gun control:i dont understand...

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

Americans just have to face the reality... guns are here and they are NEVER going away. Even if a gunman walks through a maternity ward and blasts the nusery.. killing 1,000 newborns... we will never give up our guns. As long as there is paranoia, fear, greed, want, poverty and wusses... the market for guns is there.

it baffles me that an armed citizen saved lives the other day when a gunman opened fire in a church; net no thread about it.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

it baffles me that an armed citizen saved lives the other day when a gunman opened fire in a church; net no thread about it.

...
It says more about how fucked up America is because you need to post 15 to 20 armed security guards at your CHURCH!!!

drew0

onelongsong wrote:

it baffles me that an armed citizen saved lives the other day when a gunman opened fire in a church; net no thread about it.

she was an armed security guard. thank god for her, and may god bless her.

however, as the posted above me pointed out, it's more sad that we she even needed to be there...why should we need armed guards at a church?

i'm a supporter of the second amendment, but i think proper precautions needed to be taken in order to protect society as much as possible without taking away our rights. a proper waiting period, thorough background checks, etc. should be put into place - anyone who wants one can still have one, as guaranteed in the constitution, and chances of them going into the wrong hands are lessened.

also, i support letting different cities & towns write their own laws, as long as it doesn't ban them completely or get someone in trouble carrying their gun from town to town, etc. i'm from a small, conservative town, where guns are used for hunting and whatnot...no one has been murdered with a gun in years. i now live in pittsburgh, and see that guns are used for different reasons and this city has a 180 perspective...in other words, a city like pittsburgh should be allowed to enact stricter laws while small towns like my hometown should have looser ones.

Cosmo

drew0 wrote:

she was an armed security guard. thank god for her, and may god bless her.

however, as the posted above me pointed out, it's more sad that we she even needed to be there...why should we need armed guards at a church?

i'm a supporter of the second amendment, but i think proper precautions needed to be taken in order to protect society as much as possible without taking away our rights. a proper waiting period, thorough background checks, etc. should be put into place - anyone who wants one can still have one, as guaranteed in the constitution, and chances of them going into the wrong hands are lessened.

also, i support letting different cities & towns write their own laws, as long as it doesn't ban them completely or get someone in trouble carrying their gun from town to town, etc. i'm from a small, conservative town, where guns are used for hunting and whatnot...no one has been murdered with a gun in years. i now live in pittsburgh, and see that guns are used for different reasons and this city has a 180 perspective...in other words, a city like pittsburgh should be allowed to enact stricter laws while small towns like my hometown should have looser ones.

...
Agree with you, 100%.
I also believe in the Second Amendment right... but, it needs to have certain limits... such as, you can't buy a .50 caliber machine gun or a 105mm Howitzer because a .50 machine gun is a horrible hunting gun... as is the Howitzer.
And... that States should be able to create and support their own gun laws. Like, I don't want more fucking guns in Los Angeles... but, I don't want to take guns away from rural America... where environment and population are completely different. I don't think that gun control nuts from California should swarm to Nebraska and take guns away and I don't believe NRA gun nuts from Montana sholud come to L.A. and protest our gun laws.

searchlightsoul

Pacomc79 wrote:

So Gun Crime is all the White man's fault?

Curtailing liberty from all shades of law abiding people will suddenly end all the ills of the world?

Prohibition worked really well with alcohol and drugs right?

I don't think anyone is talking about a complete gun ban as a realistic possibility so this is a stupid point. However, there need to be limits. Civilian Americans do not need high powered rifles. In any case the ~20 000 gun deaths a year in the states illustrates that many are unable/can not be trusted to use fire arms safely. How many people have to die to get the message through your thick skulls?

Kann

NCfan wrote:

Here is a statistic for you. Somebody look up how many firearms there are in the US, and how many of those firearms are involved in crimes each year.

The percentage, I'm sure would be extrememly small. My point being is that the vast majority of law abiding citizens do not promote and are not victims of gun violence.

People who get shot, more often than not are shady mother fuckers dealing in shady shit. Most of the time thier guns are stolen or illegal in the first place.

Come on, this is bs. Surely you understand the equation : more guns = more deaths due to firearms. And, to please the factual police : higher firearm ownership = higher homicide rates in the us if you want more, just type "gun control" on that website.

I understand that you will not let go of your 2nd amendment but at least make it a little harder to get guns. I read somewhere that in some states you can order them on the internet... I mean, making it harder to get them will mean less people will have them which will mean less risks for accidents and other stupid stuff which ends with dead people.

onelongsong

searchlightsoul wrote:

I don't think anyone is talking about a complete gun ban as a realistic possibility so this is a stupid point. However, there need to be limits. Civilian Americans do not need high powered rifles. In any case the ~20 000 gun deaths a year in the states illustrates that many are unable/can not be trusted to use fire arms safely. How many people have to die to get the message through your thick skulls?

according to the FBI; there are less than 10,000 gun deaths each year. are you making up stats as you go along? we have 330 million residents plus 15 million illegal residents. you do the math.

dunkman

onelongsong wrote:

according to the FBI; there are less than 10,000 gun deaths each year. are you making up stats as you go along? we have 330 million residents plus 15 million illegal residents. you do the math.

you are looking at the FBI's stats for gun homicides only i think.. there are more than 20,000 gun DEATHS per year... to quote the http://www.cdc.gov 1998 report

"...In 1998, 30,708 Americans were killed with firearms - in homicides, suicides and accidents. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,148 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War....."

suicide by a gun is still a gun death.. as is a gun accident... the FBI doesnt count these.

onelongsong

drew0 wrote:

she was an armed security guard. thank god for her, and may god bless her.

however, as the posted above me pointed out, it's more sad that we she even needed to be there...why should we need armed guards at a church?

i'm a supporter of the second amendment, but i think proper precautions needed to be taken in order to protect society as much as possible without taking away our rights. a proper waiting period, thorough background checks, etc. should be put into place - anyone who wants one can still have one, as guaranteed in the constitution, and chances of them going into the wrong hands are lessened.

also, i support letting different cities & towns write their own laws, as long as it doesn't ban them completely or get someone in trouble carrying their gun from town to town, etc. i'm from a small, conservative town, where guns are used for hunting and whatnot...no one has been murdered with a gun in years. i now live in pittsburgh, and see that guns are used for different reasons and this city has a 180 perspective...in other words, a city like pittsburgh should be allowed to enact stricter laws while small towns like my hometown should have looser ones.

dude; she wasn't a security guard at the church. and security guards are never allowed to carry conceald weapons. she was a security guard as her profession; but she wasn't on duty. she had a permit to carry that conceald weapon and she did. and yes; thank God for that.

he's what i don't understand. where i'm at; anyone who isn't a felon can carry a gun IN PLAIN SIGHT; anywhere except a couple places; but they can also apply for a permit to carry that gun conceald. 80,000 people have.
here's the question:
WHY CAN PEOPLE HERE GET ALONG BETTER; AND HANDLE THE RESPONSABILITY OF A GUN; BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE IN PITTSBURG?
i'm dead bloody serious. what you've said is that people in pittsburg need stricter gun laws. if so; then either they cannot get along or cannot handle the responsability of a gun whereas people in other states can. thus the need for different laws in different areas. but the us is suppose to be equal. am i that much better than the bloke in pittsburg because i can handle the responsability?

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
Agree with you, 100%.
I also believe in the Second Amendment right... but, it needs to have certain limits... such as, you can't buy a .50 caliber machine gun or a 105mm Howitzer because a .50 machine gun is a horrible hunting gun... as is the Howitzer.
And... that States should be able to create and support their own gun laws. Like, I don't want more fucking guns in Los Angeles... but, I don't want to take guns away from rural America... where environment and population are completely different. I don't think that gun control nuts from California should swarm to Nebraska and take guns away and I don't believe NRA gun nuts from Montana sholud come to L.A. and protest our gun laws.

Few would argue that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own personal nuclear weapons, but there is really nothing in the 2nd Amendment allowing restrictions on future technological developments in arms. The 1st Amendment is not limited to 18th century printing technology, or 18th century religions. U.S. versus Miller indicated that the weapons protected were weapons "commonly in use by soldiers". This would mean that the 2nd Amendment protects private ownership of not only semi-automatic "assault weapons", but also actual military assault rifles, which can fire either semi-automatic, three-shot bursts, or fully automatic mode.
http://www.trollcave.com/2nd_Amendment.html

onelongsong

Cosmo wrote:

...
It says more about how fucked up America is because you need to post 15 to 20 armed security guards at your CHURCH!!!

show me where she was a security guard AT THE CHURCH. yes; her profession was a security guard; but she was attending church. she had a conceald weapons permit AND her gun. funny how people try to twist a story.

evenkat

dunkman wrote:

you are looking at the FBI's stats for gun homicides only i think.. there are more than 20,000 gun DEATHS per year... to quote the http://www.cdc.gov 1998 report

"...In 1998, 30,708 Americans were killed with firearms - in homicides, suicides and accidents. In comparison, 33,651 Americans were killed in the Korean War and 58,148 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War....."

suicide by a gun is still a gun death.. as is a gun accident... the FBI doesnt count these.

I wonder how much those numbers increased since 1998?

There are also the ones who have been shot and severally injured with brain injuries, paralyzed and etc.

Missed your humor the past few days

dunkman

evenkat wrote:

I wonder how much those numbers increased since 1998?

me too.. its probably a 10 year study pattern or something... so next year? maybe?

evenkat wrote:

There are also the ones who have been shot and severally injured with brain injuries, paralyzed and etc.

yes, again thats probably higher than the actual death total isnt it?

evenkat wrote:

Missed your humor the past few days

you missed? then you should go on a gun course

onelongsong

evenkat wrote:

I wonder how much those numbers increased since 1998?

There are also the ones who have been shot and severally injured with brain injuries, paralyzed and etc.

Missed your humor the past few days

and when someone brings humor into such a serious conversation; it's time to walk away from it.
peace-out

Pacomc79

searchlightsoul wrote:

I don't think anyone is talking about a complete gun ban as a realistic possibility so this is a stupid point. However, there need to be limits. Civilian Americans do not need high powered rifles. In any case the ~20 000 gun deaths a year in the states illustrates that many are unable/can not be trusted to use fire arms safely. How many people have to die to get the message through your thick skulls?

I have a thick skull? I don't disagree with a lot of what you say.

How many weapons will be off the street tomorrow if a law is put into place outlawing all guns?

We can't build enough prisons. There are already multitudes of firearms laws... Face 5 etc etc. They aren't doing any good. It's already illegal to own assault weapons and automatics. You already have to have concealed carry permits to carry a hand gun legally.

Stupid ass lunatics owning weapons is the problem but until we do something about American attitudes towards life in general all the laws in the world aren't going to stop these mass murder suicides from happening.

I am all for gun education and gun safety at young ages, just as I am for sex education at young ages. I also am for Trigger locks and authorization codes built in to weapon stocks. The vast majority of law abiding citizens don't have much need for weapons and don't choose to own them and if they do they aren't killing people. I don't see much of the point in making a person a criminal simply for having a few rifles in thier closet that may have belonged to thier grandfather and might get shot once in a blue moon just as I don't see the point in making people who smoke a few joints on thier front porch or grow Marijuana in their garden "criminals"

Making another law that is impossible to police isn't going to do anything but make a few politicans feel good about themselves.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

dude; she wasn't a security guard at the church. and security guards are never allowed to carry conceald weapons. she was a security guard as her profession; but she wasn't on duty. she had a permit to carry that conceald weapon and she did. and yes; thank God for that.

he's what i don't understand. where i'm at; anyone who isn't a felon can carry a gun IN PLAIN SIGHT; anywhere except a couple places; but they can also apply for a permit to carry that gun conceald. 80,000 people have.
here's the question:
WHY CAN PEOPLE HERE GET ALONG BETTER; AND HANDLE THE RESPONSABILITY OF A GUN; BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE IN PITTSBURG?
i'm dead bloody serious. what you've said is that people in pittsburg need stricter gun laws. if so; then either they cannot get along or cannot handle the responsability of a gun whereas people in other states can. thus the need for different laws in different areas. but the us is suppose to be equal. am i that much better than the bloke in pittsburg because i can handle the responsability?

there are more poor people living in isolated poverty being forced into small quarters in direct competition with each other in pittsburgh and any other major city than in your rural nowhere town.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

show me where she was a security guard AT THE CHURCH. yes; her profession was a security guard; but she was attending church. she had a conceald weapons permit AND her gun. funny how people try to twist a story.

...
Here you go:
"Police did not release the identity of the gunman, who was shot and killed by a member of the church’s armed security staff. Boyd said the gunman had no connection to the church and called it a “senseless random attack.”"

"The gunman was killed by a member of the church’s armed security staff before police arrived, Meyers said."

"Some 15 to 20 volunteer guards serve at the church, Boyd said, noting that an evacuation plan was performed flawlessly."

Ref. ( http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/10/ChurchShootings.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=7 )

Another source:
"DENVER (AP) - Police say an autopsy shows the man who killed four people at a Colorado church and a missionary training center died from a bullet he fired himself -- though he was hit by shots from a church security officer."

Ref. ( http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/global/story.asp?s=7481426 )
...
Let me know how that Crow tastes.

soulsinging

Cosmo wrote:

...
Here you go:
"Police did not release the identity of the gunman, who was shot and killed by a member of the church’s armed security staff. Boyd said the gunman had no connection to the church and called it a “senseless random attack.”"

"Some 15 to 20 volunteer guards serve at the church, Boyd said, noting that an evacuation plan was performed flawlessly."

Ref. ( http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/10/ChurchShootings.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=7 )

Another source:
"DENVER (AP) - Police say an autopsy shows the man who killed four people at a Colorado church and a missionary training center died from a bullet he fired himself -- though he was hit by shots from a church security officer."

Ref. ( http://www.montanasnewsstation.com/global/story.asp?s=7481426 )
...
Let me know how that Crow tastes.

damn you man! i was all set yo get outta here, but i just have to see this... assuming he responds.

Cosmo

soulsinging wrote:

damn you man! i was all set yo get outta here, but i just have to see this... assuming he responds.

...
I heard it takes a while to catch a crow.

Cosmo

onelongsong wrote:

dude; she wasn't a security guard at the church. and security guards are never allowed to carry conceald weapons. she was a security guard as her profession; but she wasn't on duty. she had a permit to carry that conceald weapon and she did. and yes; thank God for that.

he's what i don't understand. where i'm at; anyone who isn't a felon can carry a gun IN PLAIN SIGHT; anywhere except a couple places; but they can also apply for a permit to carry that gun conceald. 80,000 people have.
here's the question:
WHY CAN PEOPLE HERE GET ALONG BETTER; AND HANDLE THE RESPONSABILITY OF A GUN; BETTER THAN THE PEOPLE IN PITTSBURG?
i'm dead bloody serious. what you've said is that people in pittsburg need stricter gun laws. if so; then either they cannot get along or cannot handle the responsability of a gun whereas people in other states can. thus the need for different laws in different areas. but the us is suppose to be equal. am i that much better than the bloke in pittsburg because i can handle the responsability?

...
Where you're at? You personally know of special needs children being enslaved... and accept 'It's hard to find homes for Special needs kids.' as an excuse to abuse them. And trigger happy neighbors just itching to shoot an unarmed man in a fist fight?
Yeah... sounds like a real fucking great place to live.