guns and bullets

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

Laws couldn't have avoided this...don't you see? he had his own law. You are not trying to feel him.
You are thinking of him as rational law abiding, like you are. He would have done this whatever the law,
with or without a gun. That is not speculation. He was swept into his mission. He was premeditated.
He was living out his calling. He was filled with hate. This was his outcome.

you didnt answer: so you are just OK with what happened and dont see ANY WAY to avoid things like this?

How are you able to say that about me?! for one who preaches to not judge so much... :roll:

I have looked at this from many perspectives. I dont know the answer, but I do know that this is a major failure in our society. A 9 yr old girl is DEAD. Did you see my other post? I said maybe a stricter law could have postponed it JUST long enough that someone would've recognized his mental instabilities. We cant just sit back and say, oh its just gonna happen no matter what... :? thats not a good attitude for me to take.

ummm :? what did I say about you again? I don't roll eyes at people either I think that is degrading to others

its not a big deal, but I just dont like when people tell me what i'm thinking. you were dead wrong, you said:

pandora wrote:

You are not trying to feel him.
You are thinking of him as rational law abiding, like you are.

sorry about the eyes roll, I just find it degrading when people tell me what i'm thinking.
and you still didnt answer any questions.

AZ has some of the most permissive in the country. just saw this 5 minutes ago:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018491/ns ... ?GT1=43001
Wanna bet that changes?

mikepegg44

I think guns are perfect microcosm of the issues that our government has on its plate. For years they have gone halfway with legislation, adding costs of unknown amounts to the national debt as the gun debate rages on. Lobbyists gain influence over politicians, and so forth and so on. But in the end, all the laws that they put out there in the name of helping curb gun violence or whatever else they claim will happen really do nothing. The new health care law is the same way. They went halfway, thus eliminating very few if any of the actual problems and wasting countless dollars in the process. I realize that this may be rambling a little, but it makes perfect sense to me

What I am meaning to say is simple in its idea though, government involvement in everyday lives like this really doesn't do much. Making it harder for citizens who follow the rules doesn't really do much to stop those who don't from doing whatever they want...it is really time for federal/state government to rethink the way they create, execute, and punish violations of law. Why continue to fight losing battles on things like guns, drugs, healthcare, when those resources would be better used to build infrastructure etc. Unless the politicians are willing to go 100% one way or the other nothing will truly ever be solved.

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

its not a big deal, but I just dont like when people tell me what i'm thinking. you were dead wrong, you said:

pandora wrote:

You are not trying to feel him.
You are thinking of him as rational law abiding, like you are.

sorry about the eyes roll, I just find it degrading when people tell me what i'm thinking.
and you still didnt answer any questions.

AZ has some of the most permissive in the country. just saw this 5 minutes ago:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018491/ns ... ?GT1=43001
Wanna bet that changes?

I didn't say what you were thinking I said you were not feeling the insanity here in this guy.
It seemed to me you felt laws would stop him from doing what he did which they won't,
not when you put your head where his is.
So I have answered your questions ...I have made my point
no laws will stop this type of thing...in my opinion.
Not even a total ban of guns.... nothing.
The actions of people like this are uncontrollable and taking away rights of others is wrong and not a solution.
As far as the eye rolling it seems a bit standard in these parts and is really an unkind and disrespectful thing to do.

fife

mikepegg44 wrote:

I think guns are perfect microcosm of the issues that our government has on its plate. For years they have gone halfway with legislation, adding costs of unknown amounts to the national debt as the gun debate rages on. Lobbyists gain influence over politicians, and so forth and so on. But in the end, all the laws that they put out there in the name of helping curb gun violence or whatever else they claim will happen really do nothing. The new health care law is the same way. They went halfway, thus eliminating very few if any of the actual problems and wasting countless dollars in the process. I realize that this may be rambling a little, but it makes perfect sense to me

What I am meaning to say is simple in its idea though, government involvement in everyday lives like this really doesn't do much. Making it harder for citizens who follow the rules doesn't really do much to stop those who don't from doing whatever they want...it is really time for federal/state government to rethink the way they create, execute, and punish violations of law. Why continue to fight losing battles on things like guns, drugs, healthcare, when those resources would be better used to build infrastructure etc. Unless the politicians are willing to go 100% one way or the other nothing will truly ever be solved.

I can understand what you are saying here but for me and just for me. I think governments should begin to look at problems in a different way. I think governments should look at spending more money on mental health to help people who have major mental health issues deal with life. that may not have worked with this guy i do believe it would stop more crimes in the future. helping the poor will help in curbing crime. as tupac once said "instead of a war on poverty, they got a war on drugs so that the police can bother me." but the biggest issue i see facing this world is the idea of more. everyone wants more: more money, more freedom, more more and more and until we fix that mindset things like this will continue to happen.

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

its not a big deal, but I just dont like when people tell me what i'm thinking. you were dead wrong, you said:

pandora wrote:

You are not trying to feel him.
You are thinking of him as rational law abiding, like you are.

sorry about the eyes roll, I just find it degrading when people tell me what i'm thinking.
and you still didnt answer any questions.

AZ has some of the most permissive in the country. just saw this 5 minutes ago:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41018491/ns ... ?GT1=43001
Wanna bet that changes?

I didn't say what you were thinking I said you were not feeling the insanity here in this guy.
It seemed to me you felt laws would stop him from doing what he did which they won't,
not when you put your head where his is.
So I have answered your questions ...I have made my point
no laws will stop this type of thing...in my opinion.
Not even a total ban of guns.... nothing.
The actions of people like this are uncontrollable and taking away rights of others is wrong and not a solution.
As far as the eye rolling it seems a bit standard in these parts and is really an unkind and disrespectful thing to do.

Did you read the article? Clips with 30 rounds were banned until 2004.
the AZ shooter was tackled when he tried to put in a new clip.
What if there was a law that limited a clip to 10 bullets? maybe 3 people dead instead of 6?
maybe.
does that really make 'responsible' gun owners compromise too much?
I sure dont think so.
its not a ban, its a compromise, and it coul've made a difference.

I understand you think the eye roll is disrepectful, but not EVERYBODY thinks like you. It is a smily face with an eye roll. My intentions were to jab fun. Maybe you didnt intend on offending me eitrher when you told me how I was thinking. You clearly said I was thinking of him of him as a rational law abiding, when I absolutely was not.

pandora

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Did you read the article? Clips with 30 rounds were banned until 2004.
the AZ shooter was tackled when he tried to put in a new clip.
What if there was a law that limited a clip to 10 bullets? maybe 3 people dead instead of 6?
maybe.
does that really make 'responsible' gun owners compromise too much?
I sure dont think so.
its not a ban, its a compromise, and it coul've made a difference.

I understand you think the eye roll is disrepectful, but not EVERYBODY thinks like you. It is a smily face with an eye roll. My intentions were to jab fun. Maybe you didnt intend on offending me eitrher when you told me how I was thinking. You clearly said I was thinking of him of him as a rational law abiding, when I absolutely was not.

:roll: This smiley face is not smiling... if you could hear it there with the tisk or geez sound...not funny
and your comment 'not everybody thinks like me" I also get the jab there with your caps lock I guess you felt the need to shout that word.
Being kind is being cautious with another's feelings, and rolling eyes is not being cautious it is offensive to anothers opinion. A real put down.


This is what I said

Laws couldn't have avoided this...don't you see? he had his own law. You are not trying to feel him.
You are thinking of him as rational law abiding, like you are. He would have done this whatever the law,
with or without a gun. That is not speculation. He was swept into his mission. He was premeditated.
He was living out his calling. He was filled with hate. This was his outcome.

I stand by that, in my opinion you think a law will stop him, I do not. Laws only stop law abiding people so I assumed you thought he was law abiding to some degree.

I have also said many times here I am not up on each states laws but in general feel the laws that impose waiting restrictions and do background checks are sufficient.

Chip McFlennigan

CROJAM95 wrote:

How come we rarely hear about chicks shooting up crowds??? Anyone???

Too messy. Chicks normally poison entire crowds. Happens all over the world every single day.

JonnyPistachio

pandora wrote:

I stand by that, in my opinion you think a law will stop him, I do not. Laws only stop law abiding people so I assumed you thought he was law abiding to some degree.

I have also said many times here I am not up on each states laws but in general feel the laws that impose waiting restrictions and do background checks are sufficient.

You dont agree that with less bullets in a clip, less people would have died?

Chip McFlennigan

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

I stand by that, in my opinion you think a law will stop him, I do not. Laws only stop law abiding people so I assumed you thought he was law abiding to some degree.

I have also said many times here I am not up on each states laws but in general feel the laws that impose waiting restrictions and do background checks are sufficient.

You dont agree that with less bullets in a clip, less people would have died?

The guy was carrying an estimated 90 bullets, wasn't he?

ed243421

dunkman wrote:

HeidiJam wrote:

Moonpig wrote:

America has the same issues as that of other countries in the western world - and yet the majority of the populace does not feel the need to arm themselves - why is that do you think? And enough of this argument that they take it up the ass from their governments, I really do think you would be suprised at peoples ability to question their governments (the only difference is, not have have a paranoid, irrational fear government agents are going to come get them in the dead of night).

The country I am from has a bloody history when it comes to guns and indeed bombs. Fact is, as a progressive step forward, those involved in the violence sat down, worked out an agreement (not perfect, but it's a start) and then you nkow what they did - put their guns into a hole and poured cement over it. This sides have been fueding for centuries, some said it was in our blood, and yet now these same people who grew up killing eachother dit side by side sharing power (to some extent).

There is such a thing as life with out guns, it's not a them and us for godsake, your fear is an irrational one.

But please just explain to me how other countries manage it - take Canada for instance, what is the difference there???

There is life without guns, but there is no life without criminals... I have a hard time beliving if guns went extinct and people started killing with the next best available tool that you to would not want to put a ban and restrictions on that. Its the way you/ your group think. You can't eliminate everything because a small minority use the object as an instrument to kill. Same with alcohol you can't take it away from people because some use it in excess and make bad decisions like killing and abusing people. People have been kililng people since the begining of time and have been using whatever is easiest to get that job done. YOu guys act as if guns are loading themselves and pulling their own trigger back and pointing it to a target. There not! Messed up people are. How do you people not get that gun bans only effect law abiding citizens they do not effect criminals.

are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?

great question dunk

can any of the gun lovers answer this one?

mikepegg44

ed243421 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

"HeidiJam wrote:

are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?

great question dunk

can any of the gun lovers answer this one?

[/quote][/quote][/quote]


I am. i cannot speak for everyeone, but I think the entire world should be able to have whatever they can get themselves. If they want nuclear energy they should have it, and if they want a nuclear weaspons program they should have it...for as much posturing as all nations do, no world leader desires the world to be blown up.

fife

are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?[/quote]

great question dunk

can any of the gun lovers answer this one?[/quote]

I don't think many people are gun-lovers here. I think most people just say that putting more restriction of gun only effect law-abiding citizens and would not have stopped this from happening. also, going with that question about Iran and North Korea, i would believe that the people would have the same answer.

fife

mikepegg44 wrote:

ed243421 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

"HeidiJam wrote:

are you ok with North Korea and Iran having nuclear weapons?

great question dunk

can any of the gun lovers answer this one?

[/quote][/quote]


I am. i cannot speak for everyeone, but I think the entire world should be able to have whatever they can get themselves. If they want nuclear energy they should have it, and if they want a nuclear weaspons program they should have it...for as much posturing as all nations do, no world leader desires the world to be blown up.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

sorry Mike, but i don't agree with this answer. I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons as no good comes from them.

pjfan021

guns are made for killing...either animals or people. I don't think many people are using handguns to kill deer, so why do people need handguns? To protect themselves? For every 100 people in this country there are 90 guns...seems like a lot. After the US, Yemen is the next closest with about 60 for every 100...why do we need so many guns in this country? I don't own any or know too much about them, but would it be crazy to ban handguns in this country aside from law enforcement? I don't know, just doesn't seem that easy for a guy to pull off a drive buy with a rifle, not too easy for a mentally insane guy to discretely carry around a rifle or a shotgun...idk. I say get rid of them all but that won't happen; we need to at least get some better ammunition laws in place. People should not be able to buy 30 round magazines for a handgun. It's not necessary at all.

Godfather.

this is going way too deep...nukes and guns ? gimmi a freakin break. :shock:
Godfather.

JonnyPistachio

johnny america wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

pandora wrote:

I stand by that, in my opinion you think a law will stop him, I do not. Laws only stop law abiding people so I assumed you thought he was law abiding to some degree.

I have also said many times here I am not up on each states laws but in general feel the laws that impose waiting restrictions and do background checks are sufficient.

You dont agree that with less bullets in a clip, less people would have died?

The guy was carrying an estimated 90 bullets, wasn't he?

Yes, but he was tackled and held down after dispensing his first clip.
a law was lifted in AZ in 2004 limiting the clip capacity.
Had the original laws been in place, some lives couldve been saved.

I cant for the life of me understand how people cant see how some laws could save lives. Its as simple as ammo limits in clips. if the clips that hold 30 rounds sre limited to 10 rounds, even if he bought two guns, he wouldnt have gotten off as many rounds. Lives could've been saved.

Jason P

pjfan021 wrote:

guns are made for killing...either animals or people. I don't think many people are using handguns to kill deer, so why do people need handguns? To protect themselves? For every 100 people in this country there are 90 guns...seems like a lot. After the US, Yemen is the next closest with about 60 for every 100...why do we need so many guns in this country? I don't own any or know too much about them, but would it be crazy to ban handguns in this country aside from law enforcement? I don't know, just doesn't seem that easy for a guy to pull off a drive buy with a rifle, not too easy for a mentally insane guy to discretely carry around a rifle or a shotgun...idk. I say get rid of them all but that won't happen; we need to at least get some better ammunition laws in place. People should not be able to buy 30 round magazines for a handgun. It's not necessary at all.

Common sense and reasoning are ignored by the pro-gun lobbies. I don't blame them as they have witnessed the fall of the cigarette industry first hand. Slowly but surely, the tobacco industry was hit with a constant barrage of laws and limitations to the point that current people that smoke are looked at like savages by a majority of the public. I believe that is why the N.R.A. is so tenacious at defending everything.

As for handguns, I believe that a test needs to be taken along with the background check. I don't think it will happen but it makes sense (when I'm king, tests and permits will be required for handguns, dangerous dog ownership, and people that are considering co-signing a loan).

Also, I do know a few people that hunt with handguns. Our state allows you to use a rifle round in a handgun during shotgun season so using a handgun gives some people a tactical advantage. But I would thing that only a slim minority do this.

As for myself, I own a handgun. Not sure why I bought it ... I think I had just read The Stand and either the bird or swine flu hype was in full swing so maybe I was a little paranoid. I only use it to target shoot and don't have it loaded with any people-stopper ammo as my neighborhood is nice.

As for using a gun for self defense, one of my good friends found himself awakened one night by a strange sound. He heard another sound a minute later and was certain that an intruder was in his house so he grabbed his .44 Magnum and went to investigate. He had the hammer cocked, turned out into his hallway were he found himself face-to-face with the intruder. He said he was very close to pulling the trigger but instead yelled for the man to hit the ground. Turns out, the intruder was one of his neighbor's cousins that was drunk and had mistakenly entered the wrong house. Anyway, my buddy was pretty shaken up over the incident as he was very close to killing an innocent person. . . I'm not sure what the point of that story is, but I thought I'd share it.

wolfamongwolves

Live blog from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jan/11/arizona-shootings-fallout-live-blog

8.31pm GMT / 3.31pm ET: This is the sort of story that just makes one slap oneself on the side of the head and bang one's foreheard firmly but sharply on the nearest desk. Bloomberg reports that Glock sales in the wake of the Tucson shooting (which saw a Glock wielded to such lethal impact) have soared in the local area. Not only that, but that gun-shop owners predicted it would do so as soon as news about the massacre broke. "We're at double our volume over what we usually do," one happy shopkeeper tells the news agency. Incidentally, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre also used a Glock. That saw 32 people murdered in cold blood. The whole thing is madness. Normally this sort of "brand association" would destroy a product. But here it just brings a sales boost.

8.18pm GMT / 3.18pm ET: Defenders of gun rights have claimed – as they do after every mass shooting – that if only people nearby in Tucson on Saturday had had weapons then the death toll would have been less. Some of have even made much of the fact that one of the people who subdued Jared Lee Loughner was armed. That man, Joe Zamudio, has even been hailed as proof that more guns, more widely held would equal less deaths. Yet, as Slate points out, Zamudio, who was shopping nearby, has admitted that when he arrived on the scene the person holding Loughner's gun was no longer Loughner. It was an innocent bystander who had picked it up. It is to Zamudio's great credit that he did not shoot. But he himself admitted: "I was very lucky." Zamudio also confessed that he himself – with gun in hand – was worried he might be mistaken for a second shooter.

Far from backing up the argument for more guns, Zamudio's experience actually strengthens the reverse case. It shows that more guns = more confusion. More guns = more chances for people to be accidentally shot. Speaking of which, a fraternity party went tragically wrong at a college in Florida when a male student showing off his gun accidentally killed a young girl and wounded another student. Can we finally conclude that when college students, who may have been drinking, have guns in their dorms that maybe, just maybe, there are just too many weapons in circulation?

Godfather.

wolfamongwolves wrote:

Live blog from the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/jan/11/arizona-shootings-fallout-live-blog

8.31pm GMT / 3.31pm ET: This is the sort of story that just makes one slap oneself on the side of the head and bang one's foreheard firmly but sharply on the nearest desk. Bloomberg reports that Glock sales in the wake of the Tucson shooting (which saw a Glock wielded to such lethal impact) have soared in the local area. Not only that, but that gun-shop owners predicted it would do so as soon as news about the massacre broke. "We're at double our volume over what we usually do," one happy shopkeeper tells the news agency. Incidentally, the shooter in the Virginia Tech massacre also used a Glock. That saw 32 people murdered in cold blood. The whole thing is madness. Normally this sort of "brand association" would destroy a product. But here it just brings a sales boost.

8.18pm GMT / 3.18pm ET: Defenders of gun rights have claimed – as they do after every mass shooting – that if only people nearby in Tucson on Saturday had had weapons then the death toll would have been less. Some of have even made much of the fact that one of the people who subdued Jared Lee Loughner was armed. That man, Joe Zamudio, has even been hailed as proof that more guns, more widely held would equal less deaths. Yet, as Slate points out, Zamudio, who was shopping nearby, has admitted that when he arrived on the scene the person holding Loughner's gun was no longer Loughner. It was an innocent bystander who had picked it up. It is to Zamudio's great credit that he did not shoot. But he himself admitted: "I was very lucky." Zamudio also confessed that he himself – with gun in hand – was worried he might be mistaken for a second shooter.

Far from backing up the argument for more guns, Zamudio's experience actually strengthens the reverse case. It shows that more guns = more confusion. More guns = more chances for people to be accidentally shot. Speaking of which, a fraternity party went tragically wrong at a college in Florida when a male student showing off his gun accidentally killed a young girl and wounded another student. Can we finally conclude that when college students, who may have been drinking, have guns in their dorms that maybe, just maybe, there are just too many weapons in circulation?

those are all the once anti gun owners waking up and thinking to them selfs "I need a gun to protect my family and friends"

Godfather.

eMMI

After reading this thread, I just had to look into the Finnish laws about gun ownership. (Carrying a gun here is illegal, unless it is required in your work or you have a valid reason. Self-protection doesn't cut it.)

To own a gun you have to be 18 years old, but I guess that's a given. Health and behaviour must leave the individual fit to own a gun or any part of a gun. Drug abuse or criminal offenses in the past may and will make it impossible to get a permit.

After a school shooting in 2008 the legislation was modified to require all persons applying for a permit for a handgun to provide verification of their mental health, proving that they don't have any psychich illness or mental difficulty that could lead to them harming themselves or others. All applicants must be interviewed personally.

Applications take around two weeks to be handled, during which as wide as possible a background check is made.

If or when the application is approved, the applicant gets a time period during which to purchase their gun and within 30 days, they must present their weapon for inspection to the police.

The first permit is nearly always valid for 1-3 years, when that time is up, permit holder can apply for an indefinite permit. For this they must provide proof that their gun was only used for the purpose it was acquired for.

If the application is declined, the applicant can file a complaint, but that proves pointless most of the time (as the reasons for rejection are always valid).


Sorry if this is hard to read, but it's quite late and I'm having to jump back and forth between a dictionary, this page and the gun legislation stuff.

Anyway, I'm not saying Finland has perfected weapons legislation, but I'm quite happy with it. Yes, there have been some tragedies (two school shootings), but we've learned from them and changed the rules for everyone. (I'm not gonna get into the whole "criminals will always get guns if they want them"-debate as this post would become incredibly long.)

HeidiJam wrote:

Why do some of you in here view fear/questioning our government as a bad thing???

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering..