Posted by seamar_116 on 12/18/2012 2:03:00 AM (view original):
Belief that more guns make us safer...

Ft. Hood shooting....no shortage of armed, trained people there.

Luby's, Kileen Texas...cops were eating there.

Murder of 4 cops at a coffee shop in Washington State a couple of years ago....by a convicted murderer that Huckabee pardoned in Arkansas.

Lanza's mom. Why didn't her guns protect her? Doesn't this pretty much destroy that myth?

What if we made it harder to kill large numbers of people in such a short period of time, instead of saying "more people should be armed." We already have the highest incidence of gun-ownership in the industrialized world...how many of these all too frequent incidents have been stopped by someone carrying?

* If you live in an area prone to wild boar attacks how about carrying a shotgun...or an elephant gun? Either of those fulfill your needs? Heck, I'd let you pack a LAW if you wanted. Single shot...don't miss.

Ft Hood

No shortage of TRAINED people there.  I'll assume you haven't been on a Military base in the past 40 years.  The only ones armed are the MPs and anyone who might be on the rifle range.  But even they don't have much ammo on them.  

For all intents and purposes, Military bases are Gun Free Zones - Just like a school, or a theater, or a church, or a stadium.  Defenseless people, who if they follow the laws, do not and cannot carry their firearms with them.

Posted by fencer024 on 12/18/2012 2:46:00 (view original):

Posted by seamar_116 on 12/18/2012 2:03:00 AM (view original):
Belief that more guns make us safer...

Ft. Hood shooting....no shortage of armed, trained people there.

Luby's, Kileen Texas...cops were eating there.

Murder of 4 cops at a coffee shop in Washington State a couple of years ago....by a convicted murderer that Huckabee pardoned in Arkansas.

Lanza's mom. Why didn't her guns protect her? Doesn't this pretty much destroy that myth?

What if we made it harder to kill large numbers of people in such a short period of time, instead of saying "more people should be armed." We already have the highest incidence of gun-ownership in the industrialized world...how many of these all too frequent incidents have been stopped by someone carrying?

* If you live in an area prone to wild boar attacks how about carrying a shotgun...or an elephant gun? Either of those fulfill your needs? Heck, I'd let you pack a LAW if you wanted. Single shot...don't miss.

Ft Hood

No shortage of TRAINED people there.  I'll assume you haven't been on a Military base in the past 40 years.  The only ones armed are the MPs and anyone who might be on the rifle range.  But even they don't have much ammo on them.  

For all intents and purposes, Military bases are Gun Free Zones - Just like a school, or a theater, or a church, or a stadium.  Defenseless people, who if they follow the laws, do not and cannot carry their firearms with them.

Fencer, I stand corrected. My last time on base was at a sub base about 12-13 years ago.  So, you are saying that military bases are soft targets then? If that's the case then, that really guts the argument for needing the 2nd Amendment to protect us from the gov't does it not?

Again...what is the problem with banning hi-cap mags, and limiting ownership to hunting rifles and shotguns? Background checks, including gun shows? No cash and carry transactions?  How many guns should one person be allowed to own?  How about if a crime is committed with YOUR gun, you go to jail? And if it results in a death, it is a capital offense?

Just asking for people to be responsible. We all want that, right?

It used to be that only anonymous voices would be heard saying the vilest things - think CB radios, shock jocks, Catskill comedians, etc .    Now people are happy to post their pictures, locations, identities, friends and family lists, and everything else, and act proud to live in the lowest slimepits of humanity.   Is there any shame at all left in the human race?      What happened?

The first tweet was from a former North Alabama football player. I say former because he was kicked of the team for his tweet. 

Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/17/2012 9:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sergei91 on 12/17/2012 9:37:00 AM (view original):
so stricter gun laws are gonna keep guns out of the hands of people who want them bad enough? how are those drug laws working? glad nobody can acquire drugs because of all the laws against it.

those type of laws are like restraining orders. non-enforcable. or at least not effective of anything until AFTER THE FACT.

Correct.  I mentioned this in my 12/15/2012 8:52 PM post.

It is another version of liberal fantasy land.  The elimination of guns is not going to happen.  Libs can go feel all good about themselves because they want to eliminate "bad" looking guns (which is exactly how they decided which guns to eliminate in the first assault weapons ban bill, they literally got pics of guns and picked which ones to elimanate) and limit magazine capacity, but it will not do a damn thing.

The answer is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.  Criminals use them the most, and the mentally ill are the main causes of mass shootings.

with all due respect, gentlemen, you're missing a few key points.

1.  You start putting obstacles in the way of people picking up badass guns, then, voila, this kids mom doesnt have 5 badass guns or some seriously ****** up ammo.

Its simple economics, you reduce the number of guns available for legal sale, and you reduce the number of guns angry crazy kids have access to.

2.  Guns aint drugs - they arent addictive.  You dont ingest them and get all high and ****** up.  Thats a bs argument.  You're telling me joe america is going to hear, hey dude, dont buy this ****** up gun, because there can be bad consequences, and he's going to start thinking, gee, where can I find the good stuff on the black market?  Start asking in shady back corners if somebody knows a guy in Mexico?  That he's going to go to the store where the advertisements glorifying gun culture have been taken down, and he's going to independently think, man, it would be SO COOL to have high capacity guns so I can shoot thirty people when they come for me?  

There's a shitload more to say, but I'll start here.  I agree we need to better care for our mentally ill.  But if you want to be the guy to start saying who is sick and who is not, and who deserves access to a gun or not, then more power to you.

i have no problem with stricter gun laws. make em all illegal. that's not my point. my point is: people are gonna get guns if they want them bad enough regardless of laws. that's my point with #2 as well. not that guns are addictive. that they can and will be gotten NO MATTER WHAT gun laws are in place.
so if you take my argument as it was put forth with the meaning behind it, your #2 makes no sense.
people looking to 'fix this problem' of school shootings by banning guns or making it harder to get guns are just fooling themselves into thinking it will matter. do you really think there won't be mass shootings ever again because of stricter gun laws? if so, there's no hope for you.
PEOPLE kill people. guns don't kill people on their own. a gun can't get up and drive/walk to a school, let itself in, and then start shooting kids. people have killed each other before guns were invented. they will find a way to get guns if/when they're illegal. were tommy guns legal to own when the gangsters were mowing each other down back in the day? did the gun laws prevent them from getting them?

CHARGE $200 A BULLET

I do love people who cannot see what the issue is, and thus waste all of our time.  There are 300 million guns in this country.  They are not going away anytime soon.  It is a fantasy.

Limiting mag capacity is a waste of time.  It takes 2-3 seconds to eject a spent mag and insert a new one.

Eliminating semi-autos is a waste of time.  They have been around for a hundred years.  Does anyone really think that if this lunatic had three to four non-semi-autos the outcome would have been different?

Eliminating "assault rifles" is a waste of time.  The AR15 used in this shooting was not subject to such a law.  "Assault rifles" are rarely used in shootings in this country.

So what has changed?  Shootings in general have gone down in recent years.  Mass shootings have increased in the past few (although have decreased since the '90s and '80s).  So what has changed?  HOW WE DEAL WITH THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.

an american is 20 times more likely to be killed by gun violence than a person in a similarly industrialized country.


I understand and agree that toughening up gun laws won't stop people who want these weapons from getting them.


However, "There are 300 million guns in this country" is part of the problem.  I don't know the solution, and I doubt that leading sociologists do either.  But 300 million guns certainly enable this type of violence to happen this way this frequently.

Posted by sergei91 on 12/18/2012 11:03:00 AM (view original):
i have no problem with stricter gun laws. make em all illegal. that's not my point. my point is: people are gonna get guns if they want them bad enough regardless of laws. that's my point with #2 as well. not that guns are addictive. that they can and will be gotten NO MATTER WHAT gun laws are in place.
so if you take my argument as it was put forth with the meaning behind it, your #2 makes no sense.
people looking to 'fix this problem' of school shootings by banning guns or making it harder to get guns are just fooling themselves into thinking it will matter. do you really think there won't be mass shootings ever again because of stricter gun laws? if so, there's no hope for you.
PEOPLE kill people. guns don't kill people on their own. a gun can't get up and drive/walk to a school, let itself in, and then start shooting kids. people have killed each other before guns were invented. they will find a way to get guns if/when they're illegal. were tommy guns legal to own when the gangsters were mowing each other down back in the day? did the gun laws prevent them from getting them?

Sergei,

level with me dude.  you really think this kid, whose mom was ******* infatuated with guns, looked at his problems and only thought MAN I NEED A GUN.  Do you think he maybe thought, geez, i've got problems, and ****, there's a bunch of guns close at hand, they've always been my mom's comfort, so ****, maybe they're mine too?

Yeah, i'm speculating a great deal here, but if his mom doesnt have guns, I wonder if he ever conceives of this thing, or follows through

Posted by jclarkbaker on 12/18/2012 11:20:00 AM (view original):
I do love people who cannot see what the issue is, and thus waste all of our time.  There are 300 million guns in this country.  They are not going away anytime soon.  It is a fantasy.

Limiting mag capacity is a waste of time.  It takes 2-3 seconds to eject a spent mag and insert a new one.

Eliminating semi-autos is a waste of time.  They have been around for a hundred years.  Does anyone really think that if this lunatic had three to four non-semi-autos the outcome would have been different?

Eliminating "assault rifles" is a waste of time.  The AR15 used in this shooting was not subject to such a law.  "Assault rifles" are rarely used in shootings in this country.

So what has changed?  Shootings in general have gone down in recent years.  Mass shootings have increased in the past few (although have decreased since the '90s and '80s).  So what has changed?  HOW WE DEAL WITH THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.

Shoots have actually increased since the lift on assault rifles ban.

The shooting in Colorado movie theater.  It was stopped because the kid had trouble reloading his mag.

As for semi-autos....yes, the outcome would have been different.  He'd have take longer time to shoot and then to reload.  Giving people more chance to escape and more chance for the police to arrive.

No way shape or form should Assault rifles be allowed for personal purchase.

There also there should be laws that limit the caliber of bullet out there and types.

Yes, how we deal with the mental health issue is obviously issue #1 though.  

Posted by nanu on 12/18/2012 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sergei91 on 12/18/2012 11:03:00 AM (view original):
i have no problem with stricter gun laws. make em all illegal. that's not my point. my point is: people are gonna get guns if they want them bad enough regardless of laws. that's my point with #2 as well. not that guns are addictive. that they can and will be gotten NO MATTER WHAT gun laws are in place.
so if you take my argument as it was put forth with the meaning behind it, your #2 makes no sense.
people looking to 'fix this problem' of school shootings by banning guns or making it harder to get guns are just fooling themselves into thinking it will matter. do you really think there won't be mass shootings ever again because of stricter gun laws? if so, there's no hope for you.
PEOPLE kill people. guns don't kill people on their own. a gun can't get up and drive/walk to a school, let itself in, and then start shooting kids. people have killed each other before guns were invented. they will find a way to get guns if/when they're illegal. were tommy guns legal to own when the gangsters were mowing each other down back in the day? did the gun laws prevent them from getting them?

Sergei,

level with me dude.  you really think this kid, whose mom was ******* infatuated with guns, looked at his problems and only thought MAN I NEED A GUN.  Do you think he maybe thought, geez, i've got problems, and ****, there's a bunch of guns close at hand, they've always been my mom's comfort, so ****, maybe they're mine too?

Yeah, i'm speculating a great deal here, but if his mom doesnt have guns, I wonder if he ever conceives of this thing, or follows through

this kid was ****** in the head. period. i'm sure the availability of guns around the house helped him do what he wanted to do when he snapped. but the KID was the problem. if he had no guns, maybe he gets a knife or a bunch of knives.
i think we can draw 2 conclusions with what happened: A) he wanted to kill his mom and B) he wanted to kill innocent school kids

if he only had a kitchen knife, he could have probably killed his mom and at least hurt, if not killed other children. would the body count have been lower? yes, i'm quite sure it would have. would there still have been a senseless tragedy that occured? i would think it still would have.

****** up people will do ****** up things to others regardless.

Posted by sergei91 on 12/18/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by nanu on 12/18/2012 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sergei91 on 12/18/2012 11:03:00 AM (view original):
i have no problem with stricter gun laws. make em all illegal. that's not my point. my point is: people are gonna get guns if they want them bad enough regardless of laws. that's my point with #2 as well. not that guns are addictive. that they can and will be gotten NO MATTER WHAT gun laws are in place.
so if you take my argument as it was put forth with the meaning behind it, your #2 makes no sense.
people looking to 'fix this problem' of school shootings by banning guns or making it harder to get guns are just fooling themselves into thinking it will matter. do you really think there won't be mass shootings ever again because of stricter gun laws? if so, there's no hope for you.
PEOPLE kill people. guns don't kill people on their own. a gun can't get up and drive/walk to a school, let itself in, and then start shooting kids. people have killed each other before guns were invented. they will find a way to get guns if/when they're illegal. were tommy guns legal to own when the gangsters were mowing each other down back in the day? did the gun laws prevent them from getting them?

Sergei,

level with me dude.  you really think this kid, whose mom was ******* infatuated with guns, looked at his problems and only thought MAN I NEED A GUN.  Do you think he maybe thought, geez, i've got problems, and ****, there's a bunch of guns close at hand, they've always been my mom's comfort, so ****, maybe they're mine too?

Yeah, i'm speculating a great deal here, but if his mom doesnt have guns, I wonder if he ever conceives of this thing, or follows through

this kid was ****** in the head. period. i'm sure the availability of guns around the house helped him do what he wanted to do when he snapped. but the KID was the problem. if he had no guns, maybe he gets a knife or a bunch of knives.
i think we can draw 2 conclusions with what happened: A) he wanted to kill his mom and B) he wanted to kill innocent school kids

if he only had a kitchen knife, he could have probably killed his mom and at least hurt, if not killed other children. would the body count have been lower? yes, i'm quite sure it would have. would there still have been a senseless tragedy that occured? i would think it still would have.

****** up people will do ****** up things to others regardless.

Kidding me...right? 

Hell yes the body count would have been lower.  I even doubt the kid would have attempted to go to the school.  The guns gave the kid a self bravado that he could take on anything.  A knife is more personal (like the gun shot point blank to his moms face).  The kids deaths were (from what i've read) just point and shoot.  Not personal...just batshit crazy.

Again, step one is helping the issue of the mental heath people.  Then, we have to do something about the laws of guns.  

**** no, we shouldn't abolish guns.  I'm a proud owner of one myself.  We just need more strict laws on them and ammo.