I watched a bit from a couple of episodes. You can't tell me these people are 'all there'. I don't care what adults do to themselves, but present that kind of paranoia to their kids and make them live it? How can these have a normal life as adults??? It is very scary because you just don't know what these kind of people can be up to. What they might perceive as a threat and therefore perhaps take drastic action with the weapons they are stockpiling.
Can I say 'only in America' or will I get blasted for that?
...
The fire power some of those groups of people yielded could take out a lot of smaller police and sheriff forces. A lot of them had way more powerful weapons.
...
My personal favorite: The gal that was waiting for the day when the oil supplies were depleted. Her plan was to shoot her pet cat in the head, grab her 60 pound pack and weapons and walk 20 miles to a bug-out vehicle... and DRIVE to Mexico. The gas would be scarce or gone, and she was planning to drive to Mexico.
Yeah, her destination, that rock of stability... Mexico.
She needs to rent 'Mad Max' and see what people would do for a Ford F-150 with extra tanks of gasoline.
Cosmo your stories are so wild sometimes I think you're makin' them up. Why the hell does she need to shoot her cat? Because she doesn't feel like dragging it along and doesn't want it to end up as food? Have you ever tried to catch a cat that didn't want to be caught? Just set the fucker free it would probably be have a better chance of survival than she would.
As for mexico, screw that it's way too hot. I'm thinking middle America, somewhere north of, oh I dunno, Oklahoma.
james holmes was law abiding until he decided to kill a bunch of people so how do you test who is law abiding and who isn't?? Most of these people don't have any criminal records or any history of any mental illness.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Cosmo your stories are so wild sometimes I think you're makin' them up. Why the hell does she need to shoot her cat? Because she doesn't feel like dragging it along and doesn't want it to end up as food? Have you ever tried to catch a cat that didn't want to be caught? Just set the fucker free it would probably be have a better chance of survival than she would.
As for mexico, screw that it's way too hot. I'm thinking middle America, somewhere north of, oh I dunno, Oklahoma.
...
Cat is a burden and dead weight. It cannot be a guard animal like a dog that will alert you when someone is approaching. She was serious about shooting the cat... for his own good.
And this bug out truck... it was 20 fucking miles away! Who's to say that people wouldn't ransack the thing? It had both primary and auxilary tanks that were both full. Gas is dwindling and no one is going to siphon her gas?
The best part... going to Mexico. The U.S. and the entire world is plunged into anarchy and chaos abounds... so, Mexico is going to be safer???
She decided she was out of shape when she was doing her timed dry run to the truck (she even pretended to shoot the cat). So guess what? She joined the fucking Army to get in shape... like that fat guy in the movie 'Stripes'.
You gotta see this show... 'Doomsday Preppers' on National Geographic. TmeWarner doesn't carry NatGeo, i watched it at my girlfriend's house. We watched the whole thing with our jaws dropped open.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I haven't heard much about the Constitution here...
just a bunch who want other people to not be allowed to own a gun and protect themselves
because they don't like guns...
And again why do you focus on guns instead of gun safety?
Gun safety and allowing those to safely own guns will stop crime as statistics show
in states where people can carry.
It's happening ...
gun safety classes have waiting lists as people refuse to be victims anymore.
One would think that would make everyone happy.
so why not learn from other countries that have successfully carried out strict gun laws and making them work? Their is a danger in becoming to insular... look at the world now. the wo most violent countries are Afgganistan and America.. how does that make sense when England, Australia, New Zealand etc etc all have small amount of gun deaths per year even smaller if you take into consideration per capita.... Australians don't want to be vitim's anymore so nobody buys guns.. in America if you get burnt their is a need to burn people back.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
james holmes was law abiding until he decided to kill a bunch of people so how do you test who is law abiding and who isn't?? Most of these people don't have any criminal records or any history of any mental illness.
Cat is a burden and dead weight. It cannot be a guard animal like a dog that will alert you when someone is approaching. She was serious about shooting the cat... for his own good.
And this bug out truck... it was 20 fucking miles away! Who's to say that people wouldn't ransack the thing? It had both primary and auxilary tanks that were both full. Gas is dwindling and no one is going to siphon her gas?
The best part... going to Mexico. The U.S. and the entire world is plunged into anarchy and chaos abounds... so, Mexico is going to be safer???
She decided she was out of shape when she was doing her timed dry run to the truck (she even pretended to shoot the cat). So guess what? She joined the fucking Army to get in shape... like that fat guy in the movie 'Stripes'.
You gotta see this show... 'Doomsday Preppers' on National Geographic. TmeWarner doesn't carry NatGeo, i watched it at my girlfriend's house. We watched the whole thing with our jaws dropped open.
You clearly have not met my cat She starts off with a low growl that culminates with her hurling herself against the front door :shock:
What a nutjob...and they let her in the army :shock: I've never heard of this show before. I think if all of this happened I may not want to survive. Better just to take my chances.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
You clearly have not met my cat She starts off with a low growl that culminates with her hurling herself against the front door :shock:
What a nutjob...and they let her in the army :shock: I've never heard of this show before. I think if all of this happened I may not want to survive. Better just to take my chances.
...
That's the thing... if people like this are going to be the ones who survive... I'd rather die than live and have them in charge.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Very insensitive some are and some even have the gall to call her story nonsense,
unbelievable the lack of respect.
oh you do go on. I called it nonsense not because of the content of the story, but because you have gone on and on about the same point, ONE POINT, for about 50 pages now.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
pandora is saying that guns in the hands of bad people are the problem, but we can't punish the ones who are responsible. so the solution is the arm ourselves and shoot and ask questions first. does this seem logical to you? to me it sounds incredibly paranoid and a horrible way to live.
why can't we just make all automatic and semi automatic and even handguns. 10 year prison term if caught, intent or not. zero tolerance. hunting rifles are fine, if kept unloaded in urban areas.
tell me how this would be a problem for you.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I just read this piece, and it gave me kind of a chuckle that a certain person here has used pretty much every cliche mentioned in this piece. Read on.
Responding to the Pro Gun Cliches
For far too long, people's views of the gun control issue have been driven by the slogans, cliches and rhetoric of the gun lobby. Since becoming a gun control advocate, I've heard them all--and I learned to respond to them all!
At one time the simplest cliches were sufficient--ones like, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." As Americans have grown more concerned with the level of gun violence, those simple cliches don't work any more. Other phrases, such as "law abiding citizens," "we already have 20,000 gun laws," and "one more law won't stop criminals" have become common props for the gun lobby.
In the end, those simplistic cliches and slogans don't solve our gun violence problem. Only action on a variety of fronts will address this shameful problem. But the gun lobby will continue to trot out its cliches, so I'm providing my brief responses to each of them. Since the cliches of gun supporters are short, mine will be the same.
These gun control advocates just want to take away our guns!
This is just a scare tactic of the gun lobby. It's their way of demonizing gun control advocates--by making gun owners think this is all about confiscation rather than having reasonable restrictions in place that mirror the Second Amendment's call for a "well regulated militia..."
There are some who would like to see guns banned. But most of us respect hunters and collectors and those who choose to have a gun for protection. We just want to do more to close loopholes, keep guns from children and irresponsible users, and make society safer. Besides, with more than 220 million firearms in this country, taking away guns would be impossible!
It's unfair to punish responsible gun owners with restrictive laws just because of the acts of irresponsible gun owners!
That's true. Life can be unfair. But we don't allow guns on airplanes, do we? And we ALL have to undergo screening at the airport, don't we, for the protection of us all?
Likewise, everyone has to undergo paperwork and a background check when buying a gun. We do so because it's impossible to define a "responsible" gun owner. So, we conduct a background check when selling a gun, to at least make sure the buyer isn't a felon or wife beater. But many pro gun advocates aren't even willing to support that type of step. I would hardly call that an unreasonable "punishment." The fact is that Americans have the easiest access to firearms in the Free World.
Furthermore, we don't wear labels that say we're responsible. Today's responsible gun owner can become angry and use it in anger, as we see all too often. We can't write laws that define "responsible" owners and exempt them from all laws--laws must be written for all.
If we lock up criminals and keep them there, we'd have no problem!
This country has been doing that: prison sentences have been lengthened and we've built thousands more prison cells. And what has happened? Still more shootings, by others not (yet) in jail.
The fact is that not everyone who uses a gun illegally is a felon before that moment. The boys who killed my son became felons when they took possession of the 9mm handgun and pulled the trigger. Even if they had been arrested for the threats they had made, they would not have been locked up for life. The fact is that guns are too plentiful and too easy to come by. Our jails are full of gun users who were previously law abiding citizens who suddenly shot others in a fit of anger, rage, jealousy or greed.
When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.
This is one of the most worn out cliches of gun promoters. Look, hardly anyone is seriously promoting the "outlawing" of guns. What's being discussed are merely common sense laws regarding the kinds of guns and ammunition available (military style assault weapons, armor piercing bullets), the capacity of gun magazines, and denial of access to kids, criminals, people under restraining orders, etc.
More important, there is the irony of their statement! Gun supporters worry so much about criminals with guns. But one thing that enables criminals to have such an arsenal of guns is the sheer volume of guns and the ease of purchasing guns in this country-something that the NRA and others have promoted! Go figure!
We need guns for our protection! You can't take away this right.
Who is talking about taking away your right to defend yourself? Again, this is another scare tactic. Unless you're a felon or kid or wife beater, you can get your gun so long as you pass the background check.
Of course, many families have managed to get by without a gun in their home. They realize, and studies have shown, that far more people are killed by their own guns (or because of them) than are used to protect their own lives. One university study showd that a gun in the home is over 20 times more likely to kill someone in or known to the family than it is to be used to kill an intruder. Still, if you wish to ignore this high risk, it's still your right to buy a gun for protection. It's just too bad that some people insist they must have an assault weapon with a 30 bullet magazine to feel safe...
We need weapons to protect ourselves from a tyrannical federal government.
No, we need to protect ourselves from those who say they need weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government! No reasonable person thinks the U.S. Military is going to be engaged in hand-to-hand, door-to-door combat with civilians. They would face mutiny. No, logically a tyrannical minded army would use its arsenal of far more powerful weapons. So shall we allow civilians to have bazookas? Tanks? Rocket Launchers? Surface to Air Missiles? ICBMs? Why not just let us all have our own nuclear weapons? Where does it all end?
Isn't it time that America say it's had enough with the dangerous, paranoid, militia types who promote conspiracy theories and maintain their own weapons arsenals? We've seen the hateful consequences of these people in Oklahoma City, Waco, and other places.
What have you got against the NRA, anyway? They're not the enemy!
When the NRA is involved in gun safety programs, it's a good organization, and we respect many of its members. But it has become an organization with a Field and Stream (magazine) membership but a Soldier of Fortune (mercenary magazine) leadership.
The NRA has a dark side. It fought the Brady Bill, the assault weapons ban, and most gun control legislation. For that they deserve our condemnation.
The NRA is unduly influenced by a group of extreme right wing people who promote unfettered access to guns and high-powered weapons. This is counter to the beliefs of most Americans, and it has also led to many moderates leaving the NRA.
Automobiles kill 40,000 people a year. Nobody's calling for THEIR elimination!
How ironic to hear this statement from gun supporters! No, people don't call for eliminating cars. Cars are designed to provide transportation. But because they can be dangerous, we do require that cars and their users be registered, insured and that users be tested before using them.
But we don't do that for guns. We require little other than a background check, which is far short from registration. No testing is required. And, guns are designed to shoot, and thus require careful control, because of their dangerous nature.
Knives are used to kill people. Will you want to outlaw knives next?
No of course not. Knives are a tool. They help us cut or slice things we can't or don't want to with our hands. To stab or slash someone is to misuse that tool. A gun is designed to shoot.
Additionally, a knife can't kill multiple people from a distance and is rarely used for mass murdering. An assault weapon like a Tec-9 or AK 47 gun can kill multiple people from a distance and is used for mass murdering.
Mr. Mauser is so deep in grief that he can't think rationally.
This is something you'll hear them say about me or about any other victim who calls for gun control. They find it impossible to take on our facts and our reasonableness, so they try to simply dismiss or condemn us. Paul Thomsen, of Fort Collins, Colo., said in a letter to the editor, that "he is so overwhelmed with justifiable grief that he is incapable of rational thought or action."
I can assure Mr. Thomsen that I capable of grieving and thinking at the same time! People in grief can't be so easily dismissed. In fact, I would contend that when you've been through a tragedy, sometimes some things become more self evident to you, despite your grief. Grief can make some things come more into focus.
(Mr. Thomsen's patronizing attempt to dismiss me was a poor one. He went on suggest that tragedies like Columbine could be prevented if we just let teachers carry concealed weapons. Oh, sure, the answer to increasing gun violence is to have more guns! By presenting such a ludicrous argument, he helped me more than his own cause, for most people are clearly concerned about the the prospect of having teachers carry guns. We need to demonstrate to ordinary Americans these ridiculous. extremist views of the gun lobby.)
Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
No, people with easily-accessible guns kill people.
Rather than pass more regulations, enforce the hundreds of laws already on the books!
We have a better idea: How about both? Let's do a better job of enforcement AND add laws that close loopholes. After all, the hundreds of laws have not stopped us from having 200 million firearms and over 15,000 gun homicides per year. Plus, we suspect that the NRA's enforcement complaint is just a smoke screen; if the federal government really did make a very strong effort to better enforce ALL existing gun regulations, the NRA would probably then scream bloody murder (oops, poor choice of words)!
NEW:
Why do people like Mr. Mauser try to take advantage of their loved ones' deaths to push gun control? It's unfair.
Take advantage? How are they "taking advantage" of death? They have suffered terrible losses and yet they put their grief out there for all to see, as they have to recount their loved ones' shooting deaths-all for the sake of trying to make our world a safer place.
They suddenly understand, firsthand, the terrible tragedy of losing 30,000 lives a year to gunshots and want to do something about it, so that others don't have to suffer as they have. They act selflessly, not for personal gain.
When the gun lobby condemns gun control advocates who become so because of the death of a loved one, they're simply mad because those gun control advocates are informing people of the terrible pain, and reminding them that it can happen to anyone.
You can't take away my Second Amendment rights. It's stated right there in black and white: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
So does the Bill of Rights provide us with absolute rights? We don't have an unchallenged right under the First Amendment to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, do we?
If the Second Amendment is absolute, then why don't we allow people to own bazookas? Why don't we let people carry guns in airplanes? Why don't we allow people to openly carry guns-like carrying around a shotgun under one's arm in a crowded mall? Aren't those restrictions an infringement on Second Amendment rights? But most people would support those restrictions. The fact is that society does put limitations on rights, for they cannot reasonably be absolute.
The gun lobby loves to quote those words, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." But they rarely cite the FULL text, which begins, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Since 1939 our high courts' position is that that language conveys a right to the states, not to individuals.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
food for thought. if we are to believe pandora in that if we are for gun control, this then also means we are "requiring her to be victimized", then the following must also be true, that Pandora is an advocate for the death of this constable's son:
A "RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER" WOULD NOT KILL HIS OWN SON, WOULD HE?????
Article excerpt follows:
NY State Cop Accidentally Shoots And Kills Own Son
By Wendy Gittleson
July 23, 2012
A New York police officer was on a casual motorcycle trip with his son and a group of other men, when he shot his son dead, thinking he was an intruder.
From Raw Story:
Village of Perry Officer Michael Leach, 59, was sleeping at around 12:50 a.m. on Saturday morning when he was awakened by someone entering his Old Forge hotel room. Thinking the person was an intruder, Leach fired one shot, killing his 37-year-old son Matthew, according to The Observer-Dispatch.
Michael Leach called 911 and stated that he had shot an intruder.
Matthew Leach was later pronounced dead St. Elizabeth Medical Center. The father was taken to Faxton St. Luke’s Healthcare for an unspecified medical issue.
While police are investigating the incident, it’s likely that it will be declared an accidental shooting.
Obviously, words can’t express the grief and guilt this father must be feeling, but in the wake of the Aurora, CO shooting, it does highlight a common argument in the gun control debate. After every shooting tragedy in the US, it seems that the pro-gun argument is that responsible gun owners would have helped mitigate the situation. Aurora was no exception, despite the fact that the shooter, dressed in black, filled the dark theater with smoke. Without night vision goggles, it’s unfathomable how more guns would have led to fewer victims.
Pending knowing the details of Officer Leach, it’s not a stretch to believe that he is a “responsible” gun owner, trained to handle and carry a gun with near perfect accuracy and without accidental mishap. The fact is, people, no matter how well-trained, are fallible. Sure, while it might literally be true that people kill people, guns are lethal. All it takes is a split-second reaction to either create or exacerbate a deadly tragedy.
Pandora: do you believe this man was just collateral damage to keep intact the freedom and safety of little miss ruby et al?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
One university study showd that a gun in the home is over 20 times more likely to kill someone in or known to the family than it is to be used to kill an intruder. Still, if you wish to ignore this high risk, it's still your right to buy a gun for protection. It's just too bad that some people insist they must have an assault weapon with a 30 bullet magazine to feel safe...
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
HFD - Mauser's 'Q&A' pretty much sums up this thread! I guess one can say that it's not 'neutral' and that this piece has an agenda. We understand that it's an opinion piece written by someone who lost a child in a mass shooting but it reflects quite accurately, the arguments/rebuffs and opinions of the people on this thread. A very good summary of it, actually!
No one is wanting to take away one's 'protection' but, whilst they may have the 'right' to own a gun for this, I also have the right to be safe in my home and not have a couple of 'responsible gun owners' having a 'domestic' spilling out on the street - along with their gun -and, being 'responsible' waving the loaded weapon away from the other person, the bullet going straight into my home. I have the right to be protected from this. Note: this person had a documented history of domestic violence (police and all) but was still allowed guns? Maybe I could have bought some kind of assault weapon and blasted the guy (and anything/anyone in the vincinity)? Would that have been the solution? Fight fire with fire. You have a gun, I have a bigger one? Until someone has a bigger one than me... when does this stop? Violence begets more violence.
A "RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER" WOULD NOT KILL HIS OWN SON, WOULD HE?????
....Village of Perry Officer Michael Leach, 59, was sleeping at around 12:50 a.m. on Saturday morning when he was awakened by someone entering his Old Forge hotel room. Thinking the person was an intruder, Leach fired one shot, killing his 37-year-old son Matthew, according to The Observer-Dispatch.
.
....it’s not a stretch to believe that he is a “responsible” gun owner, trained to handle and carry a gun with near perfect accuracy and without accidental mishap.
From what I can make of this, it would seem, again, that this may have been a loaded weapon kept 'out in the open' and readily available (or else he is bloody fast in getting his thoughts together being suddenly awaken, unsecuring the gun, getting the bullets, loading the gun, aiming and shooting at the 'intruder'). Even hotels have safes to put things that require locking up in and there are plenty of mini-safes/lock up boxes for those needing to travel with guns (good for the car, the hotel room, etc.). No excuse.
This man will live the rest of his life with the sorrow and the grief knowing he is responsible for his son's death.
I'm plenty aware that there are some laws, thanks. Unfortunately for Colorado, they have very few laws. I know floridas laws are a bit better, but not much. I think we dont need a permit or license. But there is a background check and a very small waiting period. Unfortuately, I can also purchase an AR-15 or a 50 caliber sniper able to take down helicopters. And I can get a concealed carry permit without leaving my house:
And yes my statement is directed at those wanting to take away guns and make laws stricter for the law abiding...
Well, then please refrain from directing comments at me being irrational when I've never (and about 98% of other in here have never said) to take away all guns. :?
And by the way, I have a lot of friends and relatives that have guns that never take any classes, training or educational courses whatsoever. My friend who almost shot me that is a cop, he has taken a lot of training as you might imagine.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/auror ... heater-had
The 2% which I totally disagree with Jonny, it is way more who are not being forthcoming,
this 2% are illogical and will always be a big problem and will be confronted
because of wanting to remove the right to protect oneself.
I am not for banning guns nor stricter laws on what can be owned
as long as criminals,police, military and the govt can possess the same.
So I will continue to address both. You are on the opposing side.
So I guess we will debate if that is ok with you and I will address both.
You want tighter gun laws yet there are strict gun laws that are proving no effect on crime.
The basic common sense about this is criminals don't follow the law
whether they be your everyday make a livelihood criminal, a sociopath or schizophrenic
in the midst of delusion.
It makes no sense to apply more laws to people who are not breaking them.
Enforce the ones we have...
the carry permits, have dropped crime in the states
that shows the good effect of guns for the responsible that own them
and are trained.
address the mental illness problem in our country, go to the source
make help readily available.
As in the bathtub scenario, the drowning deaths for children dwarf gun accidents
yet we do not blame the bathtub we blame the irresponsible adult.
Same here we must blame the parent who is uneducated or thoughtless
about safety...
this means... make safe gun use education easy and affordable for all.
Most especially for those in the inner cities, who often buy guns illegally,
not to commit crimes but to avoid being a victim in their own neighborhoods.
They buy them for protection but might lack respect for them.
They buy them at a fraction of the cost, there is no education
or training. Educate them don't take away their protection.
They have a right to live and protect themselves and their loved ones,
this should be done responsibly and safely.
so why not learn from other countries that have successfully carried out strict gun laws and making them work? Their is a danger in becoming to insular... look at the world now. the wo most violent countries are Afgganistan and America.. how does that make sense when England, Australia, New Zealand etc etc all have small amount of gun deaths per year even smaller if you take into consideration per capita.... Australians don't want to be vitim's anymore so nobody buys guns.. in America if you get burnt their is a need to burn people back.
read this article, non biased
the point ... taking guns away from law abiding folk has no effect on crime
crime is dropping around the world though, here in our US cities also,
it is attributed to many things...
tougher laws for incarceration, better technology, awareness,
better social help to stop domestic violence, better mental health care
even more guns protecting citizens, :thumbup:
etc. but what has been found stricter gun laws have no effect on crime
because criminals commit crimes and they are unaffected by laws.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
I'm plenty aware that there are some laws, thanks. Unfortunately for Colorado, they have very few laws. I know floridas laws are a bit better, but not much. I think we dont need a permit or license. But there is a background check and a very small waiting period. Unfortuately, I can also purchase an AR-15 or a 50 caliber sniper able to take down helicopters. And I can get a concealed carry permit without leaving my house:
And yes my statement is directed at those wanting to take away guns and make laws stricter for the law abiding...
Well, then please refrain from directing comments at me being irrational when I've never (and about 98% of other in here have never said) to take away all guns. :?
And by the way, I have a lot of friends and relatives that have guns that never take any classes, training or educational courses whatsoever. My friend who almost shot me that is a cop, he has taken a lot of training as you might imagine.
http://cnsnews.com/blog/ron-meyer/auror ... heater-had
The 2% which I totally disagree with Jonny, it is way more who are not being forthcoming,
this 2% are illogical and will always be a big problem and will be confronted
because of wanting to remove the right to protect oneself.
I am not for banning guns nor stricter laws on what can be owned
as long as criminals,police, military and the govt can possess the same.
So I will continue to address both. You are on the opposing side.
So I guess we will debate if that is ok with you and I will address both.
You want tighter gun laws yet there are strict gun laws that are proving no effect on crime.
The basic common sense about this is criminals don't follow the law
whether they be your everyday make a livelihood criminal, a sociopath or schizophrenic
in the midst of delusion.
It makes no sense to apply more laws to people who are not breaking them.
Enforce the ones we have...
the carry permits, have dropped crime in the states
that shows the good effect of guns for the responsible that own them
and are trained.
address the mental illness problem in our country, go to the source
make help readily available.
As in the bathtub scenario, the drowning deaths for children dwarf gun accidents
yet we do not blame the bathtub we blame the irresponsible adult.
Same here we must blame the parent who is uneducated or thoughtless
about safety...
this means... make safe gun use education easy and affordable for all.
Most especially for those in the inner cities, who often buy guns illegally,
not to commit crimes but to avoid being a victim in their own neighborhoods.
They buy them for protection but might lack respect for them.
They buy them at a fraction of the cost, there is no education
or training. Educate them don't take away their protection.
They have a right to live and protect themselves and their loved ones,
this should be done responsibly and safely.
I've been reading through this thread but not posting much no time it's a busy summer. Let me understand something here....it appears MOST here including myself DO NOT want to ban guns or take away gun rights in any way. However, I see no problem in having stricter laws in buying guns, rifles without background checks and doing so over the internet. You appear to be saying that the laws that are on the books in most states are tough enough. nI disagree.
Did you you see the laws in Colorado where we just had our last mass shooting that was posted earlier....do you think the CO laws are strict enough? Do you own a gun? From what I've read i don't think so yet you crusade on and on about how guns protect yet you yourself appear to not own one....walking the fence again. Practice what you preach if you don't own a gun.
Thrity plus years ago i was very familiar with guns especially rifles in that i planned on becoming a sniper after several years on my rifle team while in school and the military. I changed my mind but now I would like to get back into shooting once again just to see IF I can shoot as well as I once did. Once I do get this 22 caliber smallbore rifle I won't even bring it home it will stay at the gun club. I'm amazed though I can order this rifle without ANY background check over the internet...I just need my credit card and it'll be at my door in 6 days.
That needs to change... a 15 year old can order in the same way just as long as he has a credit card...something is truly wrong in America if it's THAT easy to get a rifle.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
I'm amazed though I can order this rifle without ANY background check over the internet...I just need my credit card and it'll be at my door in 6 days.
That needs to change... a 15 year old can order in the same way just as long as he has a credit card...something is truly wrong in America if it's THAT easy to get a rifle.
UNREAL....just need a credit card to buy as many guns u want....no checking who you are,backround check,if u crazy,,have huge criminal record,if u are healthy to carry a gun...etc
ok,if we ALL dont agree that is wrong,and need to change i dont have anything more to say than,the ones still support things stay the same must own a gun shop...
my logic can fit that people are THAT crazy to support that every fuckin crazy -criminal can buy a gun..
Post edited by dimitrispearljam on
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Title: "Aurora's Strict Gun Laws Didn't Prevent Shooting, But If One Law-Abiding Person In The Theater Had Been Carrying One..."
We all know what these laws are - only need to go back a few pages.
Somewhere in article, a 'corrected and clarified' bit: "there are already laws prohibiting the carry of a concealed dangerous weapon (though unenforced, due to state law)
So... 'strict laws' but cannot be enforced because state law has precedence. Basically - no 'strict' laws. And contradicts the 'sensational' title.
Again, the source of this blog/opinion piece (student and intern at http://www.yaf.org/), no research, nothing to substantiate her words (which was obvious as the 'journal' which reported this had to make corrections).....
Each and everyone can have an opinion (we all do). Let's not present them as facts (unless it is supported by valid and proven impartial research).
What this blog fails to mention is that maybe with less ease of purchase someone like Holmes wouldn't have been able to build up an arsenal with explosives and tear gas to top everything.
I'm amazed though I can order this rifle without ANY background check over the internet...I just need my credit card and it'll be at my door in 6 days.
That needs to change... a 15 year old can order in the same way just as long as he has a credit card...something is truly wrong in America if it's THAT easy to get a rifle.
Scary shit, isn't it? But it's OK - our laws are sufficient, aren't they? Who cares what and how many you purchase, whether you know how to use them or not, whether you are sane/angry/a psychopath/potential mass murderer or not, plotting something or not. You got it legally, so you are 'responsible'. You must be - the law which protects 'law abiding citizens' allows you to buy firearms in such a way. :roll:
so why not learn from other countries that have successfully carried out strict gun laws and making them work? Their is a danger in becoming to insular... look at the world now. the wo most violent countries are Afgganistan and America.. how does that make sense when England, Australia, New Zealand etc etc all have small amount of gun deaths per year even smaller if you take into consideration per capita.... Australians don't want to be vitim's anymore so nobody buys guns.. in America if you get burnt their is a need to burn people back.
biased much? ... generalize much? ... good lord
because criminals commit crimes and they are unaffected by laws.
I would suggest you reflect upon some of your own comments. There has been a fair bit of bias and generalization.
I think it's important to remember that the shooter who is the subject of this thread, as well as shooters in many of the recent mass shootings, had no criminal history. They weren't criminals...until they were.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
You want tighter gun laws yet there are strict gun laws that are proving no effect on crime.
The basic common sense about this is criminals don't follow the law
whether they be your everyday make a livelihood criminal, a sociopath or schizophrenic
in the midst of delusion.
It makes no sense to apply more laws to people who are not breaking them.
Enforce the ones we have...
Did you miss all the conversations regarding accidental shootings and people who arent criminals that go on shooting sprees? We're not just talking about your common thug who buys an illegal firearm. It makes no sense to you to have stricter laws, but you dont need to break a law to accidentally shoot and kill your own family members. You're not breaking any laws when you buy 6000 rounds of ammo, multiple pistols, a shotgun and an AR-15 and take it to a movie theater either.
And I don't consider most of our laws strict gun laws. They're pretty lax all over.
Scary shit, isn't it? But it's OK - our laws are sufficient, aren't they? Who cares what and how many you purchase, whether you know how to use them or not, whether you are sane/angry/a psychopath/potential mass murderer or not, plotting something or not. You got it legally, so you are 'responsible'. You must be - the law which protects 'law abiding citizens' allows you to buy firearms in such a way. :roll:
scary as hell.....
and come on...USA is a big power country,maybe number 1 in the world..
should be an example to follow and not an exable to avoid...
they really need to rethink this laws
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I'm amazed though I can order this rifle without ANY background check over the internet...I just need my credit card and it'll be at my door in 6 days.
That needs to change... a 15 year old can order in the same way just as long as he has a credit card...something is truly wrong in America if it's THAT easy to get a rifle.
Scary shit, isn't it? But it's OK - our laws are sufficient, aren't they? Who cares what and how many you purchase, whether you know how to use them or not, whether you are sane/angry/a psychopath/potential mass murderer or not, plotting something or not. You got it legally, so you are 'responsible'. You must be - the law which protects 'law abiding citizens' allows you to buy firearms in such a way. :roll:
Our laws are laughable. An absolute joke. It was brought up a few pages back that Florida has reduced crime coincidentally with the conceal carry laws. Hard to say if they're directly related...but on another note, Its nice to know I can do all that over the internet with no problem and have a gun in no time. Its ridiculous.
And by the way, they were all sold legally at one point I assume...maybe stricter laws on re-sell too?
GunderP, you sound like a good, responsible man...happy shooting to you.
One big change in law was the Brady Law - the criminal background check one - though these checks are still only for guns purchased from federally licensed dealers and not from gun shows, pawn shops, etc. It would seem this blocked 1.9m attempts of purchase by, as some would say, 'baddies' or 'not responsible' people. Now if this can be achieved with so little 'support' think of how many guns could be kept off the streets (and in the hands of unsavoury characters) if this background check was made for every single gun purchase, internet included. Naturally this won't stop the 'person to person' dealings but so many with 'intentions' do get guns from shows and unlicensed dealers.
'Responsible' gun owners are 'happy' to wait and have these checks done - it's for their own good too. Didn't seem to think it 'infringed' on their rights too much... I'm sure much more can be done.
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
I'm amazed though I can order this rifle without ANY background check over the internet...I just need my credit card and it'll be at my door in 6 days.
That needs to change... a 15 year old can order in the same way just as long as he has a credit card...something is truly wrong in America if it's THAT easy to get a rifle.
Scary shit, isn't it? But it's OK - our laws are sufficient, aren't they? Who cares what and how many you purchase, whether you know how to use them or not, whether you are sane/angry/a psychopath/potential mass murderer or not, plotting something or not. You got it legally, so you are 'responsible'. You must be - the law which protects 'law abiding citizens' allows you to buy firearms in such a way. :roll:
Our laws are laughable. An absolute joke. It was brought up a few pages back that Florida has reduced crime coincidentally with the conceal carry laws. Hard to say if they're directly related...but on another note, Its nice to know I can do all that over the internet with no problem and have a gun in no time. Its ridiculous.
And by the way, they were all sold legally at one point I assume...maybe stricter laws on re-sell too?
GunderP, you sound like a good, responsible man...happy shooting to you.
The laws are a joke...I've been tempted to attend one of the many guns shows at the South Florida Fairgrounds but I haven't yet. I'd like to go one of these days just to see how easy or how tough it is to buy a gun without actually buying one. I don't need no fricking gun at my home with 44 very inquisitive teens...I have a 4 foot sword from Pakistan.
It appears in this country the minute one points out how easy it is to obtain a gun and that stricter laws are needed tp purchase rifles like the AR15 and others. It's assumed they want to take our guns away and it's even been said in this thread which is absolutely NOT the case. I mean they should be as simple as a waiting period for certain deadly automatic rifles....it just seems in this country we are driven by the power that a handgun seems to give some people when in reality many times it harms the innocent rather than an intruder in your home. That's why we will ALWAYS lead this planet in gun related deaths and that my friends IS scary and don't scare so easy...however snakes well that's a whole other story.
Peace
*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
It appears in this country the minute one points out how easy it is to obtain a gun and that stricter laws are needed tp purchase rifles like the AR15 and others. It's assumed they want to take our guns away and it's even been said in this thread which is absolutely NOT the case. I mean they should be as simple as a waiting period for certain deadly automatic rifles....it just seems in this country we are driven by the power that a handgun seems to give some people when in reality many times it harms the innocent rather than an intruder in your home. That's why we will ALWAYS lead this planet in gun related deaths and that my friends IS scary and don't scare so easy...however snakes well that's a whole other story.
Peace
In bold - proven many times in this thread.
The thing is, I can understand that people may want a rifle to hunt or something to shoot for sport (at 'proper' facilities and properly stored there) or even for protection. I'm no expert in firearms but I assume that already gives one plenty of choices. Do people REALLY need assault weapons so powerful and lethal that one can 'shoot a helicopter down' (as a poster or two mentioned)? If one argues along the 'responsible and law abiding citizen' line, these weapons are not necessary at all. I think some of these weapons need to be severely restricted to those that could have an extremely good reason to own them (checked and rechecked). No Tom, Dick and Harry 'need' to have those to 'protect themselves' and they shouldn't be available to the general public.
That would not be infringing on any right to 'bear arms' - one can still 'bear' but with restrictions.
so why not learn from other countries that have successfully carried out strict gun laws and making them work? Their is a danger in becoming to insular... look at the world now. the wo most violent countries are Afgganistan and America.. how does that make sense when England, Australia, New Zealand etc etc all have small amount of gun deaths per year even smaller if you take into consideration per capita.... Australians don't want to be vitim's anymore so nobody buys guns.. in America if you get burnt their is a need to burn people back.
read this article, non biased
the point ... taking guns away from law abiding folk has no effect on crime
crime is dropping around the world though, here in our US cities also,
it is attributed to many things...
tougher laws for incarceration, better technology, awareness,
better social help to stop domestic violence, better mental health care
even more guns protecting citizens, :thumbup:
etc. but what has been found stricter gun laws have no effect on crime
because criminals commit crimes and they are unaffected by laws.
gun deaths in australia and england went down when stricter gun laws were introduced.. and that's a fact.. other crimes have stayed steady.
make sure you ask every potential gun owner if they are going to ever commit a mass shooting.. :roll: I'm sure that would work.. my point being mass murderers and normally civil folk with no prior criminal activity. So you ask yourself then their HAS to a system that has a better way of tracking who buys guns, how many guns, how much ammo because it's no one's right to have a stock pile in their house.. because at that point it's not about self defense it's just plain dangerous.
they are always going to be criminals with guns that's a fact.. but there is no way Americans or any other country folk should be scared to see a movie or go to church.. more guns isn't going to stop these people as a police man had a gun and in WI shot him anyway lol Don't for a second pretend every American can act like Clint Eastwood does on screen in real life in a shootout at a mall or the movies... people either flight or fight and it doesn't always happen like you want it too. Arm everyone to to the teeth and the gun deaths WILL not stop. The fact is the more guns the more people are using them, the more accidents will occur and the more people will loose their jobs and go on a rampage, fail school and go on a rampage or whatever the case maybe. If you have a gun and get to the point that Holmes and severals others have who knows what you're capable of criminal record or not.
I'm just flying around the other side of the world to say I love you
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Comments
As for mexico, screw that it's way too hot. I'm thinking middle America, somewhere north of, oh I dunno, Oklahoma.
james holmes was law abiding until he decided to kill a bunch of people so how do you test who is law abiding and who isn't?? Most of these people don't have any criminal records or any history of any mental illness.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
Cat is a burden and dead weight. It cannot be a guard animal like a dog that will alert you when someone is approaching. She was serious about shooting the cat... for his own good.
And this bug out truck... it was 20 fucking miles away! Who's to say that people wouldn't ransack the thing? It had both primary and auxilary tanks that were both full. Gas is dwindling and no one is going to siphon her gas?
The best part... going to Mexico. The U.S. and the entire world is plunged into anarchy and chaos abounds... so, Mexico is going to be safer???
She decided she was out of shape when she was doing her timed dry run to the truck (she even pretended to shoot the cat). So guess what? She joined the fucking Army to get in shape... like that fat guy in the movie 'Stripes'.
You gotta see this show... 'Doomsday Preppers' on National Geographic. TmeWarner doesn't carry NatGeo, i watched it at my girlfriend's house. We watched the whole thing with our jaws dropped open.
Hail, Hail!!!
so why not learn from other countries that have successfully carried out strict gun laws and making them work? Their is a danger in becoming to insular... look at the world now. the wo most violent countries are Afgganistan and America.. how does that make sense when England, Australia, New Zealand etc etc all have small amount of gun deaths per year even smaller if you take into consideration per capita.... Australians don't want to be vitim's anymore so nobody buys guns.. in America if you get burnt their is a need to burn people back.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/doomsday-preppers/meet-the-preppers-pictures/
Hail, Hail!!!
You clearly have not met my cat
What a nutjob...and they let her in the army :shock:
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
That's the thing... if people like this are going to be the ones who survive... I'd rather die than live and have them in charge.
Hail, Hail!!!
oh you do go on. I called it nonsense not because of the content of the story, but because you have gone on and on about the same point, ONE POINT, for about 50 pages now.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
why can't we just make all automatic and semi automatic and even handguns. 10 year prison term if caught, intent or not. zero tolerance. hunting rifles are fine, if kept unloaded in urban areas.
tell me how this would be a problem for you.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
http://www.danielmauser.com/cliches.html
Responding to the Pro Gun Cliches
For far too long, people's views of the gun control issue have been driven by the slogans, cliches and rhetoric of the gun lobby. Since becoming a gun control advocate, I've heard them all--and I learned to respond to them all!
At one time the simplest cliches were sufficient--ones like, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." As Americans have grown more concerned with the level of gun violence, those simple cliches don't work any more. Other phrases, such as "law abiding citizens," "we already have 20,000 gun laws," and "one more law won't stop criminals" have become common props for the gun lobby.
In the end, those simplistic cliches and slogans don't solve our gun violence problem. Only action on a variety of fronts will address this shameful problem. But the gun lobby will continue to trot out its cliches, so I'm providing my brief responses to each of them. Since the cliches of gun supporters are short, mine will be the same.
These gun control advocates just want to take away our guns!
This is just a scare tactic of the gun lobby. It's their way of demonizing gun control advocates--by making gun owners think this is all about confiscation rather than having reasonable restrictions in place that mirror the Second Amendment's call for a "well regulated militia..."
There are some who would like to see guns banned. But most of us respect hunters and collectors and those who choose to have a gun for protection. We just want to do more to close loopholes, keep guns from children and irresponsible users, and make society safer. Besides, with more than 220 million firearms in this country, taking away guns would be impossible!
It's unfair to punish responsible gun owners with restrictive laws just because of the acts of irresponsible gun owners!
That's true. Life can be unfair. But we don't allow guns on airplanes, do we? And we ALL have to undergo screening at the airport, don't we, for the protection of us all?
Likewise, everyone has to undergo paperwork and a background check when buying a gun. We do so because it's impossible to define a "responsible" gun owner. So, we conduct a background check when selling a gun, to at least make sure the buyer isn't a felon or wife beater. But many pro gun advocates aren't even willing to support that type of step. I would hardly call that an unreasonable "punishment." The fact is that Americans have the easiest access to firearms in the Free World.
Furthermore, we don't wear labels that say we're responsible. Today's responsible gun owner can become angry and use it in anger, as we see all too often. We can't write laws that define "responsible" owners and exempt them from all laws--laws must be written for all.
If we lock up criminals and keep them there, we'd have no problem!
This country has been doing that: prison sentences have been lengthened and we've built thousands more prison cells. And what has happened? Still more shootings, by others not (yet) in jail.
The fact is that not everyone who uses a gun illegally is a felon before that moment. The boys who killed my son became felons when they took possession of the 9mm handgun and pulled the trigger. Even if they had been arrested for the threats they had made, they would not have been locked up for life. The fact is that guns are too plentiful and too easy to come by. Our jails are full of gun users who were previously law abiding citizens who suddenly shot others in a fit of anger, rage, jealousy or greed.
When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.
This is one of the most worn out cliches of gun promoters. Look, hardly anyone is seriously promoting the "outlawing" of guns. What's being discussed are merely common sense laws regarding the kinds of guns and ammunition available (military style assault weapons, armor piercing bullets), the capacity of gun magazines, and denial of access to kids, criminals, people under restraining orders, etc.
More important, there is the irony of their statement! Gun supporters worry so much about criminals with guns. But one thing that enables criminals to have such an arsenal of guns is the sheer volume of guns and the ease of purchasing guns in this country-something that the NRA and others have promoted! Go figure!
We need guns for our protection! You can't take away this right.
Who is talking about taking away your right to defend yourself? Again, this is another scare tactic. Unless you're a felon or kid or wife beater, you can get your gun so long as you pass the background check.
Of course, many families have managed to get by without a gun in their home. They realize, and studies have shown, that far more people are killed by their own guns (or because of them) than are used to protect their own lives. One university study showd that a gun in the home is over 20 times more likely to kill someone in or known to the family than it is to be used to kill an intruder. Still, if you wish to ignore this high risk, it's still your right to buy a gun for protection. It's just too bad that some people insist they must have an assault weapon with a 30 bullet magazine to feel safe...
We need weapons to protect ourselves from a tyrannical federal government.
No, we need to protect ourselves from those who say they need weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal government! No reasonable person thinks the U.S. Military is going to be engaged in hand-to-hand, door-to-door combat with civilians. They would face mutiny. No, logically a tyrannical minded army would use its arsenal of far more powerful weapons. So shall we allow civilians to have bazookas? Tanks? Rocket Launchers? Surface to Air Missiles? ICBMs? Why not just let us all have our own nuclear weapons? Where does it all end?
Isn't it time that America say it's had enough with the dangerous, paranoid, militia types who promote conspiracy theories and maintain their own weapons arsenals? We've seen the hateful consequences of these people in Oklahoma City, Waco, and other places.
What have you got against the NRA, anyway? They're not the enemy!
When the NRA is involved in gun safety programs, it's a good organization, and we respect many of its members. But it has become an organization with a Field and Stream (magazine) membership but a Soldier of Fortune (mercenary magazine) leadership.
The NRA has a dark side. It fought the Brady Bill, the assault weapons ban, and most gun control legislation. For that they deserve our condemnation.
The NRA is unduly influenced by a group of extreme right wing people who promote unfettered access to guns and high-powered weapons. This is counter to the beliefs of most Americans, and it has also led to many moderates leaving the NRA.
Automobiles kill 40,000 people a year. Nobody's calling for THEIR elimination!
How ironic to hear this statement from gun supporters! No, people don't call for eliminating cars. Cars are designed to provide transportation. But because they can be dangerous, we do require that cars and their users be registered, insured and that users be tested before using them.
But we don't do that for guns. We require little other than a background check, which is far short from registration. No testing is required. And, guns are designed to shoot, and thus require careful control, because of their dangerous nature.
Knives are used to kill people. Will you want to outlaw knives next?
No of course not. Knives are a tool. They help us cut or slice things we can't or don't want to with our hands. To stab or slash someone is to misuse that tool. A gun is designed to shoot.
Additionally, a knife can't kill multiple people from a distance and is rarely used for mass murdering. An assault weapon like a Tec-9 or AK 47 gun can kill multiple people from a distance and is used for mass murdering.
Mr. Mauser is so deep in grief that he can't think rationally.
This is something you'll hear them say about me or about any other victim who calls for gun control. They find it impossible to take on our facts and our reasonableness, so they try to simply dismiss or condemn us. Paul Thomsen, of Fort Collins, Colo., said in a letter to the editor, that "he is so overwhelmed with justifiable grief that he is incapable of rational thought or action."
I can assure Mr. Thomsen that I capable of grieving and thinking at the same time! People in grief can't be so easily dismissed. In fact, I would contend that when you've been through a tragedy, sometimes some things become more self evident to you, despite your grief. Grief can make some things come more into focus.
(Mr. Thomsen's patronizing attempt to dismiss me was a poor one. He went on suggest that tragedies like Columbine could be prevented if we just let teachers carry concealed weapons. Oh, sure, the answer to increasing gun violence is to have more guns! By presenting such a ludicrous argument, he helped me more than his own cause, for most people are clearly concerned about the the prospect of having teachers carry guns. We need to demonstrate to ordinary Americans these ridiculous. extremist views of the gun lobby.)
Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
No, people with easily-accessible guns kill people.
Rather than pass more regulations, enforce the hundreds of laws already on the books!
We have a better idea: How about both? Let's do a better job of enforcement AND add laws that close loopholes. After all, the hundreds of laws have not stopped us from having 200 million firearms and over 15,000 gun homicides per year. Plus, we suspect that the NRA's enforcement complaint is just a smoke screen; if the federal government really did make a very strong effort to better enforce ALL existing gun regulations, the NRA would probably then scream bloody murder (oops, poor choice of words)!
NEW:
Why do people like Mr. Mauser try to take advantage of their loved ones' deaths to push gun control? It's unfair.
Take advantage? How are they "taking advantage" of death? They have suffered terrible losses and yet they put their grief out there for all to see, as they have to recount their loved ones' shooting deaths-all for the sake of trying to make our world a safer place.
They suddenly understand, firsthand, the terrible tragedy of losing 30,000 lives a year to gunshots and want to do something about it, so that others don't have to suffer as they have. They act selflessly, not for personal gain.
When the gun lobby condemns gun control advocates who become so because of the death of a loved one, they're simply mad because those gun control advocates are informing people of the terrible pain, and reminding them that it can happen to anyone.
You can't take away my Second Amendment rights. It's stated right there in black and white: "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
So does the Bill of Rights provide us with absolute rights? We don't have an unchallenged right under the First Amendment to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, do we?
If the Second Amendment is absolute, then why don't we allow people to own bazookas? Why don't we let people carry guns in airplanes? Why don't we allow people to openly carry guns-like carrying around a shotgun under one's arm in a crowded mall? Aren't those restrictions an infringement on Second Amendment rights? But most people would support those restrictions. The fact is that society does put limitations on rights, for they cannot reasonably be absolute.
The gun lobby loves to quote those words, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." But they rarely cite the FULL text, which begins, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Since 1939 our high courts' position is that that language conveys a right to the states, not to individuals.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
A "RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNER" WOULD NOT KILL HIS OWN SON, WOULD HE?????
Article excerpt follows:
NY State Cop Accidentally Shoots And Kills Own Son
By Wendy Gittleson
July 23, 2012
A New York police officer was on a casual motorcycle trip with his son and a group of other men, when he shot his son dead, thinking he was an intruder.
From Raw Story:
Village of Perry Officer Michael Leach, 59, was sleeping at around 12:50 a.m. on Saturday morning when he was awakened by someone entering his Old Forge hotel room. Thinking the person was an intruder, Leach fired one shot, killing his 37-year-old son Matthew, according to The Observer-Dispatch.
Michael Leach called 911 and stated that he had shot an intruder.
Matthew Leach was later pronounced dead St. Elizabeth Medical Center. The father was taken to Faxton St. Luke’s Healthcare for an unspecified medical issue.
While police are investigating the incident, it’s likely that it will be declared an accidental shooting.
Obviously, words can’t express the grief and guilt this father must be feeling, but in the wake of the Aurora, CO shooting, it does highlight a common argument in the gun control debate. After every shooting tragedy in the US, it seems that the pro-gun argument is that responsible gun owners would have helped mitigate the situation. Aurora was no exception, despite the fact that the shooter, dressed in black, filled the dark theater with smoke. Without night vision goggles, it’s unfathomable how more guns would have led to fewer victims.
Pending knowing the details of Officer Leach, it’s not a stretch to believe that he is a “responsible” gun owner, trained to handle and carry a gun with near perfect accuracy and without accidental mishap. The fact is, people, no matter how well-trained, are fallible. Sure, while it might literally be true that people kill people, guns are lethal. All it takes is a split-second reaction to either create or exacerbate a deadly tragedy.
Pandora: do you believe this man was just collateral damage to keep intact the freedom and safety of little miss ruby et al?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
No one is wanting to take away one's 'protection' but, whilst they may have the 'right' to own a gun for this, I also have the right to be safe in my home and not have a couple of 'responsible gun owners' having a 'domestic' spilling out on the street - along with their gun -and, being 'responsible' waving the loaded weapon away from the other person, the bullet going straight into my home. I have the right to be protected from this. Note: this person had a documented history of domestic violence (police and all) but was still allowed guns? Maybe I could have bought some kind of assault weapon and blasted the guy (and anything/anyone in the vincinity)? Would that have been the solution? Fight fire with fire. You have a gun, I have a bigger one? Until someone has a bigger one than me... when does this stop? Violence begets more violence.
From what I can make of this, it would seem, again, that this may have been a loaded weapon kept 'out in the open' and readily available (or else he is bloody fast in getting his thoughts together being suddenly awaken, unsecuring the gun, getting the bullets, loading the gun, aiming and shooting at the 'intruder'). Even hotels have safes to put things that require locking up in and there are plenty of mini-safes/lock up boxes for those needing to travel with guns (good for the car, the hotel room, etc.). No excuse.
This man will live the rest of his life with the sorrow and the grief knowing he is responsible for his son's death.
The 2% which I totally disagree with Jonny, it is way more who are not being forthcoming,
this 2% are illogical and will always be a big problem and will be confronted
because of wanting to remove the right to protect oneself.
I am not for banning guns nor stricter laws on what can be owned
as long as criminals,police, military and the govt can possess the same.
So I will continue to address both. You are on the opposing side.
So I guess we will debate if that is ok with you and I will address both.
You want tighter gun laws yet there are strict gun laws that are proving no effect on crime.
The basic common sense about this is criminals don't follow the law
whether they be your everyday make a livelihood criminal, a sociopath or schizophrenic
in the midst of delusion.
It makes no sense to apply more laws to people who are not breaking them.
Enforce the ones we have...
the carry permits, have dropped crime in the states
that shows the good effect of guns for the responsible that own them
and are trained.
address the mental illness problem in our country, go to the source
make help readily available.
As in the bathtub scenario, the drowning deaths for children dwarf gun accidents
yet we do not blame the bathtub we blame the irresponsible adult.
Same here we must blame the parent who is uneducated or thoughtless
about safety...
this means...
make safe gun use education easy and affordable for all.
Most especially for those in the inner cities, who often buy guns illegally,
not to commit crimes but to avoid being a victim in their own neighborhoods.
They buy them for protection but might lack respect for them.
They buy them at a fraction of the cost, there is no education
or training. Educate them don't take away their protection.
They have a right to live and protect themselves and their loved ones,
this should be done responsibly and safely.
biased much? ... generalize much? ... good lord
so you think gun owners own for revenge... almighty then :fp:
http://www.varioustopics.com/anthropolo ... -guns.html
read this article, non biased
the point ... taking guns away from law abiding folk has no effect on crime
crime is dropping around the world though, here in our US cities also,
it is attributed to many things...
tougher laws for incarceration, better technology, awareness,
better social help to stop domestic violence, better mental health care
even more guns protecting citizens, :thumbup:
etc. but what has been found stricter gun laws have no effect on crime
because criminals commit crimes and they are unaffected by laws.
I've been reading through this thread but not posting much no time it's a busy summer. Let me understand something here....it appears MOST here including myself DO NOT want to ban guns or take away gun rights in any way. However, I see no problem in having stricter laws in buying guns, rifles without background checks and doing so over the internet. You appear to be saying that the laws that are on the books in most states are tough enough. nI disagree.
Did you you see the laws in Colorado where we just had our last mass shooting that was posted earlier....do you think the CO laws are strict enough? Do you own a gun? From what I've read i don't think so yet you crusade on and on about how guns protect yet you yourself appear to not own one....walking the fence again. Practice what you preach if you don't own a gun.
Thrity plus years ago i was very familiar with guns especially rifles in that i planned on becoming a sniper after several years on my rifle team while in school and the military. I changed my mind but now I would like to get back into shooting once again just to see IF I can shoot as well as I once did. Once I do get this 22 caliber smallbore rifle I won't even bring it home it will stay at the gun club. I'm amazed though I can order this rifle without ANY background check over the internet...I just need my credit card and it'll be at my door in 6 days.
That needs to change... a 15 year old can order in the same way just as long as he has a credit card...something is truly wrong in America if it's THAT easy to get a rifle.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
ok,if we ALL dont agree that is wrong,and need to change i dont have anything more to say than,the ones still support things stay the same must own a gun shop...
my logic can fit that people are THAT crazy to support that every fuckin crazy -criminal can buy a gun..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
What a well written opinion. :roll:
Title: "Aurora's Strict Gun Laws Didn't Prevent Shooting, But If One Law-Abiding Person In The Theater Had Been Carrying One..."
We all know what these laws are - only need to go back a few pages.
Somewhere in article, a 'corrected and clarified' bit: "there are already laws prohibiting the carry of a concealed dangerous weapon (though unenforced, due to state law)
So... 'strict laws' but cannot be enforced because state law has precedence. Basically - no 'strict' laws. And contradicts the 'sensational' title.
Again, the source of this blog/opinion piece (student and intern at http://www.yaf.org/), no research, nothing to substantiate her words (which was obvious as the 'journal' which reported this had to make corrections).....
Each and everyone can have an opinion (we all do). Let's not present them as facts (unless it is supported by valid and proven impartial research).
What this blog fails to mention is that maybe with less ease of purchase someone like Holmes wouldn't have been able to build up an arsenal with explosives and tear gas to top everything.
Scary shit, isn't it? But it's OK - our laws are sufficient, aren't they? Who cares what and how many you purchase, whether you know how to use them or not, whether you are sane/angry/a psychopath/potential mass murderer or not, plotting something or not. You got it legally, so you are 'responsible'. You must be - the law which protects 'law abiding citizens' allows you to buy firearms in such a way. :roll:
I think it's important to remember that the shooter who is the subject of this thread, as well as shooters in many of the recent mass shootings, had no criminal history. They weren't criminals...until they were.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
Did you miss all the conversations regarding accidental shootings and people who arent criminals that go on shooting sprees? We're not just talking about your common thug who buys an illegal firearm. It makes no sense to you to have stricter laws, but you dont need to break a law to accidentally shoot and kill your own family members. You're not breaking any laws when you buy 6000 rounds of ammo, multiple pistols, a shotgun and an AR-15 and take it to a movie theater either.
And I don't consider most of our laws strict gun laws. They're pretty lax all over.
and come on...USA is a big power country,maybe number 1 in the world..
should be an example to follow and not an exable to avoid...
they really need to rethink this laws
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Our laws are laughable. An absolute joke. It was brought up a few pages back that Florida has reduced crime coincidentally with the conceal carry laws. Hard to say if they're directly related...but on another note, Its nice to know I can do all that over the internet with no problem and have a gun in no time. Its ridiculous.
And by the way, they were all sold legally at one point I assume...maybe stricter laws on re-sell too?
GunderP, you sound like a good, responsible man...happy shooting to you.
'Responsible' gun owners are 'happy' to wait and have these checks done - it's for their own good too. Didn't seem to think it 'infringed' on their rights too much... I'm sure much more can be done.
The laws are a joke...I've been tempted to attend one of the many guns shows at the South Florida Fairgrounds but I haven't yet. I'd like to go one of these days just to see how easy or how tough it is to buy a gun without actually buying one. I don't need no fricking gun at my home with 44 very inquisitive teens...I have a 4 foot sword from Pakistan.
It appears in this country the minute one points out how easy it is to obtain a gun and that stricter laws are needed tp purchase rifles like the AR15 and others. It's assumed they want to take our guns away and it's even been said in this thread which is absolutely NOT the case. I mean they should be as simple as a waiting period for certain deadly automatic rifles....it just seems in this country we are driven by the power that a handgun seems to give some people when in reality many times it harms the innocent rather than an intruder in your home. That's why we will ALWAYS lead this planet in gun related deaths and that my friends IS scary and don't scare so easy...however snakes well that's a whole other story.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
In bold - proven many times in this thread.
The thing is, I can understand that people may want a rifle to hunt or something to shoot for sport (at 'proper' facilities and properly stored there) or even for protection. I'm no expert in firearms but I assume that already gives one plenty of choices. Do people REALLY need assault weapons so powerful and lethal that one can 'shoot a helicopter down' (as a poster or two mentioned)? If one argues along the 'responsible and law abiding citizen' line, these weapons are not necessary at all. I think some of these weapons need to be severely restricted to those that could have an extremely good reason to own them (checked and rechecked). No Tom, Dick and Harry 'need' to have those to 'protect themselves' and they shouldn't be available to the general public.
That would not be infringing on any right to 'bear arms' - one can still 'bear' but with restrictions.
gun deaths in australia and england went down when stricter gun laws were introduced.. and that's a fact.. other crimes have stayed steady.
make sure you ask every potential gun owner if they are going to ever commit a mass shooting.. :roll: I'm sure that would work.. my point being mass murderers and normally civil folk with no prior criminal activity. So you ask yourself then their HAS to a system that has a better way of tracking who buys guns, how many guns, how much ammo because it's no one's right to have a stock pile in their house.. because at that point it's not about self defense it's just plain dangerous.
they are always going to be criminals with guns that's a fact.. but there is no way Americans or any other country folk should be scared to see a movie or go to church.. more guns isn't going to stop these people as a police man had a gun and in WI shot him anyway lol Don't for a second pretend every American can act like Clint Eastwood does on screen in real life in a shootout at a mall or the movies... people either flight or fight and it doesn't always happen like you want it too. Arm everyone to to the teeth and the gun deaths WILL not stop. The fact is the more guns the more people are using them, the more accidents will occur and the more people will loose their jobs and go on a rampage, fail school and go on a rampage or whatever the case maybe. If you have a gun and get to the point that Holmes and severals others have who knows what you're capable of criminal record or not.
Sha la la la i'm in love with a jersey girl
I love you forever and forever
Adel 03 Melb 1 03 LA 2 06 Santa Barbara 06 Gorge 1 06 Gorge 2 06 Adel 1 06 Adel 2 06 Camden 1 08 Camden 2 08 Washington DC 08 Hartford 08
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"