Gun control

Obama talks about gun control etc. Then it goes to the floor for questions and the first question is about the economy. Thats how much the media care about control!!!
 
Sorry Grinner. I thought that the press conference was about control of weapons, didn't realize it was open.
 
Shame on liberals for exploiting tragedy once again in our country and try to use tragedy as a reason to take our rights away. Liberals are shameful.

We have to resist with the ferociousness of a junk yard dog, any, any attempt by liberals to make us less free by chipping away at our constitutional freedoms. The second amendment is as sacred a right as is first amendment or any other amendment. I’ll be willing to have a conversation with liberals about gun control in the same conversation we should have about whether government should restrict our first amendment right or how about whether we should scale back our fourth amendment rights, how about restricting our 14th amendment due process rights? Let’s have a debate about the second amendment in that same conversation. Then let’s see what the left has to say about restricting our freedoms.

Liberals don’t care about curbing violence because if they did they wouldn’t coddle and call for more leniency for criminal perpetrators. When a hold-up man sticks a gun in someone’s face and takes their money, liberals want to offer job training, they want the criminal to serve their sentence walking round in the community with a monitoring device on. How crazy is that.

All the left is interested in is having the government control every aspect of our lives. Calling for gun control is just another aspect of furthering their socialist agenda.
All of these suggestions about the need for gun control are the mindset of sheep. Once the wolf is at the door, you’re helpless. Sure, run and hide from a sociopathic killer. See how far that gets you. You know where that ‘ll get you? 26 dead at Sandy Hook School. No one could stop the shooting and the cops weren’t there yet. The only reason there weren’t more slaughtered is because the wolf took his own life before slaughtering more innocent sheep.

I would suggest that business owners remove those signs at their front door that guns are prohibited. It is nothing more than telling a sociopath that if they choose this place to slaughter people before carrying out their death wish that no one on site will be able to stop them or fight back. Do liberals really think that a sociopathic killer or even a hold-up man is not going to enter a place with a gun because a sign says guns prohibited?

Thinking that prohibiting guns within 1000 feet of a school creates a safety zone may sound warm and fuzzy. All its does is identify for a sociopath that he can slaughter as many people as he wants before anyone with a gun can stop him. In essence we have made schools more vulnerable to attack by mass murderers because the closest person who can stop the attack and limit the carnage is 1000 feet away and that’s just to get to the building. Then it takes awhile to figure out where the killer is even for law enforcement. Do you realize how many people will be killed by a mass murderer in that much time?

I have a better idea to all this run and hide advice. An armed tactical trained officer or security officer in every school and public place (theaters, malls, etc) in America. How are we going to pay for it? With all the money we spend on “going green projects and other waste of money social service spending we do. And spare me the idea of more gun control. Gun control has never worked and never will. That’s a sheep mentality. It’s like saying lets capture all the wolves and then the sheep will be safe. Yeah right.
I’ve had it with these sociopaths slaughtering innocent people who are in no position to defend themselves.

I was in Jerusalem last year. You couldn’t go too far without seeing an Israeli border patrol agent, national police officer or security guard all armed with Uzi’s. It was impressive and I felt safe. They don’t talk about gun control in Israel to prevent violence. They dare gun toting perps to bring it.


----------------

From Milwaukee Sheriff....
 
Like a sheriff knows what a sociopath thinks. And there's a big difference between a trained officer and a civilian when it comes to guns. Maybe he doesnt realize that
 
That quote reads like a parody. Sadly, it seems not to be.
 
For some reason I get the notion that "sheriff" wouldn't be able to find his own asshole from a hole in the ground or his own mouth. The opinions spouted off reek of right-wing radio and FNC opine tripe.
 
Twigginater said:
Shame on liberals for exploiting tragedy once again in our country and try to use tragedy as a reason to take our rights away. Liberals are shameful.

We have to resist with the ferociousness of a junk yard dog, any, any attempt by liberals to make us less free by chipping away at our constitutional freedoms. The second amendment is as sacred a right as is first amendment or any other amendment. I’ll be willing to have a conversation with liberals about gun control in the same conversation we should have about whether government should restrict our first amendment right or how about whether we should scale back our fourth amendment rights, how about restricting our 14th amendment due process rights? Let’s have a debate about the second amendment in that same conversation. Then let’s see what the left has to say about restricting our freedoms.

Liberals don’t care about curbing violence because if they did they wouldn’t coddle and call for more leniency for criminal perpetrators. When a hold-up man sticks a gun in someone’s face and takes their money, liberals want to offer job training, they want the criminal to serve their sentence walking round in the community with a monitoring device on. How crazy is that.

All the left is interested in is having the government control every aspect of our lives. Calling for gun control is just another aspect of furthering their socialist agenda.
All of these suggestions about the need for gun control are the mindset of sheep. Once the wolf is at the door, you’re helpless. Sure, run and hide from a sociopathic killer. See how far that gets you. You know where that ‘ll get you? 26 dead at Sandy Hook School. No one could stop the shooting and the cops weren’t there yet. The only reason there weren’t more slaughtered is because the wolf took his own life before slaughtering more innocent sheep.

I would suggest that business owners remove those signs at their front door that guns are prohibited. It is nothing more than telling a sociopath that if they choose this place to slaughter people before carrying out their death wish that no one on site will be able to stop them or fight back. Do liberals really think that a sociopathic killer or even a hold-up man is not going to enter a place with a gun because a sign says guns prohibited?

Thinking that prohibiting guns within 1000 feet of a school creates a safety zone may sound warm and fuzzy. All its does is identify for a sociopath that he can slaughter as many people as he wants before anyone with a gun can stop him. In essence we have made schools more vulnerable to attack by mass murderers because the closest person who can stop the attack and limit the carnage is 1000 feet away and that’s just to get to the building. Then it takes awhile to figure out where the killer is even for law enforcement. Do you realize how many people will be killed by a mass murderer in that much time?

I have a better idea to all this run and hide advice. An armed tactical trained officer or security officer in every school and public place (theaters, malls, etc) in America. How are we going to pay for it? With all the money we spend on “going green projects and other waste of money social service spending we do. And spare me the idea of more gun control. Gun control has never worked and never will. That’s a sheep mentality. It’s like saying lets capture all the wolves and then the sheep will be safe. Yeah right.
I’ve had it with these sociopaths slaughtering innocent people who are in no position to defend themselves.

I was in Jerusalem last year. You couldn’t go too far without seeing an Israeli border patrol agent, national police officer or security guard all armed with Uzi’s. It was impressive and I felt safe. They don’t talk about gun control in Israel to prevent violence. They dare gun toting perps to bring it.


----------------

From Milwaukee Sheriff....
Click to expand...

I may be wrong however has there been another mass shooting in the UK since Dunblane and tighter gun control laws? Or someone else pointed out, there has not been a mass shooting in Australia since they instituted tighter gun control as well. And what about Japan? No one will ever be completely safe from guns but we can sure as hell lower the chances of this ever happening again.
 
That sheriff's rant just shows what a difficult battle it will be to get people to realize they'll be much safer in a country without guns. Amazing how much the people of this country think in terms of "us and them" instead of just what's best for all of us.
 
Did a random count at lunch earlier and of the 6 guys around the table one had 4 guns, one had two, and the rest of us have none.

Of course the guy with 4 guns (works out to be one for each of his family) was adamant that no one would take his guns away, especially not Obama.

This same guy (originally from Colorado, if that makes any difference) had his Romney/Ryan stickers in his office since early September.
 
Plato said:
With the amount of firearms in the US, banning guns would actually cause civil unrest. I don't see the point of having more citizens with firearms. These are weapons designed to kill. Does your country really need more citizens with firearms to protect themselves?

In an emotionally charged scenario, you have to be ice cold to process the situation accurately and react accordingly. Is gun training sufficient for that? If you're going to go down that route, you need to be mindful of the type of guns people possess. Currently, I don't see how you can really handle that. So you could very well end up with more citizens packed with semi-automatics. This bloke shot 100 rounds in 3 minutes. Is there any cap on ammo?

Screening should help. The US just needs to take baby steps in the right direction. I'm not sure how allowing more individuals to own guns is doing that. There's too many weak assumptions there. In the long-term, you need the cultural mindset to change. Because what I witnessed an hour ago was barbaric.

The other problem is the home. Parents need to be honest with themselves and the condition of their children. Sheer ignorance to psychological issues allows such events to happen. From a mental health standpoint, what's in place in the states is clearly letting your country down. It's time you lot put it right. I don't want to read another horror story like this. You people have the capability to actually do something positive. Something good can come from this. Question I have is with this heavily complex issue, are people going to really rally together? Or are we going to witness more bloodshed, more politics, more lobbying, and an ever increasing tension with an issue that should have been done and dusted ages ago?
Click to expand...

I'm not American, dude. :)
 
Grinner said:
Yeah that was what I saw. It's a good idea but I expect it'd be easy to get anything you needed from Canada or Mexico.
Click to expand...

Mexico perhaps, Canada not so much. You need a possession and acquisition licence to purchase ammunition.
 
Grinner said:
Not banning handguns would be pointless as they are responsible for most of the deaths. License, insurance, good reason for owning one, annual training, demonstration of safe storage should all be minimum requirements of ownership.

That'd cut out a lot of wackos from having one.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
gooDevil said:
I think an easy first step to take would be to only allow people to have guns that shoot a low number of rounds per minute. If people really only need the weapons for hunting, then they don't need a combat level weapon. Perhaps we could only allow lever-action rifles for hunting and only 6 shooters for 'home defense'.
Click to expand...

Capacity aside, in the right hands a lever action rifle fires multiple rounds just as quickly as a semi-automatic.

The lesson is that all firearms are equally dangerous, with the exception of select fire, the type of action is largely irrelevant.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Capacity aside, in the right hands a lever action rifle fires multiple rounds just as quickly as a semi-automatic.

The lesson is that all firearms are equally dangerous, with the exception of select fire, the type of action is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

But most aren't in the right hands.
 
''One failed attempt at a shoe bomb and we all take off our shoes at the airport.

Thirty-one school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns.''

John Oliver

Says it all really . . . :(
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Capacity aside, in the right hands a lever action rifle fires multiple rounds just as quickly as a semi-automatic.

The lesson is that all firearms are equally dangerous, with the exception of select fire, the type of action is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

was listening to a Democratic congressman and he said most hunters only need about 3 bullets in the gun. What is your experience? I assume you hunt deer.
 
Dr. Dwayne said:
Capacity aside, in the right hands a lever action rifle fires multiple rounds just as quickly as a semi-automatic.

The lesson is that all firearms are equally dangerous, with the exception of select fire, the type of action is largely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Hang on. You qualified your own statement with "in the right hands". What about all of the guys who aren't gun experts, and still attempt these shootings? Hell, you even qualified it with "capacity aside". Following that up with "all firearms are equally dangerous" seems a bit silly.

Perhaps it is if we assume the situation is someone shooting you in the face at point blank, once, but that's a bit simplistic. Someone with a semi-automatic assault rifle with a clip that holds 30 bullets is going to be able to do a lot more damage than someone with a hunting rifle or a revolver.
 
Wibble said:
But most aren't in the right hands.
Click to expand...

Experienced hands. It doesn't take a lot of practice to work a lever action quickly.

Red Dreams said:
was listening to a Democratic congressman and he said most hunters only need about 3 bullets in the gun. What is your experience? I assume you hunt deer.
Click to expand...

More rounds equals more weight. You're already trudging through the bush with a rifle and other gear. Also, you can really only bag one deer at a time...if you need more than a couple of rounds to bring one down you really shouldn't be hunting.

I don't actively hunt, though.

niMic said:
Hang on. You qualified your own statement with "in the right hands". What about all of the guys who aren't gun experts, and still attempt these shootings? Hell, you even qualified it with "capacity aside". Following that up with "all firearms are equally dangerous" seems a bit silly.

Perhaps it is if we assume the situation is someone shooting you in the face at point blank, once, but that's a bit simplistic. Someone with a semi-automatic assault rifle with a clip that holds 30 bullets is going to be able to do a lot more damage than someone with a hunting rifle or a revolver.
Click to expand...

Experienced hands, although it doesn't take much to work a lever back and forth. Anyone with one will spend hours doing just that. Some levers can hold as many as 8 rounds, which is a lot...it's not 30 but my point was that all firearms are equally dangerous, they meet a minimum criteria of destruction. A .22lr can kill just as easily as a .223 or .338 lapua, they way the receiver looks is irrelevant. There are so many minute factors at play that alter that destructive capability for the worse that banning a type of firearm based on its appearance is silly.
 
Im red2 said:
British Psychiatrist suggests link between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and school shootings.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/
Click to expand...

You just have to read the comments on that article:

right, only the crooks will have guns.
Click to expand...

I saw a great comment yesterday concerning people who think making guns illegal will solve this problem. The quote was "Anyone of you who's ever smoked a joint, automatically disqualify yourself from your argument that prohibition works."
Pot has been illegal since 1937 and it is readily available in every town, city and state in America. Making guns illegal will only create ANOTHER BLACK MARKET (in Guns) OR just make existing gangs even stronger with all the added revenue they'll now be receiving...
Click to expand...

Yeah...check out model cities with very low crime rates...like NYC... 'duh'
Click to expand...

What about the strict gun laws in Chicago? Their gun crime rate is extremely high!!!
Click to expand...

In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s — after decades of ever tightening gun ownership restrictions — there were more than 100 times as many armed robberies.
Click to expand...

Batman Begins was right, its time to give up on the US.
 
I disagree. Those scary-looking guns link directly to the gung-ho culture that abounds with COD and violent films. They are not needed by anybody and I'm quite certain that the people who buy them do it because they look cool and it makes them feel tough.

It's the same reason that Glocks are so popular and why Desert Eagles were all the rage a while back.
 
Some ex-marine was on the local news here because he decided to go and stand outside a school in his uniform and guard it. Turns out he was lying about his rank and military record, yet he spent two days on guard with all the staff and parents fawning over him.

Just a weird little story in this whole affair.
 
Grinner said:
Some ex-marine was on the local news here because he decided to go and stand outside a school in his uniform and guard it. Turns out he was lying about his rank and military record, yet he spent two days on guard with all the staff and parents fawning over him.

Just a weird little story in this whole affair.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing none of them thought about the fact that if he was the first one killed any potential serial killer would just have more weapons an ammunition.
 
Silva said:
I'm guessing none of them thought about the fact that if he was the first one killed any potential serial killer would just have more weapons an ammunition.
Click to expand...

He was unarmed. It was pretty pointless but all these idiots went on about how cool he was and how safe they felt....that a lying, deluded weirdo was guarding them!
 
The problem goes very deep and that is why I dont have hopes it will change now. It starts with the culture in the US and their (superior) believe they have the right to do and to have whatever they want (God given rights). Then the US has a fecked up political system. In addition, the health system is as good as in a third world country (or even worse) so all these people who have such issues cant be screened and properly medicated. On top, you have a very high percentage of people with mental issues, psychological disorders etc. Gun control would need lots of money, maybe a new department etc etc. Money that is not available right now

There are so many angles where it needed to be worked on and with the current crisis, it just wont happen sadly. Strict gun control would be one huge step and while you never have a 100% guarantee, every life saved is worth it.
 
I just saw that...wow!

Their chief lobbyist will be on Meet the Press this weekend so I may actually watch it for once in the hope that Gregory destroys him.
 
Absolutely crazy stuff from the NRA. Fill schools with a section of society most likely to suffer from PTSD, arm them and just hope for the best that they turn out to be "good guys".
 
Security guards are some of the worst people to trust with firearms. Wannabe cops with minimal training.

Shooters will just go to a mall and murder twenty shoppers.
 
I don't understand the "a guard/teacher with a gun would've stopped him!" argument. I've tried really hard, but I simply don't get it. Having a guard will do feck all, except that he'll be the guy getting killed first (or he'll end up killing someone who gets caught in the crossfire). How could a guard possibly stand a realistic chance against a random person with a gun who has the element of surprise on his side? Furthermore, how would the guard stay awake? Thankfully there's still a lot of schools that hasn't experienced a single school-shooting in their history - should they've had a guard for their entire lifetime just sitting around doing feck all? It's the stupidest argument I've ever heard, and I've had several girlfriends.
 
Dobba said:
Well the NRA's contribution to the debate is one of the dumbest speeches in recent history.
Click to expand...

I think any American should be overjoyed by that idiocy to be honest.

They shut up shop for a week to come up with a 'stance' on this issue, and this is what they have.

To me, it says they are running scared, its so stupid, and I've never seen that from the NRA before.
 
The circular logic of that "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" statement is so insanely amazing that there's nothing you can really do but give props to the sheer balls out idiocy of it.
 
Chase Mitchell ‏@ChaseMit

Just want to point out the NRA's plan to stop school shootings is literally the plot of Kindergarten Cop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.