mindset and what is so holy about the 2nd amendment and what justifies so many gunfire dead people. You just classify me as a white flag loving french and feel good about it.
Sounds like fun.
Pro's?
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Pinkpanthersellers.jpg)
Sorry, Trayvon is not available for questions, right now. Any others I should ask?
was that supposed to be funny?
End of my posts in here, waste of keystrokes.
-
If I go to the bank and get attacked, I give them what they want and live to see another day! Justice is to be given by pros, not the average Joe (see Trayvon Martin).
Yes.. from reports trayvon tried to met out his own type of justice and failed.
-
I took the time to learn your language, try to understand your mindset and what is so holy about the 2nd amendment and what justifies so many gunfire dead people.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't authorize crime. It requires the government to protect the right of citizens to bear arms. Within the context of inalienable rights (aka, natural rights), they are not contingent upon the laws or beliefs of any government, and are to be considered as universal and inalienable. The right to self defense is a natural right. The founders made sure that the Constitution made the government responsible to protect natural rights, including the right of self defense.
To ignore any portion of the Constitution, weakens the rest. There is a way to change the Constitution, and that is by amendment. However, any attempt to eliminate or change the 2nd amendment would not have popular support and an attempt to force it on the American people would lead to violence that would make the current events in Syria seem like a lady's tea social....
-
Oh, that wasn't your belly button I 'poked'? ;) :neener:
... (Mir, budy, you actually expect a rational discussion over the inter-dweebs?, esp on the AH bbs?)
Ardy, there was a rational discussion at one point in this thread.
At any rate, that was enjoyable while it lasted.
-
Let's say a gunman starts to threat people in a crowded theater. 10 others pack guns. They all draw weapons. How do people tell which one of the gun swingers is the threat? :) I wouldn't want to be the trooper who steps into that situation from outside! Not to mention if one fires, second one fires back - the third may mistake the defender as the attacker etc. Then the legality issues.. let's say you shoot the attacker back and miss - hit a 10 year old child behind him. Or the bullet penetrates.. It's just a can of worms.
The only way to ensure a safe movie experience in a society which has abundance of guns and large socioeconomical problems is to start metal scanners and patdowns when moving in the theater.
Most people responsible enough to get a CCP are smart enough to look and see who has the gun first then pull it out and aim.
Once the suspect is down, you holster your weapon, check on the injured/wounded and wait for authorities.
We're not saying every crack head in America needs to carry, but that you should limit responsible people from owning weapons.
And if you miss someone in something as small as a theater.....you need to have your CCP taken away.
Sure, it's safer when everyone carries a gun :huh What kind of twisted logic is that.
(http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/4711495_460s_v1.jpg)
Just ask Switzerland or Kennesaw Georgia.
I lost what? and for your info I have 2 guns in my house. but i dont feel the need to carry them. like I said before in the past 10 years that I have lived in this city the only time I have felt threatened was by that police officer.
semp
Lol you really wanna pick the argument back up?
And yet, all police officers are bad due to one person in ten years slowly placing his hand on his weapon. He apparently had no right to do that.
What about those two cops who got killed recently? Their job isn't dangerous at all is it? :rolleyes:
-
Ardy, there was a rational discussion at one point in this thread.
hmm, ganging up on semp, rational? did semp and those who agree with him change their minds? did any of people on the other side change theirs? Did anyone come to the thread with an open mind to begin with?
This, like most other threads, was just another mental masturbation session, nothing more, nothing less, and to pretend it was anything else is self serving. So take it for what it is and not too seriously.
-
Did anyone come to the thread with an open mind to begin with?
I did! :old:
-
I did! :old:
:rofl :aok
-
Most people responsible enough to get a CCP are smart enough to look and see who has the gun first then pull it out and aim.
Once the suspect is down, you holster your weapon, check on the injured/wounded and wait for authorities.
We're not saying every crack head in America needs to carry, but that you should limit responsible people from owning weapons.
And if you miss someone in something as small as a theater.....you need to have your CCP taken away.
Just ask Switzerland or Kennesaw Georgia.
Lol you really wanna pick the argument back up?
And yet, all police officers are bad due to one person in ten years slowly placing his hand on his weapon. He apparently had no right to do that.
What about those two cops who got killed recently? Their job isn't dangerous at all is it? :rolleyes:
what if it's the cop who pulls the gun out on innocent people? you think this guy is the only one?
cop pulls gun at bartender
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/05/ritchie-heffron_n_858170.html
off duty officer pulls 2 guns on unarmed man after argument.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/04/new_orleans_police_officer_res_1.html
and marineus stop using the argument about switzerland or kennesaw georgia. the reason for both of them having low crime rate is the resident's attitude. kennesaw georgia already had a low crime rate to begin with, the law was only passed to make a political statement about guns.
here, this is a fair statment about kennesaw.
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
as for switzerland, you conveniently keep forgetting the statement made by the switzerland native mentioning that it isnt the guns in every house that keeps the crime rate low, but the socioeconomic status of their citizens. and you already acknowledged that you read what he wrote and yet you keep "forgetting".
hmm, ganging up on semp, rational? did semp and those who agree with him change their minds? did any of people on the other side change theirs? Did anyone come to the thread with an open mind to begin with?
This, like most other threads, was just another mental masturbation session, nothing more, nothing less, and to pretend it was anything else is self serving. So take it for what it is and not too seriously.
they arent ganging up bunnies. they just think that if they mention it often enough it becomes the truth.
I never said I walk with fear where I live. all I said at the very beginning is that the only time I have felt threatened was when a police officer looked at me and put his hand on his gun. it wasnt his hand on his gun that worried me but the look on his face. i have had police officers point their guns at me before because of misunderstandings or put their hands on their guns when I have gotten pulled over, but none of them had the look that police officer had.
my entire criminal record consists of 1 failure to wear a seat belt, 1 parking ticket, 1 crossing the carpool lanes and a misdemeanor charge of failure to keep my pool clean. I own guns, 2 of them, but where I live I dont feel the need to walk around with them swinging my hips while "resting" my hand on them.
semp
-
what if it's the cop who pulls the gun out on innocent people? you think this guy is the only one?
cop pulls gun at bartender
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/05/ritchie-heffron_n_858170.html
off duty officer pulls 2 guns on unarmed man after argument.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/04/new_orleans_police_officer_res_1.html
and marineus stop using the argument about switzerland or kennesaw georgia. the reason for both of them having low crime rate is the resident's attitude. kennesaw georgia already had a low crime rate to begin with, the law was only passed to make a political statement about guns.
here, this is a fair statment about kennesaw.
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
as for switzerland, you conveniently keep forgetting the statement made by the switzerland native mentioning that it isnt the guns in every house that keeps the crime rate low, but the socioeconomic status of their citizens. and you already acknowledged that you read what he wrote and yet you keep "forgetting".
they arent ganging up bunnies. they just think that if they mention it often enough it becomes the truth.
I never said I walk with fear where I live. all I said at the very beginning is that the only time I have felt threatened was when a police officer looked at me and put his hand on his gun. it wasnt his hand on his gun that worried me but the look on his face. i have had police officers point their guns at me before because of misunderstandings or put their hands on their guns when I have gotten pulled over, but none of them had the look that police officer had.
my entire criminal record consists of 1 failure to wear a seat belt, 1 parking ticket, 1 crossing the carpool lanes and a misdemeanor charge of failure to keep my pool clean. I own guns, 2 of them, but where I live I dont feel the need to walk around with them swinging my hips while "resting" my hand on them.
semp
Huffington Post is awesome :noid
You have low crime, yet pool Nazi's live in your neighborhood? :noid
-
Huffington Post is awesome :noid
You have low crime, yet pool Nazi's live in your neighborhood? :noid
oh sorry didnt know the huffington post wasnt up to you standards. how about the video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgmvtxfsKHs
baltimore sun
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=293653
west tampa
http://westtampa.wtsp.com/news/crime/136374-cops-man-reaches-liquor-behind-bar-pulls-pistol-bartender
cbs
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/off-duty-police-officer-accused-of-pulling-out-gun-at-farmingdale-bar/
it's a conspiracy the officer was framed he must have not been properly trained in the handling of weapons at the academy :noid :noid.
and pool nazi's live in every neighborhood, just like we have people like you who like to exaggerate things, we do have freedom of speech after all. dont you agree?
and vonmessa please remind me where exactly I said that we have low crime in my city? actually point out where I said we have high crime in my community? actually point out where I mentioned crime rate at all in my community?
semp
-
And yet, all police officers are bad due to one person in ten years slowly placing his hand on his weapon. He apparently had no right to do that.
I never said all cops are bad, i personally know several who are outstanding people. and how do you know he slowly placed his hand on his weapon? oh wait you werent there. like I said before it wasnt that he put his hand on his weapon is how he looked at me. seen that look before on some people who think others are worth less than him. he wasnt resting his hand there, he was looking for an excuse to pull out his gun.
semp
-
oh sorry didnt know the huffington post wasnt up to you standards. how about the video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgmvtxfsKHs
baltimore sun
http://talk.baltimoresun.com/showthread.php?t=293653
west tampa
http://westtampa.wtsp.com/news/crime/136374-cops-man-reaches-liquor-behind-bar-pulls-pistol-bartender
cbs
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/05/04/off-duty-police-officer-accused-of-pulling-out-gun-at-farmingdale-bar/
it's a conspiracy the officer was framed he must have not been properly trained in the handling of weapons at the academy :noid :noid.
and pool nazi's live in every neighborhood, just like we have people like you who like to exaggerate things, we do have freedom of speech after all. dont you agree?
and vonmessa please remind me where exactly I said that we have low crime in my city? actually point out where I said we have high crime in my community? actually point out where I mentioned crime rate at all in my community?
semp
You are so easy that it almost isn't even fun, anymore.
Almost...
:rofl
-
what if it's the cop who pulls the gun out on innocent people? you think this guy is the only one?
cop pulls gun at bartender
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/05/ritchie-heffron_n_858170.html
off duty officer pulls 2 guns on unarmed man after argument.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2011/04/new_orleans_police_officer_res_1.html
and marineus stop using the argument about switzerland or kennesaw georgia. the reason for both of them having low crime rate is the resident's attitude. kennesaw georgia already had a low crime rate to begin with, the law was only passed to make a political statement about guns.
here, this is a fair statment about kennesaw.
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
as for switzerland, you conveniently keep forgetting the statement made by the switzerland native mentioning that it isnt the guns in every house that keeps the crime rate low, but the socioeconomic status of their citizens. and you already acknowledged that you read what he wrote and yet you keep "forgetting".
they arent ganging up bunnies. they just think that if they mention it often enough it becomes the truth.
I never said I walk with fear where I live. all I said at the very beginning is that the only time I have felt threatened was when a police officer looked at me and put his hand on his gun. it wasnt his hand on his gun that worried me but the look on his face. i have had police officers point their guns at me before because of misunderstandings or put their hands on their guns when I have gotten pulled over, but none of them had the look that police officer had.
my entire criminal record consists of 1 failure to wear a seat belt, 1 parking ticket, 1 crossing the carpool lanes and a misdemeanor charge of failure to keep my pool clean. I own guns, 2 of them, but where I live I dont feel the need to walk around with them swinging my hips while "resting" my hand on them.
semp
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that because there were a few bad people who messed up that I should stereotype everyone in that group. OK. All blacks are gang bangers, all whites are psychopathic killers, all Mexicans are illegal immigrants, all Native Americans want to shoot me with an arrow, all Marines throw puppies off of cliffs.
Why stop using the argument? Because it's true?
And excuse me? That was ONE person versus the hundreds of others who have said they helped. 1 v 100. Who wins? Yeah. Piss off. :)
If it wasn't his hand on his gun, why was it that you could only refer to that motion? You're more than welcome to go back and read what you wrote. You just kept bringing up the fact he put his hand there, never mentioning his facial expression until now. Hmmmm. :rolleyes:
Where did I say I felt the NEED to carry? For some reason you can't grasp the concept of "I go to the range at random, and it's nice to have." Would you like to call Kirk Hampton, Blake Williams or Kevin Carter? Hell would you like a list of the guys I go shooting with? Any single one of them will tell you the same thing. "We don't know when we'll get to go to the range, so we keep them on us or in our trucks." Maybe it's from being in a farming community where you do what you want to when the day's work is done (whenever it may be) or something just about the community here that prevents us from having a solid schedule.
I don't rest my "hand" I put my arm between my holster/pistol grip and my side. Why? Because in the summer it's better than having my hands in my pockets in the 108ºF weather.
Oh I'm sorry. Does that smell like BS to you, or are you OK with people living differently and having a body language that differs from yours?
-
cops dont prevent crimes, cops are the cleanup crew. while i totally respect them and their jobs, no one is gonna save me, but me. i don't go looking for trouble, but i can defend myself at any time of day or night! as said before, more armed citizens means less problems.
although homeland security is now buying up the bulk of ammo in this country. wonder what thats all about?
I call BS!
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/30/chain-email/chain-email-says-homeland-security-purchasing-many/ (http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/apr/30/chain-email/chain-email-says-homeland-security-purchasing-many/)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msyoOduf3Yc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msyoOduf3Yc&feature=player_embedded)
-
I know, but people really think it...
"You carry a gun with you? You must be waiting for something to happen!"
How about NO!
It's akin to keeping jumper cables in the car, in case I need them. It's a tool, only a tool for my protection. People just don't get it, especially those who have never had to do so, or those who want to lap out of the government's drink bowl...
Best response!! +10 :rofl
or a spare tire in your car? I hope I never need that thing...in fact I haven't planned on using it in about 15 years when I was a broke student, but i still have one. The illusion that the police are all that is needed is a crock!! :huh
-
Right! :)
There are a lot of bad people in this world. Being prepared doesn't equate to worrying about them. Situational awareness does apply everywhere. Worrying does not.
John Wayne taught me when I was growing up, that all it takes is one good guy to stop most bad guys. When the nut cases(Wolves) are killing all the sheople, the citizen is armed & free to stop him because the wolf all the sheep aren't armed.... Some day all you sheep will be glad there is a citizen nearby...I hope not, but probably will. :salute
-
John Wayne taught me when I was growing up...
that's all that needs to be said... now I'm going to laugh uncontrollably for a while... sorry.... :bolt:
-
I took the time to learn your language, try to understand your mindset and what is so holy about the 2nd amendment and what justifies so many gunfire dead people. You just classify me as a white flag loving french and feel good about it.
To be fair, your first and third post in this thread included:
What kind of twisted logic is that.
Delusional at best.
Sounds like you already made up your mind and had no desire to understand our point of view.
-
To be fair, your first and third post in this thread included:
Sounds like you already made up your mind and had no desire to understand our point of view.
Jayhawk, your post outlining another posters comments, exemplifies why 'hot button' topics cannot be discussed in a rational manner here, as people's emotions are wrapped up in it.. Anyone here who says otherwise is just lying and looking for cognitive affirmation from the majority opinion of the posters here. I'll repeat what I stated before...
This, like most other threads, was just another mental masturbation session, nothing more, nothing less, and to pretend it was anything else is self serving. So take it for what it is and not too seriously.
-
Jayhawk, your post outlining another posters comments, exemplifies why 'hot button' topics cannot be discussed in a rational manner here, as people's emotions are wrapped up in it.. Anyone here who says otherwise is just lying and looking for cognitive affirmation from the majority opinion of the posters here. I'll repeat what I stated before...
It is hard to have a rational discussion on these forums because it's very rarely a 1v1 conversation. One person is going to feel ganged up on or one idiot in the majority is going to yell some irrational BS and get everyone worked up. I've had lots of good discussions on firearms and concealed carry with people in 1v1 interaction, whether online or in person, it's really hard to do in threads like this though.
It's still really hard to not get involved when it's something you are passionate about.
-
hmm, ganging up on semp, rational? did semp and those who agree with him change their minds? did any of people on the other side change theirs? Did anyone come to the thread with an open mind to begin with?
This, like most other threads, was just another mental masturbation session, nothing more, nothing less, and to pretend it was anything else is self serving. So take it for what it is and not too seriously.
Go further back, and see the conversation with TonyJoey, and how it was being discussed rationally for a good while.
-
It is hard to have a rational discussion on these forums because it's very rarely a 1v1 conversation. One person is going to feel ganged up on or one idiot in the majority is going to yell some irrational BS and get everyone worked up. I've had lots of good discussions on firearms and concealed carry with people in 1v1 interaction, whether online or in person, it's really hard to do in threads like this though.
It's still really hard to not get involved when it's something you are passionate about.
You'll always have someone like ardy trying to steer the conversation away from it's intended purpose.
-
It is hard to have a rational discussion on these forums because it's very rarely a 1v1 conversation. One person is going to feel ganged up on or one idiot in the majority is going to yell some irrational BS and get everyone worked up. I've had lots of good discussions on firearms and concealed carry with people in 1v1 interaction, whether online or in person, it's really hard to do in threads like this though.
It's still really hard to not get involved when it's something you are passionate about.
Agreed, there in lies the problem.. esp topics like this one which have been berated over and over. Its like talking about abortion or other hot button issues.
You'll always have someone like ardy trying to steer the conversation away from it's intended purpose.
Considering all that can be said about this has been said 100x before, one can only reasonably believe that all people are after is affirmation for their beliefs as here groups can resort to 'Might makes right' by dog piling posts...
-
Considering all that can be said about this has been said 100x before, one can only reasonably believe that all people are after is affirmation for their beliefs as here groups can resort to 'Might makes right' by dog piling posts...
Through time and personal experiences people's ideas get swayed one way or another. Times change, people change. A discussion so many are interested in, one way or another, is still ripe for more discussion. People have done this for years. It's how people come to agreements or simply agree to disagree... for the time being.
-
Through time and personal experiences people's ideas get swayed one way or another. Times change, people change. A discussion so many are interested in, one way or another, is still ripe for more discussion. People have done this for years. It's how people come to agreements or simply agree to disagree... for the time being.
well, in most forms of communication I agree with this such as face-to-face, formal writing, etc... but when it comes to political trigger point discussions over the internet, particularly on BBS where the lion share of the users fall into one side of the issue, I have to respectfully disagree.
-
that's all that needs to be said... now I'm going to laugh uncontrollably for a while... sorry.... :bolt:
John Wayne portrayed good role models...something wrong with that? :huh
-
Suitable John Wayne quotes. Some from interviews, others from movies.... Just a few.
Interview:
“Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It’s perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we’ve learned something from yesterday.”
Films:
“I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
“Now you understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all… your fault, my fault, nobody’s fault… it don’t matter… I’m gonna blow your head off. It’s as simple as that.”
“Well, son, since you haven’t learned to respect your elders, it’s time you learned to respect your betters.”
"Lifes tough, but its tougher when you’re stupid."
-
I'm all for a more effective method of weeding out the nutcases from the non-nutcases. I was once denied buying a 12 gauge in a Blacksburg VA pawnshop because I presented them with an out-of-state ID. About 3 months later, that very same shop sold Seung-Hui Cho the two handguns he used to go on a rampage at VA Tech...
However, it seems that a properly motivated nutcase will not be hindered by the lack of access to semi-automatic military-style weapons. The same shotgun I use to shoot skeet can be modified into a concealable killing machine in about 5 minutes. Batman fanboi may kill only 4 or 5 instead of 12 or 15, but where exactly does this dialog go then? What if he jammed the theater doors closed and simply set fire to the place with a couple gallons of gasoline? What if he flooded an apartment building with CO, killing dozens in their sleep? What do you prohibit then?
Guns have been legal in the US since the very beginning. There was a time when fully automatic weapons were available to anybody who wanted them... And yet, it's only relatively recently that these mass shootings have started to crop up.
I think that a rational response to this phenomenon would be to figure out the source of their psychotic ambitions (fame, notoriety, etc..), not just the mechanism by which they carry those ambitions out.
You might want to do a little more research when it comes to murders by gun historically. They have been happening since as you say "the very beginning".
I love the escape mechanism of the guns of any kind advocates.
1. Let's get the nut jobs. LOL what a bunch of bs that is. Anytime someone wants to start checking people out more thoroughly the NRA and its sheep go ballistic.
2. Well the 2nd amendment yada yada yada. Well the 2nd amendment was about a well regulated militia when we had none. Now we have a standing Army that is well regulated and armed. No need for citizens to have automatic weapons or weapons that are made for killing people only.
-
So here is an offer to all you NRA cult members who think that it is your right to own a Ground to Air missile system.
I will stipulate that you can own any weapon you want but not because the constitutions says so. Because it doesnt.
If you will stipulate that women get to control their own reproductive systems and their bodies no matter what.
-
So here is an offer to all you NRA cult members who think that it is your right to own a Ground to Air missile system.
I will stipulate that you can own any weapon you want but not because the constitutions says so. Because it doesnt.
If you will stipulate that women get to control their own reproductive systems and their bodies no matter what.
It may not state what arms you can bear specifically, but then again, it doesn't say which ones you cannot, either.
As for what women have a right to put in or take out of their... reproductive system, not my choice. I don't have that kind of plumbing so I cannot make a real stand in favor of a woman's choice, except to back-up my belief that they should have a right to that choice.
But, that's a different discussion altogether and really has no nearing on this one.
-
Suitable John Wayne quotes. Some from interviews, others from movies.... Just a few.
Interview:
“Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It’s perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we’ve learned something from yesterday.”
Films:
“I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
“Now you understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all… your fault, my fault, nobody’s fault… it don’t matter… I’m gonna blow your head off. It’s as simple as that.”
“Well, son, since you haven’t learned to respect your elders, it’s time you learned to respect your betters.”
"Lifes tough, but its tougher when you’re stupid."
I wish there was a Thumbs up for posts on this BBs..
-
POOF!
:aok
-
POOF!
:aok
Not what I meant, but OK :rofl :aok
-
Not what I meant, but OK :rofl :aok
:D
-
So here is an offer to all you NRA cult members who think that it is your right to own a Ground to Air missile system.
I will stipulate that you can own any weapon you want but not because the constitutions says so. Because it doesnt.
If you will stipulate that women get to control their own reproductive systems and their bodies no matter what.
Just a couple points here. If you wish to make a statement, please do so but leave out the derogatory names or the entire thing simply looks like the rant of an immature person and has no real value.
Second point. Neither of the two situations you mention have anything to do with the other and do not equate to a valid comparison regarding rights. The NRA does not espouse the owning of destructive devices such as the ground to air system. Please confine yourself to the real issues and don't expand into sarcasm as it lends no credence to your position.
I'm all for women having control over their reproductive systems. I am also all for them having the take full responsibility for not being proactive in regards to birth control. An abortion should not be considered a "right" in order to correct a mistake in judgement because the woman and her partner did not use a good method of birth control. If it is a case of rape, incest or impregnation against her will then it should be a given that she could terminate any pregnancy that ensues from said activity. However, if the pregnancy results from an activity she was a full willing participant in and she and he, to be fully proper, did not take reasonable precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy that is a different situation. Don't want the baby, fine there are lots of folks who do want a baby and will gladly raise your offspring. No one forces a mother to keep their child. If the woman was not forced / coerced into the reproductive activity she and the father should bear responsibility for that activity.
Being sexually active is a choice. Birth control is another choice. Birth control by abortion should not be a choice because of voluntary poor choices in the other two decisions. If you decide to engage in sexual activity you should do so with the idea that you are entering a contract with each other for the results of that activity. If you cannot fiscally / mentally afford the consequences of that activity then both of you should keep it in your pants until you are a fully responsible adult instead of a child playing at adult games. That goes for both parties involved, fatherhood is just as important as motherhood. If you are not ready to be responsible for your actions, don't step up to the plate.
-
So here is an offer to all you NRA cult members who think that it is your right to own a Ground to Air missile system.
I will stipulate that you can own any weapon you want but not because the constitutions says so. Because it doesnt.
If you will stipulate that women get to control their own reproductive systems and their bodies no matter what.
How about not grouping me into your stereotypical preconceptions about people? You think you know everything about my beliefs simply because I support gun rights? I can't begin to explain how incredibly naive and childish that is.
-
Ah... the old reproductive rights argument..
I like to equate this to a very simple analogy...
Who needs the protective equipment, the pitcher or the catcher? If the pitcher crosses up the catcher with an unexpected pitch, clocking the catcher in the noodle, the pitcher bares the bulk of the responsibility. However, if the catcher has the proper protective equipment, there's no harm done.. So it is in the debate relative to reproductive rights.
People choose their lifestyles, and those lifestyles have consequences, sometimes positive, more often, negative. It boils down to behavior.
I raised two girls and I taught them that they ultimately have to be responsible for their decisions. As they approach their 30s (28 and 29), no unplanned children, no out of marriage pregnancies. Why? Because they took to heart the concept that they are responsible for their own selves.
The Constitution charges the government with the task of protecting the right to bear arms, and the SCOTUS has affirmed that to be a common citizen's right. There is no right to an abortion, not even the most wild exaggeration of the Bill of Rights can be construed to say that. This is why Roe v Wade will eventually be overturned. Maybe not within the next 10 years, but it's coming. A recent national poll shows that more than 60% of the American people believe that abortion is wrong.
I won't judge people on their life choices. I will, however, insist that they accept responsibility for those choices. To repeat the John Wayne quote I posted above; "Life's tough. It's tougher when you're stupid".
-
A recent national poll shows that more than 60% of the American people believe that abortion is wrong.
and about half of them are men. what do fertile women say? you know, since this really only concerns them :headscratch:
-
and about half of them are men. what do fertile women say? you know, since this really only concerns them :headscratch:
It doesn't just concern women. In this country, paternity carries the responsibility to support the newborn dependent. Where we live, Momma can go to court and get 17% of the daddy's gross income, plus health insurance if he has any through his job. Moreover, the 60% are nearly equally divided between men and women. Like it or not, if one bears bulk of the burden, one also bears the bulk of the responsibility.
-
have you ever met a guy who's wife and children cost him 17% of his income? :lol
-
A recent national poll shows that more than 60% of the American people believe that abortion is wrong.
I think it's wrong but I also think that it should be legal.
-
have you ever met a guy who's wife and children cost him 17% of his income? :lol
Hi,
My name is Dan. Throughout the course of a 5 year marriage I managed to help create 2 wonderful children.
The wife turned out to be the incorrect choice.
Now I get to pay her $350/week, after taxes are taken out, roughly 30% of my income. This does not include the health insurance. Guess the 50% of the braces that they both wear should be taken into account, as well. Gonna go re-check that 30%
Nice to meet you.
-
have you ever met a guy who's wife and children cost him 17% of his income? :lol
I'll introduce you to my brother, Deputy Sheriff John Jordan... He pays 22% of his gross salary to support two of his three kids (one lives with him).
-
Just a couple points here. If you wish to make a statement, please do so but leave out the derogatory names or the entire thing simply looks like the rant of an immature person and has no real value.
Second point. Neither of the two situations you mention have anything to do with the other and do not equate to a valid comparison regarding rights. The NRA does not espouse the owning of destructive devices such as the ground to air system. Please confine yourself to the real issues and don't expand into sarcasm as it lends no credence to your position.
I'm all for women having control over their reproductive systems. I am also all for them having the take full responsibility for not being proactive in regards to birth control. An abortion should not be considered a "right" in order to correct a mistake in judgement because the woman and her partner did not use a good method of birth control. If it is a case of rape, incest or impregnation against her will then it should be a given that she could terminate any pregnancy that ensues from said activity. However, if the pregnancy results from an activity she was a full willing participant in and she and he, to be fully proper, did not take reasonable precautions to prevent an unwanted pregnancy that is a different situation. Don't want the baby, fine there are lots of folks who do want a baby and will gladly raise your offspring. No one forces a mother to keep their child. If the woman was not forced / coerced into the reproductive activity she and the father should bear responsibility for that activity.
Being sexually active is a choice. Birth control is another choice. Birth control by abortion should not be a choice because of voluntary poor choices in the other two decisions. If you decide to engage in sexual activity you should do so with the idea that you are entering a contract with each other for the results of that activity. If you cannot fiscally / mentally afford the consequences of that activity then both of you should keep it in your pants until you are a fully responsible adult instead of a child playing at adult games. That goes for both parties involved, fatherhood is just as important as motherhood. If you are not ready to be responsible for your actions, don't step up to the plate.
When I get derogatory you will know it. But the post you refer to did not have any derogatory name calling. So bite me.
-
I'll introduce you to my brother, Deputy Sheriff John Jordan... He pays 22% of his gross salary to support two of his three kids (one lives with him).
Then he got off very cheap indeed.
-
Ah... the old reproductive rights argument..
I like to equate this to a very simple analogy...
Who needs the protective equipment, the pitcher or the catcher? If the pitcher crosses up the catcher with an unexpected pitch, clocking the catcher in the noodle, the pitcher bares the bulk of the responsibility. However, if the catcher has the proper protective equipment, there's no harm done.. So it is in the debate relative to reproductive rights.
People choose their lifestyles, and those lifestyles have consequences, sometimes positive, more often, negative. It boils down to behavior.
I raised two girls and I taught them that they ultimately have to be responsible for their decisions. As they approach their 30s (28 and 29), no unplanned children, no out of marriage pregnancies. Why? Because they took to heart the concept that they are responsible for their own selves.
The Constitution charges the government with the task of protecting the right to bear arms, and the SCOTUS has affirmed that to be a common citizen's right. There is no right to an abortion, not even the most wild exaggeration of the Bill of Rights can be construed to say that. This is why Roe v Wade will eventually be overturned. Maybe not within the next 10 years, but it's coming. A recent national poll shows that more than 60% of the American people believe that abortion is wrong.
I won't judge people on their life choices. I will, however, insist that they accept responsibility for those choices. To repeat the John Wayne quote I posted above; "Life's tough. It's tougher when you're stupid".
WW can you point out where in this constitution you speak of it states that you do not have a right to control your body and what is in it? I will wait.........
-
How about not grouping me into your stereotypical preconceptions about people? You think you know everything about my beliefs simply because I support gun rights? I can't begin to explain how incredibly naive and childish that is.
Did I mention you by name? Did I call you out? Did I say all gun owners? I own guns (many) and I do not think it is my business to decide what a woman does with her body or what is in it.
-
and about half of them are men. what do fertile women say? you know, since this really only concerns them :headscratch:
I love when people throw out popular opinions as a validation.
A majority of GOP members think the President is not one of us. LOL
-
Did I mention you by name? Did I call you out? Did I say all gun owners? I own guns (many) and I do not think it is my business to decide what a woman does with her body or what is in it.
Neither do I, but what does that have to do with this thread at all? Why even bring it up?
-
When I get derogatory you will know it. But the post you refer to did not have any derogatory name calling. So bite me.
Oh you were derogatory in your post and in this one I quoted. I also noticed you did not respond to the post at all other that to say to bite you. No thanks, apparently unlike you, I am heterosexual.
-
so to bring it back on-topic, a bunch of people just got shot by a guy at the empire state in NY. the gunman was taken down by police. why wasnt he taken down by a civilian? come to that, why are these nutters never taken down by a armed civilian? what % of gun-related crimes are prevented or stopped by armed civilians? :headscratch:
-
so to bring it back on-topic, a bunch of people just got shot by a guy at the empire state in NY. the gunman was taken down by police. why wasnt he taken down by a civilian? come to that, why are these nutters never taken down by a armed civilian? what % of gun-related crimes are prevented or stopped by armed civilians? :headscratch:
Uh, because NYC has strict gun control preventing armed civilians? See how well that worked out.
-
so to bring it back on-topic, a bunch of people just got shot by a guy at the empire state in NY. the gunman was taken down by police. why wasnt he taken down by a civilian? come to that, why are these nutters never taken down by a armed civilian? what % of gun-related crimes are prevented or stopped by armed civilians? :headscratch:
You do realise the location of the incident do you not? NYC has some of the most draconian anti gun laws in the nation, along with large sugary drink control.
-
not a percentage but http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2175170%2FHarrowing-moment-elderly-internet-cafe-goer-guns-robbers-chases-door.html&ei=qZ43UP2JK8Hp6wHXw4HQCg&usg=AFQjCNF3iMkRvSd1rDDhKyee1G23ELNWmw (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-2175170%2FHarrowing-moment-elderly-internet-cafe-goer-guns-robbers-chases-door.html&ei=qZ43UP2JK8Hp6wHXw4HQCg&usg=AFQjCNF3iMkRvSd1rDDhKyee1G23ELNWmw) is first story when you google
-
I know people in NY that legally own guns, can you not carry in NY?
what about other places where you can get a CCP, presumably most crimes are prevented by armed civilians there (since theres more civvies than cops)?
-
The likelihood of a CCP holder just happening to be at the right place and right time during these massacres isn't all that great.
In the Colorado shooting incident the movie theater prohibited guns, even legally carried ones.
I don't necessarily subscribe to the "If only someone there had a gun" idea. No way to know when someone could have or would have stopped the gunman.
There are numerous occasions where armed civilians have stopped armed gunmen though, a recent one happened in a Florida internet cafe.
-
.
-
so to bring it back on-topic, a bunch of people just got shot by a guy at the empire state in NY. the gunman was taken down by police. why wasnt he taken down by a civilian? come to that, why are these nutters never taken down by a armed civilian? what % of gun-related crimes are prevented or stopped by armed civilians? :headscratch:
I do not know the percentage but there are lots of cases where a civillian takes down or captures a criminal.
The empire state building is a gun free zone. Law abiding citizens left their arms in their vehicles.
-
so for places like the empire state building, courthouses, that colorado theatre etc. where you cant take a gun in, can you check in your weapon for secure storage until you leave?
sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to understand the practicalities :)
-
so for places like the empire state building, courthouses, that colorado theatre etc. where you cant take a gun in, can you check in your weapon for secure storage until you leave?
sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to understand the practicalities :)
Generally no. One is required to leave it in their vehicle or at home. Many leave them in their vehicle which creates a place for criminals to acquire guns. If a place does not allow guns on primise then vehicles around such premises have a higher likelyhood of having a firearms in them.
-
thats nuts, surely you're way more likely to be robbed or attacked walking on the street than in your car or home.
edit: leaving a weapon unattended in a car doesnt seem like a good idea unless you have a strongbox fitted. I guess quite a few criminal's weapons are ones they found unsecured while robbing cars or houses.
-
thats nuts, surely you're way more likely to be robbed or attacked walking on the street than in your car or home.
Carjacking and burglary/home invasion are not uncommon in some areas.
-
I know people in NY that legally own guns, can you not carry in NY?
what about other places where you can get a CCP, presumably most crimes are prevented by armed civilians there (since theres more civvies than cops)?
I was wathcing the history channel and there was a historian on there that said the wild west wasnt that wild since everyone was strapped, its mostly hollywood build up.
-
Also the media tend not to report on people stopping crime as its not sensational unless the stopper is older or younger.
-
I dont buy that, theres nothing the media loves more than a have-a-go-hero.
-
Also the media tend not to report on people stopping crime as its not sensational unless the stopper is older or younger.
Local media usually reports it. It's the big entertainment sites like CNN and FOX that usually miss those.
-
I understand the "If only someone had a gun to stop it" mentality, but there are just too many variables to know what would have happened during any mass shooting if a CCW holder with a firearm was present.
Eventually it's bound to happen that a lawful gun owner will stop a major massacre, but seeing as the scope of these shootings only becomes clear with the body count, there will be no real way to determine how many lives were saved if the attack is stopped early.
-
I understand the "If only someone had a gun to stop it" mentality, but there are just too many variables to know what would have happened during any mass shooting if a CCW holder with a firearm was present.
Well we know what happens when there is no other person with a gun.
Eventually it's bound to happen that a lawful gun owner will stop a major massacre, but seeing as the scope of these shootings only becomes clear with the body count, there will be no real way to determine how many lives were saved if the attack is stopped early.
[/quote]
It has happened. One that comes top mind was a Mall shooting awhile back.
-
WW can you point out where in this constitution you speak of it states that you do not have a right to control your body and what is in it? I will wait.........
The Constitution only innumerates specific "natural rights". Abortion is not classified as a natural right. Moreover, the founders would have found it immoral, and thus would not have even considered it as a right.
I find it rather amazing that if someone hurts a woman, causing her to lose her unborn child, it's a travesty that the child died. However, if that same woman were to abort that same child, that's okay, no problem, just exercising her reproductive rights. Doesn't pass the stink test.
Now, if you believe that the unborn child is a living person, than you may believe that one's control control over their body ends when another life is adversely affected. A recent national poll shows that 60% of American women believe that Abortion is wrong and agree that it should be illegal, except in very rare cases where the life of the mother is at great risk, or rape.
-
The Constitution only innumerates specific "natural rights". Abortion is not classified as a natural right. Moreover, the founders would have found it immoral, and thus would not have even considered it as a right.
I find it rather amazing that if someone hurts a woman, causing her to lose her unborn child, it's a travesty that the child died. However, if that same woman were to abort that same child, that's okay, no problem, just exercising her reproductive rights. Doesn't pass the stink test.
Now, if you believe that the unborn child is a living person, than you may believe that one's control control over their body ends when another life is adversely affected. A recent national poll shows that 60% of American women believe that Abortion is wrong and agree that it should be illegal, except in very rare cases where the life of the mother is at great risk, or rape.
Is Plan B the equivalent to a third trimester abortion to you?
-
I was wathcing the history channel and there was a historian on there that said the wild west wasnt that wild since everyone was strapped, its mostly hollywood build up.
I read somewhere that the frontier didnt look like cowboy movies with shootouts all the time because bullets cost like $10 each and almost everyone was in abject poverty ...
-
I read somewhere that the frontier didnt look like cowboy movies with shootouts all the time because bullets cost like $10 each and almost everyone was in abject poverty ...
This isn't correct... A typical Colt revolver sold for $12 in 1870, and $13.50 in 1875. Indeed, you could buy a double barrel shotgun from Sears for under $14. Ammunition was very inexpensive by today's standard. A box of 44/40 cartridges typically sold for about $2 (50 rounds). Two dollars was a significant amount back then, when earnings may not exceed $30 a month.
Shootouts were mostly confined to saloons and drunks, and generally confined to seasonal cattle drives and those who moved the cattle. Young men with little sense, money to burn and little to no concept of acceptable social behavior. Violence in major eastern cities was usually more common than in the west.
(http://www.cornellpubs.com/Images2/A-F%201904.jpg)
(http://www.cornellpubs.com/Images4/Sears%201901%20cover.jpg)
(http://www.cornellpubs.com/Images3/Sears%201908.jpg)
-
I think this thread is pretty much done at this point and the major actors in it are about to just start talking in circles and rehasing the same points , so i give you TITS!
(http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/3/24/1237914679599/Long-tailed-tits-001.jpg)
-
Silat It is a inconvenient truth that every country, state county city in which strict gun bans are instituted, violent crime dramatically increases, period. The emotional crowd doesn't like facts or Proof, they can't understand information that is not based on gooshie, touchie, feelie emotions, but you can't argue(Effectively) with proof, but I would advise you neighbors to get a sign in their yards... :neener:
(http://www.panamalaw.org/images/gun_yard_sign.jpg)
PS Natalie60 Nice tits... :ahand
-
Silat It is a inconvenient truth that every country, state county city in which strict gun bans are instituted, violent crime dramatically increases, period. The emotional crowd doesn't like facts or Proof, they can't understand information that is not based on gooshie, touchie, feelie emotions, but you can't argue(Effectively) with proof, but I would advise you neighbors to get a sign in their yards... :neener:
(http://www.panamalaw.org/images/gun_yard_sign.jpg)
PS Natalie60 Nice tits... :ahand
Yup that's why Massachusetts has the lowest gun death rates in the USA and Louisiana has the highest.
http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm (http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm)
-
Yup that's why Massachusetts has the lowest gun death rates in the USA and Louisiana has the highest.
http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm (http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm)
No it's because they cook the books in Massachusetts, if you remove all accidental deaths wow that's kinda sneaky. I'm not going to surrender my firearms because some dip stick didn't use fafe methods...Oh lets outllaw cars because of teeage racers & DWI's... :huh :ahand , plus they're all Cho-Mo's in Mass & the judges let Ch-Mo's outa jail early. There must not be any laws in Mass, so no one can legally get shot for breaking the law 'cause there isn't any. Hmmm :noid
-
Silat It is a inconvenient truth that every country, state county city in which strict gun bans are instituted, violent crime dramatically increases, period. The emotional crowd doesn't like facts or Proof, they can't understand information that is not based on gooshie, touchie, feelie emotions, but you can't argue(Effectively) with proof, but I would advise you neighbors to get a sign in their yards... :neener:
(http://www.panamalaw.org/images/gun_yard_sign.jpg)
PS Natalie60 Nice tits... :ahand
that sign is hilarious :rofl
-
No it's because they cook the books in Massachusetts, if you remove all accidental deaths wow that's kinda sneaky. I'm not going to surrender my firearms because some dip stick didn't use fafe methods...Oh lets outllaw cars because of teeage racers & DWI's... :huh :ahand , plus they're all Cho-Mo's in Mass & the judges let Ch-Mo's outa jail early. There must not be any laws in Mass, so no one can legally get shot for breaking the law 'cause there isn't any. Hmmm :noid
Hmm so I guess the people in..
Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 18.03 per 100,000.
Wyoming--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 62.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.64 per 100,000.
Alabama--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.63 per 100,000.
Montana--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.03 per 100,000.
Mississippi--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 54.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.50 per 100,000.
need better firearm training...
All this talk of cooking books makes me wanna cook some pies... Zack want some pie?
-
Suitable John Wayne quotes. Some from interviews, others from movies.... Just a few.
Interview:
“Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It’s perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we’ve learned something from yesterday.”
Films:
“I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them."
“Now you understand. Anything goes wrong, anything at all… your fault, my fault, nobody’s fault… it don’t matter… I’m gonna blow your head off. It’s as simple as that.”
“Well, son, since you haven’t learned to respect your elders, it’s time you learned to respect your betters.”
"Lifes tough, but its tougher when you’re stupid."
dont forget this one from an interview with playboy:
"I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t feel guilty about the fact that five or ten generations ago these people were slaves”, in a 1971 interview with Playboy magazine.
semp
-
Blah John Wayne quotes.. Give us some Chuck Norris quotes that matter :rock
-
Blah John Wayne quotes.. Give us some Chuck Norris quotes that matter :rock
once fugitive tried to draw a cartoon about chuck norris. when fugitive woke a week later he gave us an excuse for no cartoon due to him being on vacation.
semp
-
dont forget this one from an interview with playboy:
"I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t feel guilty about the fact that five or ten generations ago these people were slaves”, in a 1971 interview with Playboy magazine.
semp
Common in 71. Why should anyone in that time or today feel guilty. Folks in 71 and today had nothing to do with it.If anything they were brought to America for their service. Now their decendants live here instead of over there.... lucky for them. Back when slaves were being bought and brought over... many of the Africans were the ones selling the folks into slavery.
Today if anyone (white, black, brown, yellow, red, or green) passes on education they can plan on being slaves and a burden on the productive community.
-
so for places like the empire state building, courthouses, that colorado theatre etc. where you cant take a gun in, can you check in your weapon for secure storage until you leave?
sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to understand the practicalities :)
Every time I have gone to the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania courthouse, I have checked-in my weapon and so has my wife. I cannot speak for New York residents, Texans or any other place.
EDIT:
In PA, signs on businesses that prohibit firearms do not carry the weight of the law
-
Common in 71. Why should anyone in that time or today feel guilty. Folks in 71 and today had nothing to do with it.If anything they were brought to America for their service. Now their decendants live here instead of over there.... lucky for them. Back when slaves were being bought and brought over... many of the Africans were the ones selling the folks into slavery.
Today if anyone (white, black, brown, yellow, red, or green) passes on education they can plan on being slaves and a burden on the productive community.
but the thing is that this isnt about you or me or his descendents or who sold what into slavery. this is about somebody who a lot of people believe was the incarnation of everything that is good and just. I am just pointing out that although he wasnt an evil person, he actually wasnt a righteous one either. somebody researched what was the reason he declined the role in "the defiant ones".
I grew up watching the duke and although I admire him for his roles in movies, I know that in real life that's not how he was and he never changed his beliefs.
semp
-
but the thing is that this isnt about you or me or his descendents or who sold what into slavery. this is about somebody who a lot of people believe was the incarnation of everything that is good and just. I am just pointing out that although he wasnt an evil person, he actually wasnt a righteous one either. somebody researched what was the reason he declined the role in "the defiant ones".
I grew up watching the duke and although I admire him for his roles in movies, I know that in real life that's not how he was and he never changed his beliefs.
semp
That was my point..... what was to change. What he said stands for every color. He was only asked about one color.
You have to see it in context.
-
That was my point..... what was to change. What he said stands for every color. He was only asked about one color.
You have to see it in context.
ok let me see in context: he believed that whites were superior to blacks and that blacks were just a bunch of uneducated people? really?, no blacks were educated back then? or please explain which "context" you are talking about.
semp
-
Common in 71. Why should anyone in that time or today feel guilty. Folks in 71 and today had nothing to do with it.If anything they were brought to America for their service. Now their decendants live here instead of over there.... lucky for them. Back when slaves were being bought and brought over... many of the Africans were the ones selling the folks into slavery.
Today if anyone (white, black, brown, yellow, red, or green) passes on education they can plan on being slaves and a burden on the productive community.
If they hadn't been brought here as slaves, they would have suffered genocide by some "War Lord", starved to death, killed by Apartheid white supremacists, or worse yet their great grandchildren would be suffering worse. No slavery isn't right, but IMO their generations are far better off by a large percentage. You don't see any boats full of USA refugees headed for Africa. :old:
-
If they hadn't been brought here as slaves, they would have suffered genocide by some "War Lord", starved to death, killed by Apartheid white supremacists, or worse yet their great grandchildren would be suffering worse. No slavery isn't right, but IMO their generations are far better off by a large percentage. You don't see any boats full of USA refugees headed for Africa. :old:
Maybe, maybe not. But chances are that one of those would have happened.
I agree.. slavery is not right and never was right. It is however a part of human history. Many folks of all colors and creeds have been forced into slavery in the past centuries. Africans were not the first or the last to be forced into slavery.
-
I was forced by my employer (The Justice Dept) to sit in a chapel & listen to Al Sharpton tell us why we were racists because we refused to pay reparations, etc. etc..... :huh Me & 2 other officers got up & walked out right in front of him giving him that "Go to hell" look. :furious What a dumb-arse