Hey gun folks, you're fighting to keep guys like this armed and dangerous!
The crazed gun nut who allegedly killed a county constable and another person in a shooting near Texas A&M University on Monday was a "ticking time bomb" that was ready to blow, his family said.
"He was crazy as hell," Richard Weaver, gunman Thomas Caffall's stepfather, told Houston station KPRC television.
"At one point, we were afraid that he was going to come up here and do something to his mother and me," Weaver said.
Shawn Kemp, a local acquaintance of Caffall’s, told The Eagle newspaper that he “fits the profile of a dude who might snap.”
Caffall seemed depressed and often talked about guns and war, Kemp told the newspaper.
"I don’t know the guy well, but I’ve been around him enough to know, well, that I’m not surprised at all,” Kemp said, adding that he had heard that Caffall planned to pawn some of his guns to pay his rent.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
Hey gun folks, you're fighting to keep guys like this armed and dangerous!
The crazed gun nut who allegedly killed a county constable and another person in a shooting near Texas A&M University on Monday was a "ticking time bomb" that was ready to blow, his family said.
"He was crazy as hell," Richard Weaver, gunman Thomas Caffall's stepfather, told Houston station KPRC television.
"At one point, we were afraid that he was going to come up here and do something to his mother and me," Weaver said.
Shawn Kemp, a local acquaintance of Caffall’s, told The Eagle newspaper that he “fits the profile of a dude who might snap.”
Caffall seemed depressed and often talked about guns and war, Kemp told the newspaper.
"I don’t know the guy well, but I’ve been around him enough to know, well, that I’m not surprised at all,” Kemp said, adding that he had heard that Caffall planned to pawn some of his guns to pay his rent.
I guess I'll start with the beginning of the thread...
make mental health care available to all not just the insured, not just 24 visits a year, but
enable people to get help for their family members before they hurt themselves or others.
Provide mental health options, have help readily available...
like free walk in clinics, places people can get help themselves
or go for answers for family members.
We have seen 3 shooters at least lately showing signs to someone
they were dangerous and no one did anything about it.
Hopefully people will get involved and stop a tragedy, we must make that easier to do.
Gun laws don't stop crazy sorry, I know many here think that is the answer.
Gun laws only keep responsible gun owners without
their rights intact.
All gun opponents want to do is take away guns from the law abiding.
Each time I ask what would you do to solve the problem the answer is removing rights to own guns.
How many, what kind, how it's purchased. Pretty sure this will be fought
but even passed it will do nothing as long as people can get guns on the street.
I know it's kind of long and all, but did anybody read it and think about the example given?
In the mid 20th century, public health officials decided to take a multi-faceted approach to lowering the number of deaths in car accidents. And guess what--they succeeded. A few of the things that were implemented:
Improved road conditions to help avoid accidents or make them less lethal.
Driver education for young people. It couldn't be required of every driver but if you begin teaching the youngest ones before they get on the road, over time there will be more drivers who are aware of how to drive safely.
Then, the really big one--auto manufacturers began to make cars safer. Some of the changes were small, like seat belts to keep you from being thrown from a vehicle. Headrests, which keep your neck from breaking if your car is rear ended (you didn't really think they were for resting your head, did you?). Changes in design so that drivers were no longer impaled by the steering column during a collision. Later on, as the car makers started to realize that people actually like safety features, they started adding more things like air bags. I can remember in the 80s when NO cars had them. In a few years car makers were trying to outdo themselves with all the airbags they installed.
In other words, drivers no longer received the sole credit or blame for whether or not they survived an accident. Conditions were changed to make driving safer.
As I've said numerous times on this board, I'm old. Or at least older than most people here. I remember the car my family had when I was a child. It had no seat belts. The car we bought in 1964 had seat belts only in the front. My parents paid extra to have them installed in the back.
There are still a large number of deaths due to auto accidents when compared to say, the 1950s or 60s. But the U.S. population is larger and there are more cars on the road.
If you want to stick with that car analogy when comparing it to guns, try offering something a little better than making jokes about "let's ban all the cars, they kill more people than guns!" As the article said, our reality now is living in a society with guns. They're not going away. What can we do to make life safer in this reality.
The car analogy is atrocious.
What do irresponsible people do when driving a car? Most do nothing besides arrive at their destination. I go over the speed limit every single day. That is irresponsible. I see many, many others: speeding, driving drunk, texting, cutting people off, going through stop signs and red lights, etc...and still arriving at destinations without a problem.
Now you got it ...it is exactly the very same with guns. People know who is responsible...
we see it and know it and know who isn't.
As I have said in previous posts, over my life I have known countless responsible gun owners.
They have children never once has any been injured, none never ever.
Yet I see everyday the shootings committed by the thoughtless.
Not the thoughtful.
Just as their are those who drive there whole lives like me
without being at fault. Thoughtful drivers.
Responsible speaks for itself, sorry some can't understand that.
No, people dont know in advance who's responsible, otherwise nobody would've sold those guns to Holmes, or the officer in TX wouldve called for backup...nobody knows. And, you can be extremely responsible and still have accidents. No one is perfect. Remember, I was nearly shot in the head by one of the most respected, responsible people I know.
I don't remember were they cleaning their gun? Target practice?
Bad guy around?
That is something that just doesn't usually happen unless someone
is untrained to some degree, unprepared with a gun.
Gun laws don't stop crazy sorry, I know many here think that is the answer.
Gun laws only keep responsible gun owners without
their rights intact.
All gun opponents want to do is take away guns from the law abiding.
Each time I ask what would you do to solve the problem the answer is removing rights to own guns.
How many, what kind, how it's purchased. Pretty sure this will be fought
but even passed it will do nothing as long as people can get guns on the street.
I've been mostly staying out of this debate because I don't want to wind up crushing my forehead against a wall in frustration. You do realize that the evil boogieman you call "gun control" already exists, right? It does. That's a fact. So, knowing that, do you think "gun control" as it currently exists (reminding you once again that it does already exist) is flawless? You don't think anything could possibly be done to better "gun control" in our society? Not even the slightest tweak here or there? Or, would you recommend we get rid of all current "gun control" laws on the book? I don't see you railing against the "gun control" already in place, so I have to assume you are, in fact, okay with "gun control" at least as it currently exists... I've also heard you suggest that we the people should have equal access to the same weaponry used by police and the government. Really? It's not like I trust those entities much, but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?
"Gun control" doesn't mean your law abiding citizens can't have guns, it just means we need to screen folks a whole lot better and have some sane discussion of what level of firepower your average Joe really needs and how quickly they truly need this access.
Well, well... I see one edited her post to remove some stupid 'finger pointing elitism' (ie, you're not one of 'us' so you wouldn't know...), pretending it never happened.
But too late!.... it's been quoted!
Not the first time she's said that!
Don't you love it when people talk about you like you're not here?
Gun laws don't stop crazy sorry, I know many here think that is the answer.
Gun laws only keep responsible gun owners without
their rights intact.
All gun opponents want to do is take away guns from the law abiding.
Each time I ask what would you do to solve the problem the answer is removing rights to own guns.
How many, what kind, how it's purchased. Pretty sure this will be fought
but even passed it will do nothing as long as people can get guns on the street.
I've been mostly staying out of this debate because I don't want to wind up crushing my forehead against a wall in frustration. You do realize that the evil boogieman you call "gun control" already exists, right? It does. That's a fact. So, knowing that, do you think "gun control" as it currently exists (reminding you once again that it does already exist) is flawless? You don't think anything could possibly be done to better "gun control" in our society? Not even the slightest tweak here or there? Or, would you recommend we get rid of all current "gun control" laws on the book? I don't see you railing against the "gun control" already in place, so I have to assume you are, in fact, okay with "gun control" at least as it currently exists... I've also heard you suggest that we the people should have equal access to the same weaponry used by police and the government. Really? It's not like I trust those entities much, but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?
"Gun control" doesn't mean your law abiding citizens can't have guns, it just means we need to screen folks a whole lot better and have some sane discussion of what level of firepower your average Joe really needs and how quickly they truly need this access.
I would rather see gun laws we have enforced and have stricter penalties for criminals and
work on getting illegal guns off the streets. This works.
Need ... who decides what someone needs?
How many abortions does one woman need in her lifetime?
How much baby blood on her hands?
When it comes to rights who decides that?
It will be a draw no one wants to give up rights.
The woman who uses abortion as birth control or the person who wants to own
300 guns. Some might think one is wrong some might think both are wrong,
some neither.
I fight to keep people having their rights to choose, even when I think it is wrong.
Gun laws don't stop crazy sorry, I know many here think that is the answer.
Gun laws only keep responsible gun owners without
their rights intact.
All gun opponents want to do is take away guns from the law abiding.
Each time I ask what would you do to solve the problem the answer is removing rights to own guns.
How many, what kind, how it's purchased. Pretty sure this will be fought
but even passed it will do nothing as long as people can get guns on the street.
I've been mostly staying out of this debate because I don't want to wind up crushing my forehead against a wall in frustration. You do realize that the evil boogieman you call "gun control" already exists, right? It does. That's a fact. So, knowing that, do you think "gun control" as it currently exists (reminding you once again that it does already exist) is flawless? You don't think anything could possibly be done to better "gun control" in our society? Not even the slightest tweak here or there? Or, would you recommend we get rid of all current "gun control" laws on the book? I don't see you railing against the "gun control" already in place, so I have to assume you are, in fact, okay with "gun control" at least as it currently exists... I've also heard you suggest that we the people should have equal access to the same weaponry used by police and the government. Really? It's not like I trust those entities much, but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?
"Gun control" doesn't mean your law abiding citizens can't have guns, it just means we need to screen folks a whole lot better and have some sane discussion of what level of firepower your average Joe really needs and how quickly they truly need this access.
I would rather see gun laws we have enforced and have stricter penalties for criminals and
work on getting illegal guns off the streets. This works.
I've been mostly staying out of this debate because I don't want to wind up crushing my forehead against a wall in frustration. You do realize that the evil boogieman you call "gun control" already exists, right? It does. That's a fact. So, knowing that, do you think "gun control" as it currently exists (reminding you once again that it does already exist) is flawless? You don't think anything could possibly be done to better "gun control" in our society? Not even the slightest tweak here or there? Or, would you recommend we get rid of all current "gun control" laws on the book? I don't see you railing against the "gun control" already in place, so I have to assume you are, in fact, okay with "gun control" at least as it currently exists... I've also heard you suggest that we the people should have equal access to the same weaponry used by police and the government. Really? It's not like I trust those entities much, but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?
"Gun control" doesn't mean your law abiding citizens can't have guns, it just means we need to screen folks a whole lot better and have some sane discussion of what level of firepower your average Joe really needs and how quickly they truly need this access.
I would rather see gun laws we have enforced and have stricter penalties for criminals and
work on getting illegal guns off the streets. This works.
See, you do support gun control. Excellent.
Well done Can you deduce an answer to my question while you're at it?
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I don't remember were they cleaning their gun? Target practice?
Bad guy around?
That is something that just doesn't usually happen unless someone
is untrained to some degree, unprepared with a gun.
not true at all. gun accidents happen 24x7, 365. fact. friendly fire during hunting season, target practice at the gun range has accidents, someone can drop a load semi automatic handgun and it can go off, emptying a loaded shotgun after hunting in -20 degree weather can make the pin slam home even with the safety on, a ricocheting .22 round has hit me in the thigh, etc, etc...
i can't tell you how many times i have seen accidents happen with guns and by folks who know what they're doing.
I support the right to bear arms
I succumb to the right to abortion
See I do support the laws we have and protect the right to both
So, laws have never needed to be updated, modernized? In that case, I better not catch you voting or owning land, missy. Also, I think some black folks might be glad that not everyone thinks like you...
The gun restriction side simply wants legislation in place to limit the types of weapons and ammunition permitted and ensure thorough background checks before selling to anyone. Hunters could still have their 'hunting' weapons and gun enthusiasts could even own guns as well to... shoot human targets at a gun range?
Restrictions would, eventually, create a very positive effect by (and not limited to):
1. Making bullets for illegal weapons extremely difficult to obtain (when you're out... you're out).
2. Red flagging excessive ammunition purchases.
3. Not introducing new automatic or semi-automatic weapons (or other highly effective weaponry) into the fold.
4. Seizing and destroying all guns as they manifest themselves in crimes.
Granted it wouldn't be perfect- people would continue to find ways to circumvent the law- but it wouldn't be easy to say the least. The aspiring sociopath would have a much more difficult time than Holmes did carrying out their evil plans- not to mention the 2-bit criminal peddling drugs on the street corner.
Why does this not make sense? What am I missing here?
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
g under p
Surfing The far side of THE Sombrero Galaxy Posts: 18,200
I don't remember were they cleaning their gun? Target practice?
Bad guy around?
That is something that just doesn't usually happen unless someone
is untrained to some degree, unprepared with a gun.
not true at all. gun accidents happen 24x7, 365. fact. friendly fire during hunting season, target practice at the gun range has accidents, someone can drop a load semi automatic handgun and it can go off, emptying a loaded shotgun after hunting in -20 degree weather can make the pin slam home even with the safety on, a ricocheting .22 round has hit me in the thigh, etc, etc...
i can't tell you how many times i have seen accidents happen with guns and by folks who know what they're doing.
I totally agree, they can happen ALL the time even on gun ranges on military bases. My only accident came while shooting the M60 machine gun. a gun I had to learn to breakdown and put it back together in under 3 minutes. I was shooting the M60 in short bursts then auto then full on till I emptied the canister. I made the mistake of touching the barrel and it scorched/burnt the hell out of my hand. It can happen to the most experienced to the least, at times just extreme heat or extreme cold can cause these mechanical machines to engage.
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)
The gun restriction side simply wants legislation in place to limit the types of weapons and ammunition permitted and ensure thorough background checks before selling to anyone. Hunters could still have their 'hunting' weapons and gun enthusiasts could even own guns as well to... shoot human targets at a gun range?
Restrictions would, eventually, create a very positive effect by (and not limited to):
1. Making bullets for illegal weapons extremely difficult to obtain (when you're out... you're out).
2. Red flagging excessive ammunition purchases.
3. Not introducing new automatic or semi-automatic weapons (or other highly effective weaponry) into the fold.
4. Seizing and destroying all guns as they manifest themselves in crimes.
Granted it wouldn't be perfect- people would continue to find ways to circumvent the law- but it wouldn't be easy to say the least. The aspiring sociopath would have a much more difficult time than Holmes did carrying out their evil plans- not to mention the 2-bit criminal peddling drugs on the street corner.
Why does this not make sense? What am I missing here?
More strict laws about getting permits.
Otherwise, that was the best post I've seen in this thread for at least 30 pages.
Note: If it hadn't been as easy for Holmes to get the ammo and weapons, it would have taken him longer, and by then that psychiatrist would have received that letter or whatever it was he sent to her, and she would have alerted authorities, and he never would have been able to go on a shooting rampage in the first place. Yay.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
The gun restriction side simply wants legislation in place to limit the types of weapons and ammunition permitted and ensure thorough background checks before selling to anyone. Hunters could still have their 'hunting' weapons and gun enthusiasts could even own guns as well to... shoot human targets at a gun range?
Restrictions would, eventually, create a very positive effect by (and not limited to):
1. Making bullets for illegal weapons extremely difficult to obtain (when you're out... you're out).
2. Red flagging excessive ammunition purchases.
3. Not introducing new automatic or semi-automatic weapons (or other highly effective weaponry) into the fold.
4. Seizing and destroying all guns as they manifest themselves in crimes.
Granted it wouldn't be perfect- people would continue to find ways to circumvent the law- but it wouldn't be easy to say the least. The aspiring sociopath would have a much more difficult time than Holmes did carrying out their evil plans- not to mention the 2-bit criminal peddling drugs on the street corner.
Why does this not make sense? What am I missing here?
...
That's a great start...
One more thing, make it absolutely illegal to modify a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon. No one in the general public needs a fully automatic (burst fire) weapon unless they plan on taking on the police or military. And if they are planning on taking on the police or military with their automatic weapons... they do not belong in the general public any more.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I think that pretty much summed it up which I have said before in a couple of other posts.
what a ridiculous statement.
and you have said so little in so many pages it's mind boggling.
another way to say hindsight is 20/20 and most regret something
Do you know something of that yourself? Perhaps...
well what does that say about you spending soooo much time reading and then always replying that is even more mind boggling wouldn't you say?
do I know something of what? what the hell are you talking about? I spend so much time reading trying to understand your point of view, because I can't for the life of me understand your line of thinking.
I can at least understand the pro-second amendment side. But many of them have a rational way of expressing it.
Kind of like how scientists study monkeys. Even though a monkey keeps doing the same damn thing over and over, and all the while the monkey is thinking "they must really think I'm superior spending all this time looking at me". The scientists keep trying. is it futile? Maybe.
this sure as hell has been.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
do I know something of what? what the hell are you talking about? I spend so much time reading trying to understand your point of view, because I can't for the life of me understand your line of thinking.
I can at least understand the pro-second amendment side. But many of them have a rational way of expressing it.
Kind of like how scientists study monkeys. Even though a monkey keeps doing the same damn thing over and over, and all the while the monkey is thinking "they must really think I'm superior spending all this time looking at me". The scientists keep trying. is it futile? Maybe.
this sure as hell has been.
You see Hugh THIS is why I posted this...*There's just some men you can't reach...*
*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)
but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?
YES! you'd finally have a fighting chance against the mountain goats!
and these guys:
How could you! :evil: Note: page 128 for me this morning!
Add to TBU list... strict and thorough background checks, mandatory licensing. Make all sellers 'licensed' - having to go through the same procedure for selling firearms. No more 'no questions asked' when purchasing firearms at gun shows, via the internet, etc. Just close the loophole.
But hey... if it's cars that some understand, let's talk cars/guns then.... :roll:
It has been shown that there are much more controls in obtaining a license to drive a car than there are in being able to obtain a gun. Why not just simply apply the rules for potential car drivers to potential gun users... Via a 'licensed broker' only, thorough checks (giving all details, including social security number, proof of identity/residency, etc.), apply/get goods in person (not via internet), written test (making sure one understands the 'laws' of ownership, how to store arms, etc.), practical test (making sure one can effectively use a gun), revoking of said licence if conditions no longer met... For starters. Then, keeping with the driving 'theme' - as there are different types of licenses depending on the vehicle you wish to drive and the use of this vehicle, let's do the same for guns. 'Basic' licence for guns in the home used for 'protection', another one for those wanting more than that (comparable to non commercial class a or b licenses) and then for those who think they need assault rifles, etc. another step comparable to the commercial driver license which requires a medical.
I don't hear anyone crying blue murder about these these checks, tests, 'restrictions' for the car. No one saying it is taking away their freedom, etc.; and it doesn't seem to stop 'responsible' car owners/drivers from getting what they want so what would be the problem with applying the same stringent rules to gun ownership? How about that? Sensible enough? Laws/restrictions already accepted by 'all' so no issues, right?
I support the right to bear arms
I succumb to the right to abortion
See I do support the laws we have and protect the right to both
So, laws have never needed to be updated, modernized? In that case, I better not catch you voting or owning land, missy. Also, I think some black folks might be glad that not everyone thinks like you...
missy?
hmmmm
sounds familiar
I think the logical motion would be to enforce laws we have
we know gunlaws do not effect gun power nor stop crime
but perhaps the abortion laws should be updated to restrict age, number and reason... yes?
it is the taking of a life after all...
Comments
The crazed gun nut who allegedly killed a county constable and another person in a shooting near Texas A&M University on Monday was a "ticking time bomb" that was ready to blow, his family said.
"He was crazy as hell," Richard Weaver, gunman Thomas Caffall's stepfather, told Houston station KPRC television.
"At one point, we were afraid that he was going to come up here and do something to his mother and me," Weaver said.
Shawn Kemp, a local acquaintance of Caffall’s, told The Eagle newspaper that he “fits the profile of a dude who might snap.”
Caffall seemed depressed and often talked about guns and war, Kemp told the newspaper.
"I don’t know the guy well, but I’ve been around him enough to know, well, that I’m not surprised at all,” Kemp said, adding that he had heard that Caffall planned to pawn some of his guns to pay his rent.
make mental health care available to all not just the insured, not just 24 visits a year, but
enable people to get help for their family members before they hurt themselves or others.
Provide mental health options, have help readily available...
like free walk in clinics, places people can get help themselves
or go for answers for family members.
We have seen 3 shooters at least lately showing signs to someone
they were dangerous and no one did anything about it.
Hopefully people will get involved and stop a tragedy, we must make that easier to do.
Gun laws don't stop crazy sorry, I know many here think that is the answer.
Gun laws only keep responsible gun owners without
their rights intact.
All gun opponents want to do is take away guns from the law abiding.
Each time I ask what would you do to solve the problem the answer is
removing rights to own guns.
How many, what kind, how it's purchased. Pretty sure this will be fought
but even passed it will do nothing as long as people can get guns on the street.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=192967&start=1650
I know it's kind of long and all, but did anybody read it and think about the example given?
In the mid 20th century, public health officials decided to take a multi-faceted approach to lowering the number of deaths in car accidents. And guess what--they succeeded. A few of the things that were implemented:
Improved road conditions to help avoid accidents or make them less lethal. Driver education for young people. It couldn't be required of every driver but if you begin teaching the youngest ones before they get on the road, over time there will be more drivers who are aware of how to drive safely. Then, the really big one--auto manufacturers began to make cars safer. Some of the changes were small, like seat belts to keep you from being thrown from a vehicle. Headrests, which keep your neck from breaking if your car is rear ended (you didn't really think they were for resting your head, did you?). Changes in design so that drivers were no longer impaled by the steering column during a collision. Later on, as the car makers started to realize that people actually like safety features, they started adding more things like air bags. I can remember in the 80s when NO cars had them. In a few years car makers were trying to outdo themselves with all the airbags they installed.
In other words, drivers no longer received the sole credit or blame for whether or not they survived an accident. Conditions were changed to make driving safer.
As I've said numerous times on this board, I'm old. Or at least older than most people here. I remember the car my family had when I was a child. It had no seat belts. The car we bought in 1964 had seat belts only in the front. My parents paid extra to have them installed in the back.
There are still a large number of deaths due to auto accidents when compared to say, the 1950s or 60s. But the U.S. population is larger and there are more cars on the road.
If you want to stick with that car analogy when comparing it to guns, try offering something a little better than making jokes about "let's ban all the cars, they kill more people than guns!" As the article said, our reality now is living in a society with guns. They're not going away. What can we do to make life safer in this reality.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I don't remember were they cleaning their gun? Target practice?
Bad guy around?
That is something that just doesn't usually happen unless someone
is untrained to some degree, unprepared with a gun.
Do you know something of that yourself? Perhaps...
well what does that say about you spending soooo much time reading and then always replying
that is even more mind boggling wouldn't you say?
I've been mostly staying out of this debate because I don't want to wind up crushing my forehead against a wall in frustration. You do realize that the evil boogieman you call "gun control" already exists, right? It does. That's a fact. So, knowing that, do you think "gun control" as it currently exists (reminding you once again that it does already exist) is flawless? You don't think anything could possibly be done to better "gun control" in our society? Not even the slightest tweak here or there? Or, would you recommend we get rid of all current "gun control" laws on the book? I don't see you railing against the "gun control" already in place, so I have to assume you are, in fact, okay with "gun control" at least as it currently exists... I've also heard you suggest that we the people should have equal access to the same weaponry used by police and the government. Really? It's not like I trust those entities much, but should I have access to surface-to-air missiles, nuclear warheads, lazer shooting sharks, etc.?
"Gun control" doesn't mean your law abiding citizens can't have guns, it just means we need to screen folks a whole lot better and have some sane discussion of what level of firepower your average Joe really needs and how quickly they truly need this access.
Don't you love it when people talk about you like you're not here?
I would rather see gun laws we have enforced and have stricter penalties for criminals and
work on getting illegal guns off the streets. This works.
Need ... who decides what someone needs?
How many abortions does one woman need in her lifetime?
How much baby blood on her hands?
When it comes to rights who decides that?
It will be a draw no one wants to give up rights.
The woman who uses abortion as birth control or the person who wants to own
300 guns. Some might think one is wrong some might think both are wrong,
some neither.
I fight to keep people having their rights to choose, even when I think it is wrong.
See, you do support gun control. Excellent.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
i can't tell you how many times i have seen accidents happen with guns and by folks who know what they're doing.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I succumb to the right to abortion
See I do support the laws we have
The answer is "no," comebackgirl; I'm still married.
So, laws have never needed to be updated, modernized? In that case, I better not catch you voting or owning land, missy. Also, I think some black folks might be glad that not everyone thinks like you...
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
The gun restriction side simply wants legislation in place to limit the types of weapons and ammunition permitted and ensure thorough background checks before selling to anyone. Hunters could still have their 'hunting' weapons and gun enthusiasts could even own guns as well to... shoot human targets at a gun range?
Restrictions would, eventually, create a very positive effect by (and not limited to):
1. Making bullets for illegal weapons extremely difficult to obtain (when you're out... you're out).
2. Red flagging excessive ammunition purchases.
3. Not introducing new automatic or semi-automatic weapons (or other highly effective weaponry) into the fold.
4. Seizing and destroying all guns as they manifest themselves in crimes.
Granted it wouldn't be perfect- people would continue to find ways to circumvent the law- but it wouldn't be easy to say the least. The aspiring sociopath would have a much more difficult time than Holmes did carrying out their evil plans- not to mention the 2-bit criminal peddling drugs on the street corner.
Why does this not make sense? What am I missing here?
I totally agree, they can happen ALL the time even on gun ranges on military bases. My only accident came while shooting the M60 machine gun. a gun I had to learn to breakdown and put it back together in under 3 minutes. I was shooting the M60 in short bursts then auto then full on till I emptied the canister. I made the mistake of touching the barrel and it scorched/burnt the hell out of my hand. It can happen to the most experienced to the least, at times just extreme heat or extreme cold can cause these mechanical machines to engage.
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)
Otherwise, that was the best post I've seen in this thread for at least 30 pages.
Note: If it hadn't been as easy for Holmes to get the ammo and weapons, it would have taken him longer, and by then that psychiatrist would have received that letter or whatever it was he sent to her, and she would have alerted authorities, and he never would have been able to go on a shooting rampage in the first place. Yay.
That's a great start...
One more thing, make it absolutely illegal to modify a semi-automatic weapon to a fully automatic weapon. No one in the general public needs a fully automatic (burst fire) weapon unless they plan on taking on the police or military. And if they are planning on taking on the police or military with their automatic weapons... they do not belong in the general public any more.
Hail, Hail!!!
do I know something of what? what the hell are you talking about? I spend so much time reading trying to understand your point of view, because I can't for the life of me understand your line of thinking.
I can at least understand the pro-second amendment side. But many of them have a rational way of expressing it.
Kind of like how scientists study monkeys. Even though a monkey keeps doing the same damn thing over and over, and all the while the monkey is thinking "they must really think I'm superior spending all this time looking at me". The scientists keep trying. is it futile? Maybe.
this sure as hell has been.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
YES! you'd finally have a fighting chance against the mountain goats!
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
You see Hugh THIS is why I posted this...*There's just some men you can't reach...*
I think that's the case that we have here.
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)
sidenote - I've made a wager with myself as to what page this'll have made it to come morning.
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
I don't wanna jinx it
"I need your strength for me to be strong...I need your love to feel loved"
How could you!
Add to TBU list... strict and thorough background checks, mandatory licensing. Make all sellers 'licensed' - having to go through the same procedure for selling firearms. No more 'no questions asked' when purchasing firearms at gun shows, via the internet, etc. Just close the loophole.
But hey... if it's cars that some understand, let's talk cars/guns then.... :roll:
It has been shown that there are much more controls in obtaining a license to drive a car than there are in being able to obtain a gun. Why not just simply apply the rules for potential car drivers to potential gun users... Via a 'licensed broker' only, thorough checks (giving all details, including social security number, proof of identity/residency, etc.), apply/get goods in person (not via internet), written test (making sure one understands the 'laws' of ownership, how to store arms, etc.), practical test (making sure one can effectively use a gun), revoking of said licence if conditions no longer met... For starters. Then, keeping with the driving 'theme' - as there are different types of licenses depending on the vehicle you wish to drive and the use of this vehicle, let's do the same for guns. 'Basic' licence for guns in the home used for 'protection', another one for those wanting more than that (comparable to non commercial class a or b licenses) and then for those who think they need assault rifles, etc. another step comparable to the commercial driver license which requires a medical.
I don't hear anyone crying blue murder about these these checks, tests, 'restrictions' for the car. No one saying it is taking away their freedom, etc.; and it doesn't seem to stop 'responsible' car owners/drivers from getting what they want so what would be the problem with applying the same stringent rules to gun ownership? How about that? Sensible enough? Laws/restrictions already accepted by 'all' so no issues, right?
hmmmm
sounds familiar
I think the logical motion would be to enforce laws we have
we know gunlaws do not effect gun power nor stop crime
but perhaps the abortion laws should be updated to restrict age, number and reason... yes?
it is the taking of a life after all...
and that would save thousands of lives...