Tyranny in America? Somewhat funny vid

[BBG]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9uLE9cD_u8

[Rulk]

My friend said he is tired of the paranoia mongering going about on the 2nd amendment. Watching this video makes me think it's not paranoia at all. Legit concern imo.

[Cobalt]

Talk about some dense mother fuckers.

[DJM]

itll happen in my lifetime im certain....especially the US

[O_RYAN_007]

THis is deeply concerning to me.

[Coolazice]

And people think the idea of the Rapture and the events that surround it are ridiculous. Look around - the stage is being set now.

[Macdon1588]

The DNAA was the industrial military complex at its finest. It was another power grab by the executive branch in a long line of power grabs by the government that the media industries failed to report upon or to have mentioned the dangers or ramifications of it. If anyone thinks there is due process in this country he's a fucking idiot. As long as we continue to elect the same assholes, Republican and Democrat, the concentration of power and wealth will only get worse.

[Coolazice]

DNAA???

[BBG]

Most Americans believe they will stand up and fight "when the time comes".

The time has already passed...

[Eden]

In my honest opinion most of what occurs in the U.S. is Tyranny, and when I hear people talk about how they will stand up "when the time comes" I just roll my eyes, if we were going to do that we already would have. The government constantly violates our human, civil, and constitutional rights on a daily basis, passing law in private, and not even telling the public about it.

At Harvard the FBI was activating webcams and mics on civilian laptops without a warrant to collect data. I'm just saying is that if we had some people from just 100 years ago around now who were young they would wonder why we hadn't picked up the guns and started trying to overthrow the government.


Also after watching some of the video if people think that we can't become corrupt or tyrannical because of our checks and balances, give me a break. Now take in mind my dad was a constitutional lawyer for over 2 decades.

Most of what people think is because they are brainwashed by the Gov, religion, and media. If you think that the government cant be tyrannical you are effing delusional. Also when they say I live in a "free" country that's because we have changed what the meaning of free is. I check and I believe that Costa Rica has more monetary freedom, and civil liberties than the U.S.

[Macdon1588]

DNAA???

Oops got the acronym mixed up, ndaa I mean

[Cobalt]

The government is slowly stripping away the peoples rights and abilities. It is getting more powerful and needs to be stopped.
In the current world, information can spread rapidly, and an alarming number of people are starting to become more knowledgeable of what is going on.

The governments response?
Ban assault and 'military' weapons.
You really think this current gun control crap is over the Sandy Hook situation? It isn't.
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, so that we can overthrow the government when it gets out of control. But, if we are stripped of heavy firepower, our abilities suffer badly.

It's all bullshit and really fucking annoying. I keep saying that I'm going to pack my bags and leave the country, but I know it won't happen. If I travel to another country, I'll be labeled as an american, and my life will suck.
You can only win if you jump off the grid and live alone in the wild.

[DJM]

^^^ you americans stay away! AWAY!!

[Cobalt]

^^^ you americans stay away! AWAY!!

I'd go to New Zealand or Australia before Canada. :rolleyes:

[burlyman30]

^^^ you americans stay away! AWAY!!

Curious... does Canada have certain provinces that are more conservative and others more liberal? In the US, the coastal states are liberal and get more conservative as it heads toward the middle.

[longBallLima]

if i run from the US, it's to run both from the govt and from you Alex Jones' followers and "We are change" of the land LOL

DJ, you still got some room up north? if people hug their guns and their misinterpretation of and old piece of paper any tighter, i might need to go crash there!

[DJM]

Curious... does Canada have certain provinces that are more conservative and others more liberal? In the US, the coastal states are liberal and get more conservative as it heads toward the middle.

good question, i couldnt answer that accurately

[h2s]

Curious... does Canada have certain provinces that are more conservative and others more liberal? In the US, the coastal states are liberal and get more conservative as it heads toward the middle.

Illinois would beg to differ :)

[burlyman30]

Illinois would beg to differ :)

Yes... yes.. I was speaking in generalities, of course. How does my favorite Chicagoan feel about gun laws?

[DJM]

Curious... does Canada have certain provinces that are more conservative and others more liberal? In the US, the coastal states are liberal and get more conservative as it heads toward the middle.

i know if you use your imagination youd get an idea of what can generally thinks of the states, question.......how does an educated american like yourself view your neighboors? and not the cold and hockey bullshit

[burlyman30]

i know if you use your imagination youd get an idea of what can generally thinks of the states, question.......how does an educated american like yourself view your neighboors? and not the cold and hockey bullshit

I may be educated.... but not about my neighbors to the north. Hard for me to have a perception of the people themselves when I have almost no experience with them.

Ive been to Vancouver BC and found it extremely clean. The road signs are very different, so a bit confusing to get around. The people I met their seemed friendly and happy... or happy to take my money. Not sure which it was. Lol

My experience on a cruise ship with many French Canadians was quite a bit different. The ones I encountered were rude or unfriendly or easily offended. Couldn't tell you which of the three emotions they were truly displaying, but they seemed not to like me or my wife. I thought when you smile at people that they are supposed to smile back, not scowl at you. Lol

[DJM]

I may be educated.... but not about my neighbors to the north. Hard for me to have a perception of the people themselves when I have almost no experience with them.

Ive been to Vancouver BC and found it extremely clean. The road signs are very different, so a bit confusing to get around. The people I met their seemed friendly and happy... or happy to take my money. Not sure which it was. Lol

My experience on a cruise ship with many French Canadians was quite a bit different. The ones I encountered were rude or unfriendly or easily offended. Couldn't tell you which of the three emotions they were truly displaying, but they seemed not to like me or my wife. I thought when you smile at people that they are supposed to smile back, not scowl at you. Lol

sounds about right, quebec, the french canadians if you will, not so much the anglophones, have a generally shitty attittude, and having recently elected a seperatist party here in quebec, there has been an absurd amount of french on english crime, pretty retarded......the french here are looked down upon by the french from france as well

rest of the country id say is how you saw vancouver

[Rulk]

I always loved my visits up to Canada, mainly the Victoria BC area. It felt like Seattle in some ways, but also foreign at the same time. Actually i'm really looking forward to coming back up and visting. Last time I was up there was almost 20 years ago.

[burlyman30]

sounds about right, quebec, the french canadians if you will, not so much the anglophones, have a generally shitty attittude, and having recently elected a seperatist party here in quebec, there has been an absurd amount of french on english crime, pretty retarded......the french here are looked down upon by the french from france as well

rest of the country id say is how you saw vancouver

Id imagine that Canada use US citizens much like the rest of the world. Fat, loud, obnoxious, arrogant and stupid.

They would be right, of course. Because there are plenty of those people in America. And if you only judge based on your experience with those you have met, then your opinion may be right, or it may be skewed.

[DJM]

Id imagine that Canada use US citizens much like the rest of the world. Fat, loud, obnoxious, arrogant and stupid.

here comes honey boo boo aint doing you guys any favors

[burlyman30]

here comes honey boo boo aint doing you guys any favors

I'm missing something... who's that?

[Coolazice]

Had to Google it myself.

http://www.google.com/search?q=here+comes+honey+boo+boo+wiki&rlz=1C1CHMO_enUS513US513&aq=1&oq=here+comes+honey&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Rulk]

Sadly honey boo boo is what passes for entertainment these days. Another reality based tv program on a child beauty pageant constestant, and her family.

- - - Updated - - -

The only reality tv show worth watching ( barely ), is The Ultimate Fighter. kardashians, jersey shore... just waste my channels as far as i'm concerned.

[burlyman30]

The only reality tv show worth watching...

This is a phrase that should not exist in the English language.

[DJM]

This is a phrase that should not exist in the English language.

but its the land of opportunity! only in america can i get on tv if im a fat uneducated toothless women whos let her house be taken over by fkn rats or cockroaches......or garbage for that matter

as it relates to tyranical leadership, mosst countries including the us and can live in a sorta 'veiled' tyranny

[h2s]

Yes... yes.. I was speaking in generalities, of course. How does my favorite Chicagoan feel about gun laws?

I am a liberal. But I believe in the right to bear arms. I do not support assualt rifles. I also fully support a very thorough background check and gun registration. I do not support private sale.

[burlyman30]

When I said "favorite Chicagoan", you apparently thought I was talking about you... when clearly I was talking about Oprah. Awkward...

:D

I think it is important to look at the big picture on this and other issues... not just what the shift in laws provide for us, but also what might they mean for the future of our country. I think of the Patriot Act... which was sold as a way to protect us and keep us safe as a nation. The other side of that, of course, is loss of freedoms. I believe it is important to think very hard before support the governments actions to take away freedoms in exchange for safety's sake. I'm not saying it should never be done, just well thought out. The country was based on the ability of the individual to be unhindered and unfettered by government. It has obviously not stayed on the same path.

I see the gun laws as more than just protection for citizens. There is more to it on the back end. That being said, I support background checks prior to purchases. We obviously don't want a violent criminal to have a tool of destruction. But law abiding citizens don't need to be put on a list. The government can assume that a law abiding citizen does own a gun since he has a right to do so. A registry is not necessary in my view.

[Freepressright]

I remember the days when being a liberal meant that you wanted an extremely limited government that, above all else, stayed the fuck out of your life and let you live it as you wished, so long as you were not hurting anyone else. Nowadays, that is the definition of libertarian. I am proudly libertarian.

Although predominantly conservative, I do not do religious issues in government, I stay away from the pro-life/pro-choice debate and I have no problem with gay rights. But I think the federal government is absolutely ridiculous in its size, scope and power and that we are slowly and steadily losing our liberties through incrementalism.

What is most troubling to me is the failure on the part of Americans to acknowledge the deep-rooted corruption. It's prevalent in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Barack Obama, for example, is Dick Cheney with charisma. He is all about amassing power.
His people largely profess to be anti-war, but do not call him out on the unconstitutional and illegal acts of war he engages this nation in. They do not call him out on the drone strikes overseas, that to date have killed 176 children. They don't balk at his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, despite threatening to veto it, then caving, then saying he was for it but against it and then fighting when a federal court overturned it.

And now we have the attempt to greatly limit the scope of the Second Amendment based on a politically-manufactured term, "assault rifle." These "assault rifles" are no more deadly than popular high-powered hunting rifles, but based on their look, they are interpreted as evil and therefore the target of an overzealous movement that ultimately wants to see the people of the U.S. disarmed.

"Assault rifles" as defined by the low-information politicians who are pursuing their ban, are NOT machine guns. "Semi-automatic" does not mean that you hold down the trigger and bullets spray everywhere. One trigger pull means one bullet, and marksmanship will always rule the day.

At the same time I grapple with the gross misunderstandings on this issue, I am also equally disgusted by the GOP for a myriad of reasons that just make me angry to think about. We've reached a point in this country where nothing concerning how this nation is governed makes any sense at all.

[Macdon1588]

i know if you use your imagination youd get an idea of what can generally thinks of the states, question.......how does an educated american like yourself view your neighboors? and not the cold and hockey bullshit

As I can I spent my summers in Nova Scotia and I love it. As an adult I've done work in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and Québec. From what I can tell from discussing various issues is that ideas of conservatism and progressivism are different from Canada and USA. One thing I think is funny is that in EVERY providence, every last Canadian knows that the USA's military budget is X times as big as Canada's entire budget. Canadians seem more aware of their government which I appreciate and I feel like the Canadian government still serves its people unlike here. One thing that you see right away is how homogenous Canada is. For the most part, Canada is made up of healthy white people, so I chuckle when they talk about the American health care system as if government insurance is an easy fix.

[Rodja]

here comes honey boo boo aint doing you guys any favors

This touches upon something far more important than guns in the US and that is the downfall of our overall education. The shit, and I mean SHIT, that is on television these days that we deem "entertainment" and our perception of "celebrity." Look at the Kardashian's and how high their profiles are despite a lack of any discernible talent or any of the cast of Jersey Shore. If there was 1/100th of the fervor about the demise of our education system/standards that there is on the gun issue positive changes would occur, but it shows the lack of overall value of education by the general public. Seeing the level of popularity and the somewhat romantic connotations surrounding these shows and how it churns out the message that anyone can be famous creates this fake sense of entitlement. If anyone has an ear to the ground of the attitudes and personas that teenagers have these days, they'll see how they all think that they're destined for fame (the underpants gnomes mentality). What's even worse is that the parents feed this machine by encouraging their sense of importance while syphoning away any responsibility and accountability from their child and blaming everyone and everything else.

When I was a GA during grad school (I'm not making this up), I got an email from the parent of one of my students asking why he was failed. In her mind, I made the class too hard and it was my fault for going too fast for him to keep up with the curriculum. This was not a freshman level course; it was a senior level course and the sheer fact that this even happened blew my mind. Luckily, I was close with the chair and she told me that I had zero responsibility for the failure of the student and didn't have to answer to the parent. I didn't plan on it anyway as he's not a fucking a kid and I wasn't teaching 4th grade.

[Coolazice]

I am a liberal. But I believe in the right to bear arms. I do not support assualt rifles. I also fully support a very thorough background check and gun registration. I do not support private sale.



The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)

[h2s]

I remember the days when being a liberal meant that you wanted an extremely limited government that, above all else, stayed the fuck out of your life and let you live it as you wished, so long as you were not hurting anyone else. Nowadays, that is the definition of libertarian. I am proudly libertarian.

Although predominantly conservative, I do not do religious issues in government, I stay away from the pro-life/pro-choice debate and I have no problem with gay rights. But I think the federal government is absolutely ridiculous in its size, scope and power and that we are slowly and steadily losing our liberties through incrementalism.

What is most troubling to me is the failure on the part of Americans to acknowledge the deep-rooted corruption. It's prevalent in both the Democrat and Republican parties. Barack Obama, for example, is Dick Cheney with charisma. He is all about amassing power.
His people largely profess to be anti-war, but do not call him out on the unconstitutional and illegal acts of war he engages this nation in. They do not call him out on the drone strikes overseas, that to date have killed 176 children. They don't balk at his signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, despite threatening to veto it, then caving, then saying he was for it but against it and then fighting when a federal court overturned it.

And now we have the attempt to greatly limit the scope of the Second Amendment based on a politically-manufactured term, "assault rifle." These "assault rifles" are no more deadly than popular high-powered hunting rifles, but based on their look, they are interpreted as evil and therefore the target of an overzealous movement that ultimately wants to see the people of the U.S. disarmed.

"Assault rifles" as defined by the low-information politicians who are pursuing their ban, are NOT machine guns. "Semi-automatic" does not mean that you hold down the trigger and bullets spray everywhere. One trigger pull means one bullet, and marksmanship will always rule the day.

At the same time I grapple with the gross misunderstandings on this issue, I am also equally disgusted by the GOP for a myriad of reasons that just make me angry to think about. We've reached a point in this country where nothing concerning how this nation is governed makes any sense at all.


The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)


An armed individual enters a school where your child attends. Would you rather the individual have a 6-bullet capacity handgun, or a 60-bullet capacity Ar-15? That is the difference between an assuault rifle and a standard "gun." If you state that you don't see a difference, then I refuse to believe you have any intelligence behind your view, and are so-stuck in your argument that logic has been toppled.

A semi-automatic rifle provides an extremely fast range of fire. That 60 bullet clip can be emptied in 60 seconds. This is a rifle designed to provide an assualt-like attack. It can be fired into a crowd of people and hit with great accuracy. It also provides a much larger range of fire than a standard semi-automatic pistol. A combination that can be, and has proven to be deadly.

The logic side of me says do away with guns compeltely. Do not feed me the bullshit about how citizens would become enslaved, etc.. The fact of the matter is this country has more guns, and in turn, more gun-related violence. We are the number one country for homicides involving guns. Countries with stringent laws against guns also happen to see the least gun violence. This is fact, not opinion.

Unfortunately, the constitutional supporting side of me states that guns should stay, albiet I see the need for regulation (including registry). I also realize that there are so many guns in this country that a complete removal wouldn't work, and would leave the weapon balance in the hands of the criminal.

[burlyman30]

The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)

Excellent educational site. I'm not a rabid gun fan, though many of my friends are. I learned a lot, actually. Thanks for this.

[h2s]

I was just discussing this with a buddy (who is a member here), here is his way of describing the regulation


It makes me furious I have to point this out:

A. Cars are not designed with the sole purpose of the ability to kill
B. You have to be insured to have a car
C. You have to be licensed to operate a car
D. You license can be revoked
E. You have to take a test to get licensed
F. You have to take a course to even take the test
G. Generally a 6 month trial period
H. Cars are highly regulated by the govt

When a gun is designed with the sole purpose of killing, why is it harder to get a license for a car than a gun?

[BigCLS]

An armed individual enters a school where your child attends. Would you rather the individual have a 6-bullet capacity handgun, or a 60-bullet capacity Ar-15? That is the difference between an assuault rifle and a standard "gun." If you state that you don't see a difference, then I refuse to believe you have any intelligence behind your view, and are so-stuck in your argument that logic has been toppled.

A semi-automatic rifle provides an extremely fast range of fire. That 60 bullet clip can be emptied in 60 seconds. This is a rifle designed to provide an assualt-like attack. It can be fired into a crowd of people and hit with great accuracy. It also provides a much larger range of fire than a standard semi-automatic pistol. A combination that can be, and has proven to be deadly.

The logic side of me says do away with guns compeltely. Do not feed me the bullshit about how citizens would become enslaved, etc.. The fact of the matter is this country has more guns, and in turn, more gun-related violence. We are the number one country for homicides involving guns. Countries with stringent laws against guns also happen to see the least gun violence. This is fact, not opinion.

Unfortunately, the constitutional supporting side of me states that guns should stay, albiet I see the need for regulation (including registry). I also realize that there are so many guns in this country that a complete removal wouldn't work, and would leave the weapon balance in the hands of the criminal.

Lets be glad this wasn't done with a 6 round 12 gauge. Probably more children dead, and more wounded.

I wonder what the argument would be then?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[Macdon1588]

An armed individual enters a school where your child attends. Would you rather the individual have a 6-bullet capacity handgun, or a 60-bullet capacity Ar-15? That is the difference between an assuault rifle and a standard "gun." If you state that you don't see a difference, then I refuse to believe you have any intelligence behind your view, and are so-stuck in your argument that logic has been toppled.

A semi-automatic rifle provides an extremely fast range of fire. That 60 bullet clip can be emptied in 60 seconds. This is a rifle designed to provide an assualt-like attack. It can be fired into a crowd of people and hit with great accuracy. It also provides a much larger range of fire than a standard semi-automatic pistol. A combination that can be, and has proven to be deadly.

The logic side of me says do away with guns compeltely. Do not feed me the bullshit about how citizens would become enslaved, etc.. The fact of the matter is this country has more guns, and in turn, more gun-related violence. We are the number one country for homicides involving guns. Countries with stringent laws against guns also happen to see the least gun violence. This is fact, not opinion.

Unfortunately, the constitutional supporting side of me states that guns should stay, albiet I see the need for regulation (including registry). I also realize that there are so many guns in this country that a complete removal wouldn't work, and would leave the weapon balance in the hands of the criminal.

Sure, the assault rifle eases the rate at which people are killed. However, don't kid yourself with the idea that a this would have been less tragic had he only had nine round clips. Any amount of children killed is too much of a loss. He killed at close range, so did the wacko in Colorado. The weapon is irrelevant. Without guns, people could use bombs. You might laugh, but that happened here in Oklahoma.

Your logic side must see the long history of tyranny against the powerless. The presence of guns in society balances power and enables people to defend themselves. Also, Switzerland defeats the more guns equals more violence mantra professed by progressively minded folks. They're more educated about guns, all males own fully automatic rifles and they enjoy a low crime rate. America has less violent crimes per capita than some other countries with stricter gun laws such as Britain just more gun violence. Violent crimes on the whole are down to historic lows in the US. Plus, less politically correct, most gun violence is probably gang violence. When a gang member kills another gang member, society wins. There's a confusion that guns cause violence, when, actually, violence is caused by a plurality of reasons whereas the gun is only a means to an end. More over, gun laws don't work in the places in this country where they are in place.

Again, if this wack-job would have, say, killed one child, would it have been less tragic? No. He should have been in an asylum years ago, and shame on his dead mother for not properly securing her weapons. Fix our real problems and gun violence will go down, but remove guns, and like it or, we endanger the very freedom we are based upon.

[Freepressright]

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I urge you to watch this with an open mind and give me your analysis of what's presented. I did and it instilled in me a lot of skepticism.

The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DWx9GxXYKx_ 8)

[BigCLS]

Sure, the assault rifle eases the rate at which people are killed. However, don't kid yourself with the idea that a this would have been less tragic had he only had nine round clips. Any amount of children killed is too much of a loss. He killed at close range, so did the wacko in Colorado. The weapon is irrelevant. Without guns, people could use bombs. You might laugh, but that happened here in Oklahoma.

Your logic side must see the long history of tyranny against the powerless. The presence of guns in society balances power and enables people to defend themselves. Also, Switzerland defeats the more guns equals more violence mantra professed by progressively minded folks. They're more educated about guns, all males own fully automatic rifles and they enjoy a low crime rate. America has less violent crimes per capita than some other countries with stricter gun laws such as Britain just more gun violence. Violent crimes on the whole are down to historic lows in the US. Plus, less politically correct, most gun violence is probably gang violence. When a gang member kills another gang member, society wins. There's a confusion that guns cause violence, when, actually, violence is caused by a plurality of reasons whereas the gun is only a means to an end. More over, gun laws don't work in the places in this country where they are in place.

Again, if this wack-job would have, say, killed one child, would it have been less tragic? No. He should have been in an asylum years ago, and shame on his dead mother for not properly securing her weapons. Fix our real problems and gun violence will go down, but remove guns, and like it or, we endanger the very freedom we are based upon.

Yea ask the Chinese about Tiananmen Square, and gun control.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[Freepressright]

An armed individual enters a school where your child attends. Would you rather the individual have a 6-bullet capacity handgun, or a 60-bullet capacity Ar-15? That is the difference between an assuault rifle and a standard "gun." If you state that you don't see a difference, then I refuse to believe you have any intelligence behind your view, and are so-stuck in your argument that logic has been toppled.

A semi-automatic rifle provides an extremely fast range of fire. That 60 bullet clip can be emptied in 60 seconds. This is a rifle designed to provide an assualt-like attack. It can be fired into a crowd of people and hit with great accuracy. It also provides a much larger range of fire than a standard semi-automatic pistol. A combination that can be, and has proven to be deadly.

The logic side of me says do away with guns compeltely. Do not feed me the bullshit about how citizens would become enslaved, etc.. The fact of the matter is this country has more guns, and in turn, more gun-related violence. We are the number one country for homicides involving guns. Countries with stringent laws against guns also happen to see the least gun violence. This is fact, not opinion.

Unfortunately, the constitutional supporting side of me states that guns should stay, albiet I see the need for regulation (including registry). I also realize that there are so many guns in this country that a complete removal wouldn't work, and would leave the weapon balance in the hands of the criminal.

The latest figures obtained by the FBI, violent crime offenses in the United States have been falling since 2007. The five year trend clearly shows that, despite there being an ongoing national debate about gun violence in America, violent crime itself is actually becoming less of a problem.

458

The graph I uploaded from the Department of Justice also highlights the fact that over the last 40 years, the amount of guns in America per 1000 people has increased, whereas serious violent crimes have decreased.

459

In addition, despite the media drumbeat that murders involving guns represent the number one safety threat to American citizens, the reality is completely the opposite.

460

Amongst the “top ten killers” in the United States, homicide by firearms is at the bottom of the list, according to figures from the CDC and the FBI. Almost 20 times more people die in the United States from medical errors than they do from firearm homicides, but there is no outcry to slap draconian regulations on the medical industry.

All of these figures indicate that rising gun ownership does not cause a rise in violent crime.

[Coolazice]

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I urge you to watch this with an open mind and give me your analysis of what's presented. I did and it instilled in me a lot of skepticism.

The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DWx9GxXYKx_ 8)

I watched it. It certainly does make one think and wonder. I believe handguns were used (as originally reported)... not a .223.

[h2s]

Lets be glad this wasn't done with a 6 round 12 gauge. Probably more children dead, and more wounded.

I wonder what the argument would be then?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2


Unless the shot gun is capable of reloading quick enough that 60 targets can be hit within a few minutes, I don't see how they relate.

However, A shot gun with a high rate of fire would qualify as an assualt weapon to me as well.

To be honest, I don't know alot about shotguns. Aren't they mostly pump-action?

[Freepressright]

Unless the shot gun is capable of reloading quick enough that 60 targets can be hit within a few minutes, I don't see how they relate.

However, A shot gun with a high rate of fire would qualify as an assualt weapon to me as well.

To be honest, I don't know alot about shotguns. Aren't they mostly pump-action?

Shotguns exist in all forms and fashions. There are:

1. Hinge action, single barrels
2. Hinge action, double barrels
3. Pump action
4. Bolt Action
5. Lever Action
6. Semi-automatic

Hinge-action single barrels and pumps probably make up the bulk of mainstream shotgun ownership. One .00 buckshot round from a 12 gauge fires 9 pellets measuring about 30-caliber each. Even a standard pump shotgun can be a devastating weapon.

[BigCLS]

Unless the shot gun is capable of reloading quick enough that 60 targets can be hit within a few minutes, I don't see how they relate.

However, A shot gun with a high rate of fire would qualify as an assualt weapon to me as well.

To be honest, I don't know alot about shotguns. Aren't they mostly pump-action?

We used pump shotguns in theaters of war many times. Pumps were used routinely in Vietnam.

Sixty targets, or any entire class room would be wasted if they were bunched together ala sitting down

Its not the mag capacity thats the problem, because we are always going to have people killing people.




Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[longBallLima]

Sure, the assault rifle eases the rate at which people are killed. However, don't kid yourself with the idea that a this would have been less tragic had he only had nine round clips. Any amount of children killed is too much of a loss. He killed at close range, so did the wacko in Colorado. The weapon is irrelevant. Without guns, people could use bombs. You might laugh, but that happened here in Oklahoma.

Your logic side must see the long history of tyranny against the powerless. The presence of guns in society balances power and enables people to defend themselves. Also, Switzerland defeats the more guns equals more violence mantra professed by progressively minded folks. They're more educated about guns, all males own fully automatic rifles and they enjoy a low crime rate. America has less violent crimes per capita than some other countries with stricter gun laws such as Britain just more gun violence. Violent crimes on the whole are down to historic lows in the US. Plus, less politically correct, most gun violence is probably gang violence. When a gang member kills another gang member, society wins. There's a confusion that guns cause violence, when, actually, violence is caused by a plurality of reasons whereas the gun is only a means to an end. More over, gun laws don't work in the places in this country where they are in place.

Again, if this wack-job would have, say, killed one child, would it have been less tragic? No. He should have been in an asylum years ago, and shame on his dead mother for not properly securing her weapons. Fix our real problems and gun violence will go down, but remove guns, and like it or, we endanger the very freedom we are based upon.


I'm curious. The right to bear arms and such is to be able to overthrow a tyrannic government. McVeigh thought exactly that of his government and tried to overthrow it with his crazy methods. How do you constitution worshipers do not defend his right to do exactly what he did?

To be clear, I don't and I think he's insane. Partly because he didn't seem to understand that the constitution as it was written as an intelligent document for that context. IMO, that's no longer the case.

[markam]

The logic side of me says do away with guns compeltely. Do not feed me the bullshit about how citizens would become enslaved, etc.. The fact of the matter is this country has more guns, and in turn, more gun-related violence. We are the number one country for homicides involving guns. Countries with stringent laws against guns also happen to see the least gun violence. This is fact, not opinion.


X2

[Freepressright]

I'm curious. The right to bear arms and such is to be able to overthrow a tyrannic government. McVeigh thought exactly that of his government and tried to overthrow it with his crazy methods. How do you constitution worshipers do not defend his right to do exactly what he did?

To be clear, I don't and I think he's insane. Partly because he didn't seem to understand that the constitution as it was written as an intelligent document for that context. IMO, that's no longer the case.

You said it yourself, context.

It is about a citizenry, as a collective, exhausting all other options at redressing the grievances before someone would ever do something that involved violence. No right-thinking individual condones what McVeigh did. That's insanity. Just because we, as free Americans, cherish the document that spells out our freedoms and protects us from a government run amok doesn't mean we all want to resort to violent means when we don't get our own way.

As a freedom-loving American, I find any such implication to be highly derogatory and offensive.

That same document you make light of could be the one keeping your ass from being thrown in jail for a crime you didn't commit, or from something much worse.

[markam]

Most police aren't even armed in the U.K.

Much less gun crime, also.

[Freepressright]

X2

You live in Britain, right? Which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world.

Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen – Piers Morgan – who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990′s.

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html)

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.

Chad Perrin: SOB Statistics 101: US Gun Crime vs. UK Knife Crime (http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323)

Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decade gun crime in the UK more than doubled. This proves that while law-abiding citizens willingly disarmed themselves, criminals were unfazed by the new laws and continued to use guns illegally. Therefore gun control only disarms innocent people since criminals do not follow the law.

Firearms offences more than double since Dunblane - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1450338/Firearms-offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html)

As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”

Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html)

In summary, despite a widespread ban on gun ownership in the United Kingdom, it is the most dangerous place to live in terms of violent crime in the entire western world.

[longBallLima]

You said it yourself, context.

It is about a citizenry, as a collective, exhausting all other options at redressing the grievances before someone would ever do something that involved violence. No right-thinking individual condones what McVeigh did. That's insanity. Just because we, as free Americans, cherish the document that spells out our freedoms and protects us from a government run amok doesn't mean we all want to resort to violent means when we don't get our own way.

As a freedom-loving American, I find any such implication to be highly derogatory and offensive.

That same document you make light of could be the one keeping your ass from being thrown in jail for a crime you didn't commit, or from something much worse.



Many other countries have constitutions that keep my ass from jail without a crime and doesn't have the measures to protect the citizens from the empire. They are not mutually exclusive. And as far as exhausting all options, I don't get why the need for guns before the options are exhausted then. The guns are protected in the constitution to commit violence against the government, is that not the case? Plus the notion that a well armed militia will fight the biggest war machine ever known to man is hopeful at best.

Sorry If you are insulted, that was not my intention. I believe my POV was stated in a somewhat respectful manner and apologize if that wasn't the case. I do believe though, that as a freedom loving american, you would be able to hear/read other POV's without jumping to feeling your nationality being attacked.

[longBallLima]

You live in Britain, right? Which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world.

Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen – Piers Morgan – who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990′s.

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html)

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.

Chad Perrin: SOB Statistics 101: US Gun Crime vs. UK Knife Crime (http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323)

Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decade gun crime in the UK more than doubled. This proves that while law-abiding citizens willingly disarmed themselves, criminals were unfazed by the new laws and continued to use guns illegally. Therefore gun control only disarms innocent people since criminals do not follow the law.

Firearms offences more than double since Dunblane - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1450338/Firearms-offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html)

As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”

Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html)

In summary, despite a widespread ban on gun ownership in the United Kingdom, it is the most dangerous place to live in terms of violent crime in the entire western world.


Homicide rate in the UK: 1.2
Homicide rate in the US: 4.8


I'll take robbery and hooliganism over child murder any day.

[Freepressright]

That's great, but not all of those homicides were caused by firearms.

[Freepressright]

Many other countries have constitutions that keep my ass from jail without a crime and doesn't have the measures to protect the citizens from the empire. They are not mutually exclusive. And as far as exhausting all options, I don't get why the need for guns before the options are exhausted then. The guns are protected in the constitution to commit violence against the government, is that not the case? Plus the notion that a well armed militia will fight the biggest war machine ever known to man is hopeful at best.

You would have to presume that the military, by and large, would stand with the government or stand with the people. Every service member I know, when asked, has said they would refuse rogue kill orders on an otherwise law-abiding citizenry.

The founding fathers knew that tyranny was real. They escape the wrath of it. They wanted to give the free people a means, in several fashions, to fix, alter or abolish a government destructive of its ends. I see nothing wrong with that.

History has taught us that mass disarming of civilian populations has left hundreds of millions dead at the hands of rogue governments. Although I'm not saying it is going to happen, I'd never dismiss the idea. Just look at how the fabric of the United States and western world as a whole continues to deteriorate each day. The poor get poorer, the rich get richer and the cheerleaders who pretend they're for the little guy throw him under the bus every time.

And for the record, you insulted me when you called me a "constitution worshiper." I am a free American, and I get my freedom from the Constitution. There isn't anything more or any less to it.

[longBallLima]

That's great, but not all of those homicides were caused by firearms.

Oh, I know, just 66.9% of 'em.

My argument is that violent crime has a somewhat broad definition and doesn't necessarily describe how violent instruments (guns, blades or whatever else one uses to kill) affect society.

The fact that the UK has a higher rate of violent crimes doesn't necessarily translate in the UK is more negatively affected by its gun laws than the US.

[h2s]

I am going to say my peace and then back out of this thread for all purposes but moderation:

1. A top 10 cause of death in a country, especially one US sized, is a big fucking deal. Whether than is #1 on the list or #2 on the list. Should the government legalize heroin since it accounts for such a small rate of death when looking at the country as a whole? Fuck that isn't even a proper example, because the drug effects the user, in this case, normal citizens lose their life to someone practicing their bullshit fucking "right" to bear a weapon designed to kill people.

2. Fuck your rights. I am not talking directly to users here, but how many fucking gun slinging second amendment singing, republican party fanatics are the same people begging for the rights of a person to own a fucking tool of death, but are the same people who are appauled that a man and another man who are in love could become married, or that a woman can choose what to do with her own fucking body when pregnant. Fuck I hate conservatives in this country.

3. Guns kill. There is no other purpose for them, they fucking kill. If they don't kill, they are not functioning. Owning a hand gun to protect yourself, and owning a gun capable of wiping out a group of students in a room in a single clip, in mere minutes, are two completely different things.

4. This country needs to stop sucking the fore-father's dicks. Do you think these guys knew what an AR-15 was when they wrote the second amendment? The constitution, in literal sense, does not define the current age. Rather this country interprets the laws as they see fit through legislation (another great process of this country, eyeroll).


There I am done. Inb4 someone calls me anti-american, I really dont care. This is why I stay out of these discussions.

[longBallLima]

You would have to presume that the military, by and large, would stand with the government or stand with the people. Every service member I know, when asked, has said they would refuse rogue kill orders on an otherwise law-abiding citizenry.

The founding fathers knew that tyranny was real. They escape the wrath of it. They wanted to give the free people a means, in several fashions, to fix, alter or abolish a government destructive of its ends. I see nothing wrong with that.

History has taught us that mass disarming of civilian populations has left hundreds of millions dead at the hands of rogue governments. Although I'm not saying it is going to happen, I'd never dismiss the idea. Just look at how the fabric of the United States and western world as a whole continues to deteriorate each day. The poor get poorer, the rich get richer and the cheerleaders who pretend they're for the little guy throw him under the bus every time.

And for the record, you insulted me when you called me a "constitution worshiper." I am a free American, and I get my freedom from the Constitution. There isn't anything more or any less to it.

well, I apologize for the term if it insulted you. Although I could have used different words, it is my opinion that the average american seem to hold its original constitution way more sacred than other folks, granted I don't know people from every single country in the world, obviously.

When the founding fathers, who are also held as deity here, wrote the constitution, tyranny was a much bigger threat and armed insurgence against said government was much more realistic.

That the US military won't blindly follow orders has been proved wrong time and time again.

And history has shown different examples. Sometimes countries have been disarmed and bad things happened, other times, not. Something tells me it is not the disarmament itself, but the nature of the government that executed it.

[Macdon1588]

I'm curious. The right to bear arms and such is to be able to overthrow a tyrannic government. McVeigh thought exactly that of his government and tried to overthrow it with his crazy methods. How do you constitution worshipers do not defend his right to do exactly what he did?

To be clear, I don't and I think he's insane. Partly because he didn't seem to understand that the constitution as it was written as an intelligent document for that context. IMO, that's no longer the case.

The right to bear arms is more than just as a safe guard against tyranny, it empowers people to defend themselves. McVeigh did not follow law and was not under direct attack. His was a criminal action. I brought him up as perfect example of how crazies don't need guns.

I do not worship the constitution, but I do prize what's left of my freedom, and our constitution, in its purest form insures freedom. I think people are living a fairy tale if they believe this government can protect them simply by changing laws. It's frankly stupid. The government is incompetent and corrupt. Do you really want to give these assholes more power? That seems like a bad idea to me.

[Freepressright]

I am going to say my peace and then back out of this thread for all purposes but moderation:

1. A top 10 cause of death in a country, especially one US sized, is a big fucking deal. Whether than is #1 on the list or #2 on the list. Should the government legalize heroin since it accounts for such a small rate of death when looking at the country as a whole? Fuck that isn't even a proper example, because the drug effects the user, in this case, normal citizens lose their life to someone practicing their bullshit fucking "right" to bear a weapon designed to kill people.

2. Fuck your rights. I am not talking directly to users here, but how many fucking gun slinging second amendment singing, republican party fanatics are the same people begging for the rights of a person to own a fucking tool of death, but are the same people who are appauled that a man and another man who are in love could become married, or that a woman can choose what to do with her own fucking body when pregnant. Fuck I hate conservatives in this country.

3. Guns kill. There is no other purpose for them, they fucking kill. If they don't kill, they are not functioning. Owning a hand gun to protect yourself, and owning a gun capable of wiping out a group of students in a room in a single clip, in mere minutes, are two completely different things.

4. This country needs to stop sucking the fore-father's dicks. Do you think these guys knew what an AR-15 was when they wrote the second amendment? The constitution, in literal sense, does not define the current age. Rather this country interprets the laws as they see fit through legislation (another great process of this country, eyeroll).


There I am done. Inb4 someone calls me anti-american, I really dont care. This is why I stay out of these discussions.

Well, you've certainly scrapped logic and actual thinking in favor of an emotional tirade.

This badge-carrying libertarian is proud of his Second Amendment rights, and the Constitution, and always will be.

[DJM]

I am going to say my peace and then back out of this thread for all purposes but moderation:

1. A top 10 cause of death in a country, especially one US sized, is a big fucking deal. Whether than is #1 on the list or #2 on the list. Should the government legalize heroin since it accounts for such a small rate of death when looking at the country as a whole? Fuck that isn't even a proper example, because the drug effects the user, in this case, normal citizens lose their life to someone practicing their bullshit fucking "right" to bear a weapon designed to kill people.

2. Fuck your rights. I am not talking directly to users here, but how many fucking gun slinging second amendment singing, republican party fanatics are the same people begging for the rights of a person to own a fucking tool of death, but are the same people who are appauled that a man and another man who are in love could become married, or that a woman can choose what to do with her own fucking body when pregnant. Fuck I hate conservatives in this country.

3. Guns kill. There is no other purpose for them, they fucking kill. If they don't kill, they are not functioning. Owning a hand gun to protect yourself, and owning a gun capable of wiping out a group of students in a room in a single clip, in mere minutes, are two completely different things.

4. This country needs to stop sucking the fore-father's dicks. Do you think these guys knew what an AR-15 was when they wrote the second amendment? The constitution, in literal sense, does not define the current age. Rather this country interprets the laws as they see fit through legislation (another great process of this country, eyeroll).


There I am done. Inb4 someone calls me anti-american, I really dont care. This is why I stay out of these discussions.

i applaud you
being non american i didnt wanna touch this , especially cause of how americans hold that ammendement so dearly despite it being 2013

[bikeswimlive]

I am going to say my peace and then back out of this thread for all purposes but moderation:

4. This country needs to stop sucking the fore-father's dicks. Do you think these guys knew what an AR-15 was when they wrote the second amendment? The constitution, in literal sense, does not define the current age. Rather this country interprets the laws as they see fit through legislation (another great process of this country, eyeroll).


There I am done. Inb4 someone calls me anti-american, I really dont care. This is why I stay out of these discussions.

... let's not forget the fore-fathers wrote law that stated only white men could own property. Slavery was legal. Women and minorities couldn't vote. So you mean to tell me these conservatives wish we could go back to that "because our fore-fathers intended it".....

[DJM]

Well, you've certainly scrapped logic and actual thinking in favor of an emotional tirade.

This badge-carrying libertarian is proud of his Second Amendment rights, and the Constitution, and always will be.

so against gay marriage? lol

[longBallLima]

The right to bear arms is more than just as a safe guard against tyranny, it empowers people to defend themselves. McVeigh did not follow law and was not under direct attack. His was a criminal action. I brought him up as perfect example of how crazies don't need guns.

I do not worship the constitution, but I do prize what's left of my freedom, and our constitution, in its purest form insures freedom. I think people are living a fairy tale if they believe this government can protect them simply by changing laws. It's frankly stupid. The government is incompetent and corrupt. Do you really want to give these assholes more power? That seems like a bad idea to me.


I keep hearing how "the constitution is under attack", "our rights are under attack". Seems a little subjective when one feels he is under attack or not.
He wasn't following the law? Doesn't the constitution state that he could try to put together a militia to blow up the government if he felt it was tyrannic?

Another thing I don't get is that not one gun rights defender is jumping all over Arizona and other gun-nut states for illegal searches under the constitution.
Makes me think that it has nothing to do with the constitution and the good of the people, but the selfish exercise of pouting when something THEY like is affected by change.

[DJM]

... let's not forget the fore-fathers wrote law that stated only white men could own property. Slavery was legal. Women and minorities couldn't vote. So you mean to tell me these conservatives wish we could go back to that "because our fore-fathers intended it".....

zinger!!

[longBallLima]

... let's not forget the fore-fathers wrote law that stated only white men could own property. Slavery was legal. Women and minorities couldn't vote. So you mean to tell me these conservatives wish we could go back to that "because our fore-fathers intended it".....

hey now, don't go all making sense and such :P

[DJM]

I keep hearing how "the constitution is under attack", "our rights are under attack". Seems a little subjective when one feels he is under attack or not.
He wasn't following the law? Doesn't the constitution state that he could try to put together a militia to blow up the government if he felt it was tyrannic?

Another thing I don't get is that not one gun rights defender is jumping all over Arizona and other gun-nut states for illegal searches under the constitution.
Makes me think that it has nothing to do with the constitution and the good of the people, but the selfish exercise of pouting when something THEY like is affected by change.

ari wise, us in general, why is it such an issue that mex illegals are 'taking' jobs, but huge american cooporations are allowd to outsource work to make billions?

[longBallLima]

ari wise, us in general, why is it such an issue that mex illegals are 'taking' jobs, but huge american cooporations are allowd to outsource work to make billions?

because mexicans "taking jobs" helps poor brown people. american corporations outsourcing helps rich white people.

- - - Updated - - -

and i'll say this, as much as i'll take him over the other guy, obama is a pretty big disappointment. so it's not about that to me.

[Macdon1588]

I am going to say my peace and then back out of this thread for all purposes but moderation:

1. A top 10 cause of death in a country, especially one US sized, is a big fucking deal. Whether than is #1 on the list or #2 on the list. Should the government legalize heroin since it accounts for such a small rate of death when looking at the country as a whole? Fuck that isn't even a proper example, because the drug effects the user, in this case, normal citizens lose their life to someone practicing their bullshit fucking "right" to bear a weapon designed to kill people.

2. Fuck your rights. I am not talking directly to users here, but how many fucking gun slinging second amendment singing, republican party fanatics are the same people begging for the rights of a person to own a fucking tool of death, but are the same people who are appauled that a man and another man who are in love could become married, or that a woman can choose what to do with her own fucking body when pregnant. Fuck I hate conservatives in this country.

3. Guns kill. There is no other purpose for them, they fucking kill. If they don't kill, they are not functioning. Owning a hand gun to protect yourself, and owning a gun capable of wiping out a group of students in a room in a single clip, in mere minutes, are two completely different things.

4. This country needs to stop sucking the fore-father's dicks. Do you think these guys knew what an AR-15 was when they wrote the second amendment? The constitution, in literal sense, does not define the current age. Rather this country interprets the laws as they see fit through legislation (another great process of this country, eyeroll).


There I am done. Inb4 someone calls me anti-american, I really dont care. This is why I stay out of these discussions.

The Top 10 Causes Of Death In The United States - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/top-causes-of-death-united-states-2011-11?op=1)

1. You're wrong about it being a top ten cause.

2. Many moderates support truly equal rights.

3. Blame the shooter not the gun.

4. Freedom matters, antiquated document or not, it is what we use. Our current age is ripe for a complete overhaul and I bet, that if property owners were allowed to write a new document, it'd look pretty similiar.

[longBallLima]

The Top 10 Causes Of Death In The United States - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/top-causes-of-death-united-states-2011-11?op=1)

1. You're wrong about it being a top ten cause.

2. Many moderates support truly equal rights.

3. Blame the shooter not the gun.

4. Freedom matters, antiquated document or not, it is what we use. Our current age is ripe for a complete overhaul and I bet, that if property owners were allowed to write a new document, it'd look pretty similiar.

1. I'll correct it for him, violent deaths, so good point.

2. Most don't

3. It's much easier to make toast with a toaster, so I still think guns play a major role in gun violence

4. Antiquated matters. Rewrite the document. Many other civilized countries have done it and survived and believe me, there's nothing that special about this particular constitution. Integrate women and gay rights in there. Integrate children rights to access health and education in modern standards, not from the times of the empire. Much needs to be done and reviewed, but it's ok. The original document was written hundred of years ago by slave owners.

[BigCLS]

I am going to say my peace and then back out of this thread for all purposes but moderation:

1. A top 10 cause of death in a country, especially one US sized, is a big fucking deal. Whether than is #1 on the list or #2 on the list. Should the government legalize heroin since it accounts for such a small rate of death when looking at the country as a whole? Fuck that isn't even a proper example, because the drug effects the user, in this case, normal citizens lose their life to someone practicing their bullshit fucking "right" to bear a weapon designed to kill people.

2. Fuck your rights. I am not talking directly to users here, but how many fucking gun slinging second amendment singing, republican party fanatics are the same people begging for the rights of a person to own a fucking tool of death, but are the same people who are appauled that a man and another man who are in love could become married, or that a woman can choose what to do with her own fucking body when pregnant. Fuck I hate conservatives in this country.

3. Guns kill. There is no other purpose for them, they fucking kill. If they don't kill, they are not functioning. Owning a hand gun to protect yourself, and owning a gun capable of wiping out a group of students in a room in a single clip, in mere minutes, are two completely different things.

4. This country needs to stop sucking the fore-father's dicks. Do you think these guys knew what an AR-15 was when they wrote the second amendment? The constitution, in literal sense, does not define the current age. Rather this country interprets the laws as they see fit through legislation (another great process of this country, eyeroll).


There I am done. Inb4 someone calls me anti-american, I really dont care. This is why I stay out of these discussions.

At number 4..those were the arms of the time. Im sure the founders would of loved to have AR-15's

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[Macdon1588]

I keep hearing how "the constitution is under attack", "our rights are under attack". Seems a little subjective when one feels he is under attack or not.
He wasn't following the law? Doesn't the constitution state that he could try to put together a militia to blow up the government if he felt it was tyrannic?

Another thing I don't get is that not one gun rights defender is jumping all over Arizona and other gun-nut states for illegal searches under the constitution.
Makes me think that it has nothing to do with the constitution and the good of the people, but the selfish exercise of pouting when something THEY like is affected by change.

No, the constitution does not give him that right. You might be thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

I don't believe that the Constitution says any thing about the rights of illegal immigrants.

By far my biggest issue is the Federal Government handing down edicts to the States. I'm less of a constitution humper than I am a states rights fan.

[longBallLima]

At number 4..those were the arms of the time. Im sure the founders would of loved to have AR-15's

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I'm sure that even those less than perfect example of human beings might be slightly moved by the US' own citizens going into schools and murdering children.

[longBallLima]

No, the constitution does not give him that right. You might be thinking of the Declaration of Independence.

I don't believe that the Constitution says any thing about the rights of illegal immigrants.

By far my biggest issue is the Federal Government handing down edicts to the States. I'm less of a constitution humper than I am a states rights fan.

4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Macdon1588]

1. I'll correct it for him, violent deaths, so good point.

2. Most don't

3. It's much easier to make toast with a toaster, so I still think guns play a major role in gun violence

4. Antiquated matters. Rewrite the document. Many other civilized countries have done it and survived and believe me, there's nothing that special about this particular constitution. Integrate women and gay rights in there. Integrate children rights to access health and education in modern standards, not from the times of the empire. Much needs to be done and reviewed, but it's ok. The original document was written hundred of years ago by slave owners.

Calling the founding fathers slave owners is an ad hominem attack and does not discount the value of the original document. Incidentally, the constitution has been the model upon which other countries have built their governments and constitutions. Amendments are intended to keep the document alive.

[Coolazice]

How would you anti-gun guys handle things like deer over-population if it wasn't for hunters helping the problem? In a city near me - there is a concentration of 33 deer per square mile. This is the cause of the highest rate of car-deer accidents in Ohio, among other problems.

[Macdon1588]

4th amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Again the constitution is for citizens not illegal aliens.

[longBallLima]

Calling the founding fathers slave owners is an ad hominem attack and does not discount the value of the original document. Incidentally, the constitution has been the model upon which other countries have built their governments and constitutions. Amendments are intended to keep the document alive.

Other countries? Liberia?

I don't know of many other countries using the american constitution as a basis for theirs, but hey... I might be shown wrong, not sure. In my experience, most other nationals feel that the american constitution is somewhat incomplete and outdated compared to theirs. Granted, a lot of those countries have a hard time executing what is there.

- - - Updated - - -


How would you anti-gun guys handle things like deer over-population if it wasn't for hunters helping the problem? In a city near me - there is a concentration of 33 deer per square mile. This is the cause of the highest rate of car-deer accidents in Ohio, among other problems.

blow them up with grenades and rain down fire on them with AR-15 and Uzi's i guess.


Again the constitution is for citizens not illegal aliens.

do you know an illegal alien just by looking at him, or must you perform an illegal (under the constitution at least) search?

[bikeswimlive]

How would you anti-gun guys handle things like deer over-population if it wasn't for hunters helping the problem? In a city near me - there is a concentration of 33 deer per square mile. This is the cause of the highest rate of car-deer accidents in Ohio, among other problems.

So you need assault weapons to shoot a deer in the woods? 100 round drums? Armor piercing ammo? Body armor? Silencers?

You must suck at hunting.

[longBallLima]

So you need assault weapons to shoot a deer in the woods? 100 round drums? Armor piercing ammo? Body armor? Silencers?

You must suck at hunting.

LOL

- - - Updated - - -

lunch time. good chat fellas

[Coolazice]

So you need assault weapons to shoot a deer in the woods? 100 round drums? Armor piercing ammo? Body armor? Silencers?

You must suck at hunting.
That has to be the most ignorant reply to a serious question that I've seen yet on Swole Source.

Who the hell even takes a fully-auto, aka assault rifle, which is highly illegal, into the woods for the purpose of hunting?

EDIT: I see you're from Arkansas.... that explains plenty. :rolleyes:

Btw, the typical "AR" clip capacity is between 20 and 30 rounds.

[Macdon1588]

Other countries? Liberia?

I don't know of many other countries using the american constitution as a basis for theirs, but hey... I might be shown wrong, not sure. In my experience, most other nationals feel that the american constitution is somewhat incomplete and outdated compared to theirs. Granted, a lot of those countries have a hard time executing what is there.

- - - Updated - - -



blow them up with grenades and rain down fire on them with AR-15 and Uzi's i guess.



do you know an illegal alien just by looking at him, or must you perform an illegal (under the constitution at least) search?

Lots of countries rely on similarly structured forms of government, most have something similar to a bill of rights. I've read foreign critiques of our constitution and some of it is valid and I'll agree, there is room for improvement. However there's no need to scrap the whole thing.

[Coolazice]

blow them up with grenades and rain down fire on them with AR-15 and Uzi's i guess.




Another ignorant reply to a serious question.

[Macdon1588]

I also ask, both tragedy perpetrators had mental issues. Where's the rage over that? Would not society be better served with better mental health facilities and access than with merely gun law changes?

[h2s]

Another ignorant reply to a serious question.

I am not sure what you expected, but I will try to comply.

"You are right, Cool, I never thought about the fact that deer would take over this country. I can't fathom how Chicago would survive if we got rid of our 31 homicides in January so far this year, ~25 of which were from guns, and let the deer take over instead. Will someone think of the children?"

[bikeswimlive]

That has to be the most ignorant reply to a serious question that I've seen yet on Swole Source.

Who the hell even takes a fully-auto,aka assault rifle, which is highly illegal, into the woods for the purpose of hunting?

EDIT: I see you're from Arkansas.... that explains plenty. :rolleyes:

Btw, the typical "AR" clip capacity is between 20 and 30 rounds.

You aren't clever enough to realize I turned your "well if you ban our gunzzzz wut bout dem durr" argument against reality that the only proposed ban is on assault weaponry and magazine size (not to mention common sense proposals to streamline the background check process). So let me make this very clear, I was mocking you.

Instead of seeing my obvious sarcasm you jumped onto the fact that I now live in Arkansas. Here comes some background knowledge (GASP) I was born in tOSU medical center friend and I lived 20 years of my life in NE Ohio (probably a place you will live and die) and let me assure you, I've seen more inbred, hick, backwoods, toothless, meth munching in Ohio than I have in my neck of the South. So before you spout off about my chosen home, I'd suggest checking out Newcomerstown, Coshocton, Steubenville, Urichsville, Sugarcreek, Dover, Delaware, Minerva, etc.

Try again bud. Try again.

[Coolazice]

I also ask, both tragedy perpetrators had mental issues. Where's the rage over that? Would not society be better served with better mental health facilities and access than with merely gun law changes?

Of course not. The gun is what does the killing, not the person holding it. We should outlaw planes too because a few of them were used to murder 2,977 innocent people on 9-11.




















:rolleyes:

[h2s]

Of course not. The gun is what does the killing, not the person holding it. We should outlaw planes too because a few of them were used to murder 2,977 innocent people on 9-11.

Yep, you are right. We certainly didn't see a host of regulations and safety measures implemented post 9/11. Very well thought out post.

[Rodja]

How would you anti-gun guys handle things like deer over-population if it wasn't for hunters helping the problem? In a city near me - there is a concentration of 33 deer per square mile. This is the cause of the highest rate of car-deer accidents in Ohio, among other problems.

Ever heard of a bow and arrow?

[bikeswimlive]

Yep, you are right. We certainly didn't see a host of regulations and safety measures implemented post 9/11. Very well thought out post.

I'm required to accept that I have to remove my shoes, get a body scan, submit my luggage to unnecessary search and seizure, and potentially a cavity search just to ride on a mass transit vehicle.

Want a gun? Have cash? Good to go.

[Coolazice]

You aren't clever enough to realize I turned your "well if you ban our gunzzzz wut bout dem durr" argument against reality that the only proposed ban is on assault weaponry and magazine size (not to mention common sense proposals to streamline the background check process). So let me make this very clear, I was mocking you.

Instead of seeing my obvious sarcasm you jumped onto the fact that I now live in Arkansas. Here comes some background knowledge (GASP) I was born in tOSU medical center friend and I lived 20 years of my life in NE Ohio (probably a place you will live and die) and let me assure you, I've seen more inbred, hick, backwoods, toothless, meth munching in Ohio than I have in my neck of the South. So before you spout off about my chosen home, I'd suggest checking out Newcomerstown, Coshocton, Steubenville, Urichsville, Sugarcreek, Dover, Delaware, Minerva, etc.

Try again bud. Try again.

This 'discussion' hasn't been limited to the "only proposed ban is on assault weaponry and magazine size" that you stated.

You obviously need to read (or re-read) this: The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/) (because you clearly don't know what an assault rifle is)

You still didn't answer the question I posed.

[Freepressright]

Removing guns from the equation all together, if you trust the federal government to have your best interests at heart, if you truly believe one political party over the other truly cares about you and represents your best interests and if you think that the government doesn't voraciously waste your tax dollars at every turn, you are the highest-caliber of fool I know.

I don't have a violent bone in my body with respect to the government, but I recognize that it's a machine designed to deceive. As I said earlier, Barack Obama is Dick Cheney, only with charisma.

When upon-order kill lists, NDAA, warrantless wiretapping, never-ending wars and the killing of children and women in drone strikes are the order of the day, get back to me on your Democrat or Republican paradigm and which one is truly better.

Fuck 'em both. Neither is worth a squirt of piss.

[Coolazice]

Yep, you are right. We certainly didn't see a host of regulations and safety measures implemented post 9/11. Very well thought out post.
There's safety measures in place for guns and the safe and responsible use of them, bomb-building supplies and laws to prevent DUI/DWI's.... Do they always work??? NO!!!

[h2s]

There's safety measures in place for guns and the safe and responsible use of them, bomb-building supplies and laws to prevent DUI/DWI's.... Do they always work??? NO!!!

Safety measures in place for guns? There are states with legal private sale. I can right now decided I want to shoot you and everyone else in this thread, head to a gun shop, purchase a gun, ammo, body armor, etc....walk over to your house and shoot you. The call is for regulation, don't claim that the regulation exists.

Do you really think that laws against DUI/DWI do not lower their occurance? Do you think if we got rid of the law that there would be no increase in occurance? Please...

[Coolazice]

Ever heard of a bow and arrow?

Yep, I have. A gun provides a quicker and slightly more humane death to the animal, IMO. Also, guns are more likely to actually end the animals life rather than it escaping injured but not fatally.

[Rodja]

There's safety measures in place for guns and the safe and responsible use of them, bomb-building supplies and laws to prevent DUI/DWI's.... Do they always work??? NO!!!

I can only speak for TX, but the laws on DUI here aren't that scary. It takes 3 offenses before serious jail time (unless a child is in the car), which is pretty damn laxed.

[bikeswimlive]

You still didn't answer the question I posed.

No because it has nothing to do with reality. I could ask you what will happen to rainbows if we ban unicorns, but what is the point. There will never be an outright ban of guns. Do you propose that the multi-billion dollar gun industry is supported only by the Right Wing? Get real. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents etc all enjoy fire arms and our legal right to possess them.

What is being put forth is a responsible look at gun policy. Nothing outrageous has been proposed. Turn off Fox News and unsub from the NRA newsletter (which isn't altruistic, but the most powerful lobby in America funded by corporations).

You never said where you live in Ohio. I truly would like to know.

[bikeswimlive]

Oh and as we speak there was a shooting at a Texas College. Five people shot..... but we don't need to do anything about this. Everything is fine.

[Rodja]

Yep, I have. A gun provides a quicker and slightly more humane death to the animal, IMO. Also, guns are more likely to actually end the animals life rather than it escaping injured but not fatally.

There's nothing humane about arbitrarily killing an animal simply due to inconvenience. Your post made it appear as though your position was that there isn't another method besides a gun, which is far from true.

[BigCLS]

Something thought provoking:

How well has the ban on AAS worked? Obviously not well, because people break those laws daily, and acquire the banned substance anyway.

If you were to ban certain firearms, or high-cap magazines it will just create another black market, and people will still acquire those items anyway.

[Coolazice]

Safety measures in place for guns? There are states with legal private sale. I can right now decided I want to shoot you and everyone else in this thread, head to a gun shop, purchase a gun, ammo, body armor, etc....walk over to your house and shoot you. The call is for regulation, don't claim that the regulation exists.

I don't know how other state's laws are, but Ohio law requires a background check ( a call to run a persons DL# and SS#) before a rifle or shotgun can be purchased from a store. Same deal with a handgun but with a 3 day waiting period before it can be picked up. This at least slows down the 'known criminals'.

Do you really think that laws against DUI/DWI do not lower their occurance? Do you think if we got rid of the law that there would be no increase in occurance? Please...

The laws might slow down the occurrence of DUI?DWI's but it does not eliminate them. Same would be the case with outlawing guns. Only outlaws would have them then.

[h2s]

Oh and as we speak there was a shooting at a Texas College. Five people shot..... but we don't need to do anything about this. Everything is fine.

I refuse to "like" this post, but wanted to acknowledge it's perfection.

[h2s]

The laws might slow down the occurrence of DUI?DWI's but it does not eliminate them. Same would be the case with outlawing guns. Only outlaws would have them then.

So you are admitting there would be a reduction?

[h2s]

Something thought provoking:
How well has the ban on AAS worked? Obviously not well, because people break those laws daily, and acquire the banned substance anyway.
If you were to ban certain firearms, or high-cap magazines it will just create another black market, and people will still acquire those items anyway.

If you think the government puts as much effort into blocking the importation of AAS as it would an illegal assualt rifle, you are mistaken.. AAS is a victimless crime, illegal gun importation would not be. Not to mention the fact that it is very difficult to scan for AAS, not so much for weapons.

[Coolazice]

No because it has nothing to do with reality. I could ask you what will happen to rainbows if we ban unicorns, but what is the point. There will never be an outright ban of guns. Do you propose that the multi-billion dollar gun industry is supported only by the Right Wing? Get real. Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, independents etc all enjoy fire arms and our legal right to possess them.

What is being put forth is a responsible look at gun policy. Nothing outrageous has been proposed. Turn off Fox News and unsub from the NRA newsletter (which isn't altruistic, but the most powerful lobby in America funded by corporations).

You never said where you live in Ohio. I truly would like to know.

Certain people are calling for the removal of all guns and that is why I posed the question that you still refuse to answer other than sarcastically.

I don't watch any tv. ;)

For privacy reasons I will not post exactly where I live in Ohio. Let's just call it the north-east quarter of the state.

[Rodja]

Something thought provoking:

How well has the ban on AAS worked? Obviously not well, because people break those laws daily, and acquire the banned substance anyway.

If you were to ban certain firearms, or high-cap magazines it will just create another black market, and people will still acquire those items anyway.

Sneaking in test powder is a little different from shipping a rifle. A kilo of Test E will fit in a letter sized bubble mailer. You can't say the same for a rifle.

[BigCLS]

If you think the government puts as much effort into blocking the importation of AAS as it would an illegal assualt rifle, you are mistaken.. AAS is a victimless crime, illegal gun importation would not be. Not to mention the fact that it is very difficult to scan for AAS, not so much for weapons.

Importation? no one was talking about importation. The numbers of domestic high-cap magazines, and firearms in circulation would be more than enough.

You guys act like people will not find a way to break laws, or to get around them.

[Coolazice]

So you are admitting there would be a reduction?

Only if you admit that banning guns will not eliminate the use of guns in homicides/murders.

[Freepressright]

If you think the government puts as much effort into blocking the importation of AAS as it would an illegal assualt rifle, you are mistaken.. AAS is a victimless crime, illegal gun importation would not be. Not to mention the fact that it is very difficult to scan for AAS, not so much for weapons.

You should tell that to Eric Holder and Barack Obama. They missed that memo when they were busy sending guns to Mexico via the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, you know that one where our border patrol agent was murdered by weapons they didn't bother to track?

I seem to recall a child's birthday party being shot up by the Mexican drug cartel, in Mexico, using weapons from this botched government operation. But I guess that is as meaningless as the 176 children killed in U.S. led drone strikes overseas.

[h2s]

Only if you admit that banning guns will not eliminate the use of guns in homicides/murders.

No one said it would. Please note my entry into this conversation where I stated that I wasn't against the right to bear arms, rather a limitation onto which are available and a strong increase in regulation.

[h2s]

You should tell that to Eric Holder and Barack Obama. They missed that memo when they were busy sending guns to Mexico via the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, you know that one where our border patrol agent was murdered by weapons they didn't bother to track?

I seem to recall a child's birthday party being shot up by the Mexican drug cartel, in Mexico, using weapons from this botched government operation. But I guess that is as meaningless as the 176 children killed in U.S. led drone strikes overseas.

This is absolutely beyond the scope of gun laws. I believe the government plays part in the drug game as well, doesn't mean the drugs should be legal.

[bikeswimlive]

Certain people are calling for the removal of all guns and that is why I posed the question that you still refuse to answer other than sarcastically.


Oh ok. "People" want it. That means it will totally happen. I'm sure there are "people" who want many absurd things. Again, let's get back to the reality of the situation which is responsible reform.

I don't need to know exactly where you live (but from your general area), you know far worse than my Southern home. Enjoy the Browns and keep hating on the south.

[h2s]

Importation? no one was talking about importation. The numbers of domestic high-cap magazines, and firearms in circulation would be more than enough.

You guys act like people will not find a way to break laws, or to get around them.

If the guns are not produced here outside of direct production for military personel, and ammo was not available to the public, importation would be the only choice.

[Coolazice]

There's nothing humane about arbitrarily killing an animal simply due to inconvenience. Your post made it appear as though your position was that there isn't another method besides a gun, which is far from true.

It isn't only a matter of inconvenience... people are dying in some of these accidents. My brothers neighbor died last summer in an accident involving hitting a deer.

[BigCLS]

If the guns are not produced here outside of direct production for military personel, and ammo was not available to the public, importation would be the only choice.

So now your talking about a complete gun ban. I was not. I was discussing mainly the magazines, and certain firearms.

[h2s]

It isn't only a matter of inconvenience... people are dying in some of these accidents. My brothers neighbor died last summer in an accident involving hitting a deer.

So you want to remove deer because of the deaths they cause but not guns?

WHAT THE FUCK.

[h2s]

So now your talking about a complete gun ban. I was not. I was discussing mainly the magazines, and certain firearms.

I am as well. My post was misworded. I meant if the assualt weapons and their ammunition was not available.

[DJM]

How would you anti-gun guys handle things like deer over-population if it wasn't for hunters helping the problem? In a city near me - there is a concentration of 33 deer per square mile. This is the cause of the highest rate of car-deer accidents in Ohio, among other problems.

33 in an entire mile? i dont see how that is much, they probably 'concentrate' there cause man forced them to
how did man even hunt anything prior?

[DJM]

Only if you admit that banning guns will not eliminate the use of guns in homicides/murders.

there is no law that will effectively eliminate a problem 100%
reducing said criminal's access to firearms is a huge step forward

[Coolazice]

Oh ok. "People" want it. That means it will totally happen. I'm sure there are "people" who want many absurd things. Again, let's get back to the reality of the situation which is responsible reform.

I don't need to know exactly where you live (but from your general area), you know far worse than my Southern home. Enjoy the Browns and keep hating on the south.

I don't care for the Browns much. Actually it's management of the sports teams in Ohio that is an issue, but whatever.

I don't hate the south, just ignorant responses from Clinton's clowns.

[Rodja]

It isn't only a matter of inconvenience... people are dying in some of these accidents. My brothers neighbor died last summer in an accident involving hitting a deer.

I haven't looked into the death via automobile accident from deer, but I'm fairly confident that it doesn't begin to approach deaths from guns.

FYI, I live in an area filled with deer (I see them daily in a field adjacent to my residence) and have never been in an accident involving one. I also do not know of anyone that has died as a result of hitting a deer.

[bikeswimlive]

It isn't only a matter of inconvenience... people are dying in some of these accidents. My brothers neighbor died last summer in an accident involving hitting a deer.

Extremely unfortunate and my condolences, but that is one person a year ago. One month ago 26 people were butchered in an Elementary School and you don't think we need to change any law...

[BigCLS]

there is no law that will effectively eliminate a problem 100%
reducing said criminal's access to firearms is a huge step forward

Thats worked really well with the war on drugs.

[DJM]

You should tell that to Eric Holder and Barack Obama. They missed that memo when they were busy sending guns to Mexico via the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, you know that one where our border patrol agent was murdered by weapons they didn't bother to track?

I seem to recall a child's birthday party being shot up by the Mexican drug cartel, in Mexico, using weapons from this botched government operation. But I guess that is as meaningless as the 176 children killed in U.S. led drone strikes overseas.

guns are traded for drugs along the border religiously, with both parties, the us govt and the cartel knowing full well what leads to what......interesting how one is a criminal gang and the other a nations govt

the drone stuff is sad, and worse considering obama crying on tv for the newtown murders when hes doing it himself on a larger scale

[Macdon1588]

I change my mind, let's ban guns and all other harmful things. Then, like with all laws I will choose whether or not I want to follow it based upon the consequences of noncompliance just like I do with speeding. If the time should come to pass that I have to use my high-capacity magazines, I highly doubt that the government will have the ability to enforce any gun-control against anyone anyway in a time like that. Maybe the gun laws would be good from a sort of Darwinian, social evolution point of view. For instance, maybe this horrible tragedy would've been avoided if there gun laws place to keep him from getting a weapon because he would've simply been too stupid and crazy to get any illegal fire arm (and never mind the fact he did acquire them illegally), and then in frustration, perhaps just kill himself. Moreover thugs would continue to kill each other with illegal weapons which I support. Thugs killing thugs in thug neighborhoods is fine with me.

[Coolazice]

So you want to remove deer because of the deaths they cause but not guns?

WHAT THE FUCK.

The population needs to be controlled, not eliminated. I thoroughly enjoy seeing wildlife as it was intended to be, but deer can't be running around, in abundance, with the amount of traffic and the dense population of people in certain areas. It's not safe for the deer or us.

[DJM]

Thats worked really well with the war on drugs.

the us govt needs a war on drugs, hence itll never end......its a ghost hunt like the war on terror to keep defense/military business chugging along........if they were serious about cleaning up the streets, they wouldnt allocate 80% of the drug war funds against weed and the other 20% everything else.....its a joke

[Coolazice]

33 in an entire mile? i dont see how that is much, they probably 'concentrate' there cause man forced them to
how did man even hunt anything prior?

That's square mile. It's not that large of an area for that many larger animals to live in. I wish the woods around here were half that dense with them because my freezer would always contain some venison.

[Coolazice]

there is no law that will effectively eliminate a problem 100%
reducing said criminal's access to firearms is a huge step forward

I think more thorough background checks and waiting periods may help, but there is always a black market for everything. We have no problem obtaining anything else we want - why would guns be any more difficult to obtain?

[DJM]

The population needs to be controlled, not eliminated. I thoroughly enjoy seeing wildlife as it was intended to be, but deer can't be running around, in abundance, with the amount of traffic and the dense population of people in certain areas. It's not safe for the deer or us.

if 33 in a sq miles too much then what??? a family of 4
control and eradicate are not the same to me.......put up a fence

again up here we have way more deer im quite sure

[Macdon1588]

the us govt needs a war on drugs, hence itll never end......its a ghost hunt like the war on terror to keep defense/military business chugging along........if they were serious about cleaning up the streets, they wouldnt allocate 80% of the drug war funds against weed and the other 20% everything else.....its a joke

I know this completely derails our whole gun talk, but DJ, what would you say the biggest problem in Canada is right now? I mean at a government or social level.

[bikeswimlive]

I know this completely derails our whole gun talk, but DJ, what would you say the biggest problem in Canada is right now? I mean at a government or social level.

The NHL lockout.

[Coolazice]

I haven't looked into the death via automobile accident from deer, but I'm fairly confident that it doesn't begin to approach deaths from guns.

FYI, I live in an area filled with deer (I see them daily in a field adjacent to my residence) and have never been in an accident involving one. I also do not know of anyone that has died as a result of hitting a deer.

Glad to hear it! Hope you live your entire life without either of those things occurring!!! I've personally hit deer and a statistically large number of people I know have as well. Heck, my brother hit 2 deer (and totaled both vehicles) in a 10 day period about 15 years ago.

[Rodja]

The NHL lockout.

Lockout ended two weeks ago and the season started last Sunday.

[bikeswimlive]

Lockout ended two weeks ago and the season started last Sunday.

I know, I just forgot to tell my interest lol.

[Freepressright]

guns are traded for drugs along the border religiously, with both parties, the us govt and the cartel knowing full well what leads to what......interesting how one is a criminal gang and the other a nations govt

the drone stuff is sad, and worse considering obama crying on tv for the newtown murders when hes doing it himself on a larger scale

Glad to see you 'get' it, DJ

[Coolazice]

Extremely unfortunate and my condolences, but that is one person a year ago. One month ago 26 people were butchered in an Elementary School and you don't think we need to change any law...

It happens far more often than that. That was just 1 example and was about a guy I shook hands and talked with not long before his death. Those defenseless children could have been massacred with any number of different weapons. That particular psycho just chose to use guns to do it.

[DJM]

It happens far more often than that. That was just 1 example and was about a guy I shook hands and talked with not long before his death. Those defenseless children could have been massacred with any number of different weapons. That particular psycho just chose to use guns to do it.
knife would not have resulted in 26 deaths, not even 6, a madman wielding a knife can be taken down easily, especially in numbers, even if they are female school teachers

[Coolazice]

knife would not have resulted in 26 deaths, not even 6, a madman wielding a knife can be taken down easily, especially in numbers, even if they are female school teachers

Are you kidding me??? They were small children. All he would need to do was lock the door behind him, overpower the teacher, and the children would be completely defenseless. If you believe otherwise you are extremely naive.

[DJM]

I know this completely derails our whole gun talk, but DJ, what would you say the biggest problem in Canada is right now? I mean at a government or social level.

tbh, 2weeks ago the biggest issue here in quebec was how fast could they remove the record snowfall off the streets
nationally, eeesshhhh, usually its social/economic issues, how to gt better, improve, what is wrong and who/what party wants to fix it

i live in the 2nd largest city in the country, and on the 6 oclock news there might be a murder e3d, maybe eod, fires usually top the news with regards to citizens in danger, i mean a fire................and please dont think for one second that i myself, as a man with a family doesnt want to protect his home/family, however, i have never felt my safety threatened, and obviously never enough to feel the need to have a gun

[Freepressright]

But which gun did what?

The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DWx9GxXYKx_ 8)

Again, I watched this with a totally open mind and have a ton of questions that to date have no answers. This is very interesting and compelling, no matter what you believe. Take 30 minutes and watch it.

[Macdon1588]

tbh, 2weeks ago the biggest issue here in quebec was how fast could they remove the record snowfall off the streets
nationally, eeesshhhh, usually its social/economic issues, how to gt better, improve, what is wrong and who/what party wants to fix it

i live in the 2nd largest city in the country, and on the 6 oclock news there might be a murder e3d, maybe eod, fires usually top the news with regards to citizens in danger, i mean a fire................and please dont think for one second that i myself, as a man with a family doesnt want to protect his home/family, however, i have never felt my safety threatened, and obviously never enough to feel the need to have a gun

I own several guns, but, they are all gifts from my father-in-law who is a retired police officer. I very rarely feel threatened myself to be honest, but I live in a safe neighborhood with only the occasional break in. I'm also militarily trained in the operation of every gun I own.

How easily could you get a gun there?

[h2s]

The population needs to be controlled, not eliminated. I thoroughly enjoy seeing wildlife as it was intended to be, but deer can't be running around, in abundance, with the amount of traffic and the dense population of people in certain areas. It's not safe for the deer or us.

You missed my point. You see deer running in front of a cars as an issue that must be addressed. In the year 2000 (only statistic I could find) 200 people in the US died in a deer-related car accident. Chicago will top that alone this year in gun homicides. Yet you want to address deer, and think that guns are fine. That was my WHAT THE FUCK.

[DJM]

I own several guns, but, they are all gifts from my father-in-law who is a retired police officer. I very rarely feel threatened myself to be honest, but I live in a safe neighborhood with only the occasional break in. I'm also militarily trained in the operation of every gun I own.

How easily could you get a gun there?

i dont wanna be wrong and answer, i dont have and dont have a friend who has outside of a cop friend.....iv heard 30days wait process but i prob am way off

edit : a course on firearm safety is required and then the app is submitted , where there is a 28day wait, but more often 45

they altered it a bit in that if someone was gifted or handed down a firearm, so no possession/aquisition as above, they simply made the app

in both cases when your card expires and is not renewed the law will confiscate all weapons

i didnt dig deeper on laws with regards to calibres and rifles and so on

[Macdon1588]

You missed my point. You see deer running in front of a cars as an issue that must be addressed. In the year 2000 (only statistic I could find) 200 people in the US died in a deer-related car accident. Chicago will top that alone this year in gun homicides. Yet you want to address deer, and think that guns are fine. That was my WHAT THE FUCK.

Doesn't Chicago have gun control laws?

[BBG]

Holy fuck guys, I clicked "What's new" and all I see is this thread.

Also Coolazice got his package from Jared :)

[DJM]

Are you kidding me??? They were small children. All he would need to do was lock the door behind him, overpower the teacher, and the children would be completely defenseless. If you believe otherwise you are extremely naive.

iv been knifed,it does not stop you the way a gun does, adrenaline is an amazing thing, id assume that teacher's will to survive and protect was greater than the psychos to kill
dont be sexist, i know my wife, if she was threatened shed do everything in her power.......also the locking the door shit doesnt fly, one fkn scream and that door is getting kicked in by other teachers, and im sure there are males on staff

[Macdon1588]

Even though everybody bagged on the NRA's suggestion that an armed officer be placed in school, I see that Obama has offered that as one of his solutions. These crazy's hardly ever go after hard targets so maybe a "Resource Officer" will help stop and minimize this sort of thing in the future.

[DJM]

Glad to hear it! Hope you live your entire life without either of those things occurring!!! I've personally hit deer and a statistically large number of people I know have as well. Heck, my brother hit 2 deer (and totaled both vehicles) in a 10 day period about 15 years ago.

could be that driving is the issue and not so much the 33 dear per sq mile
and before you answer, theres fkn 3000 squirrels per sq mile here, at least, and iv never hit one, and when i see road kill i feel bad and think the driver wasnt paying attention, they are alot smaller and move quicker as well

[Macdon1588]

iv been knifed,it does not stop you the way a gun does, adrenaline is an amazing thing, id assume that teacher's will to survive and protect was greater than the psychos to kill
dont be sexist, i know my wife, if she was threatened shed do everything in her power.......also the locking the door shit doesnt fly, one fkn scream and that door is getting kicked in by other teachers, and im sure there are males on staff

Wouldn't you just rather have her shoot the motherfucker than get stabbed?

[Coolazice]

You missed my point. You see deer running in front of a cars as an issue that must be addressed. In the year 2000 (only statistic I could find) 200 people in the US died in a deer-related car accident. Chicago will top that alone this year in gun homicides. Yet you want to address deer, and think that guns are fine. That was my WHAT THE FUCK.

You missed my point. I posed that question to those that want to eliminate all guns and all the activities they are involved in. Also because it's news around my area right now. A ban like that would directly impact the areas I live and work in. It's already an issue for the city of Mentor, Ohio and would cause it to be a larger issue elsewhere too. Many more people would end up in accidents or dead as a direct result over taking away guns.

[DJM]

Even though everybody bagged on the NRA's suggestion that an armed officer be placed in school, I see that Obama has offered that as one of his solutions. These crazy's hardly ever go after hard targets so maybe a "Resource Officer" will help stop and minimize this sort of thing in the future.

interesting, altho hes solving a gun problem with guns

jmo, professionally speaking, these shootings arent about guns, but media sensationalism.......these nut jobs are getting their 15minutes of fame, while most people dont know the names of the victims......personally i believe thats whats leading to all the repeat occurances

that being said im still all for stricter gun policies, but im not a yankee

[longBallLima]

- People die because of abundance of Deer. Control deer, but not guns.
- Knives are just as lethal as guns. The Sandy Hook shooter could have done the same with a knife by smart use of doors. Look at the military. Some of them must go to Iraq loaded with nothing but knives of every variety, since they are so lethal and effective.
- Government sucks. So let's not have gun control, because, you know, government sucks. Obama uses drones to kill kids, so we should all be allowed to kill kids too, cuz if the president can, the government has no excuse for any other measure.

When those points are made, it might be time to re-evaluate what reason is.

[DJM]

Wouldn't you just rather have her shoot the motherfucker than get stabbed?

knowing her shed rather beat him to death and make him swallow his own balls, spanish blood, right trigger, and watch out

[Coolazice]

iv been knifed,it does not stop you the way a gun does, adrenaline is an amazing thing, id assume that teacher's will to survive and protect was greater than the psychos to kill
dont be sexist, i know my wife, if she was threatened shed do everything in her power.......also the locking the door shit doesnt fly, one fkn scream and that door is getting kicked in by other teachers, and im sure there are males on staff

Nothing I said makes me sexist. A knife can bring down the largest person... glad to here that it didn't kill you!!! The doors in the schools around here are pretty heavy-duty and I'm only being realistic in thinking that serious damage can be done when somebody is motivated enough to make it happen.

[bikeswimlive]

Even though everybody bagged on the NRA's suggestion that an armed officer be placed in school, I see that Obama has offered that as one of his solutions. These crazy's hardly ever go after hard targets so maybe a "Resource Officer" will help stop and minimize this sort of thing in the future.

There was an armed officer at Columbine. Did it work there?

[longBallLima]

Even though everybody bagged on the NRA's suggestion that an armed officer be placed in school, I see that Obama has offered that as one of his solutions. These crazy's hardly ever go after hard targets so maybe a "Resource Officer" will help stop and minimize this sort of thing in the future.

Well, IMO the fact that he proposed gun control doesn't mean Obama is not a disappointment as a president.

At one point in life, we all thought it was absurd that there were metal detectors in school. Now we're talking about a police officer there. If someone successfully shoots kids again, we'll need a military base by the school, right?

[Coolazice]

could be that driving is the issue and not so much the 33 dear per sq mile
and before you answer, theres fkn 3000 squirrels per sq mile here, at least, and iv never hit one, and when i see road kill i feel bad and think the driver wasnt paying attention, they are alot smaller and move quicker as well

I call BS on that unless you can provide proof. I will happily apologize if I'm wrong though.

[Macdon1588]

Well, IMO the fact that he proposed gun control doesn't mean Obama is not a disappointment as a president.

At one point in life, we all thought it was absurd that there were metal detectors in school. Now we're talking about a police officer there. If someone successfully shoots kids again, we'll need a military base by the school, right?

So you're saying that a police officer in the school is a knee jerk reaction but making all guns illegal is not one?

[longBallLima]

I call BS on that unless you can provide proof. I will happily apologize if I'm wrong though.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume it was a somewhat sarcastic exaggeration. You know, like "i've said it a thousand times!" when you only said it, like 7?

again, just my interpretation.

- - - Updated - - -


So you're saying that a police officer in the school is a knee jerk reaction but making all guns illegal is not one?

i dont think there's a single post here saying "all guns", but i could be mistaken.

but i think gun control is actually at the root of the gun violence problem, but i dont know, one of us could be completely insane, so there's a 50% chance it's me

[Coolazice]

- People die because of abundance of Deer. Control deer, but not guns.
- Knives are just as lethal as guns. The Sandy Hook shooter could have done the same with a knife by smart use of doors. Look at the military. Some of them must go to Iraq loaded with nothing but knives of every variety, since they are so lethal and effective.
- Government sucks. So let's not have gun control, because, you know, government sucks. Obama uses drones to kill kids, so we should all be allowed to kill kids too, cuz if the president can, the government has no excuse for any other measure.

When those points are made, it might be time to re-evaluate what reason is.

Wow... you are hopeless. Hope nobody ever needs to use a gun to protect or feed you or your family because you'd feel like a real ass then, wouldn't you?

[Macdon1588]

There was an armed officer at Columbine. Did it work there?

I can't remember all of the circumstances, but I am certain an armed officer and the right protocol would save lives. Let my ask you this, you rather have an officer of the law in your child's school or not? If not why?

[longBallLima]

If the government becomes tyrannical, if a burglar comes into your home to steal, rape or kill, just get a knife and hide behind the door. If you're motivated enough, it works, it's what I learned from this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -


I can't remember all of the circumstances, but I am certain an armed officer and the right protocol would save lives. Let my ask you this, you rather have an officer of the law in your child's school or not? If not why?

I do. There was an armed officer. Now, the excuse is the training? is that the projection when Sandy Hook 2 happens and there's an officer there? "He wasn't trained enough", "He didn't have enough guns","The NRA said there should be, perhaps, 2 officers"?

[Macdon1588]

I'm gonna go ahead and assume it was a somewhat sarcastic exaggeration. You know, like "i've said it a thousand times!" when you only said it, like 7?

again, just my interpretation.

- - - Updated - - -



i dont think there's a single post here saying "all guns", but i could be mistaken.

but i think gun control is actually at the root of the gun violence problem, but i dont know, one of us could be completely insane, so there's a 50% chance it's me

It seems to me that, since all guns can kill equally, that gun control is ultimately an all or not proposition. If you're solely for an assault weapons ban, well, then by numbers, because that seems to what matters, you're only a removing a small fraction of the guns that kill people. What guns are you okay with me owning?

[bikeswimlive]

I can't remember all of the circumstances, but I am certain an armed officer and the right protocol would save lives. Let my ask you this, you rather have an officer of the law in your child's school or not? If not why?

Let me ask you this, who would pay for the officer? The training? I would want a highly trained employee, not some rent-a-cop rambo. Also, if you were planning a mass murder and you knew there was a single armed guard, wouldn't you target that person first?

[longBallLima]

Wow... you are hopeless. Hope nobody ever needs to use a gun to protect or feed you or your family because you'd feel like a real ass then, wouldn't you?

I certainly hope no one goes in your kids or grandkids school and slaughters them with the guns you so proudly defend, you'd feel like an ass and borderline murderer then, wouldn't you?

I've seen plenty more gun violence in my time than you have, I can guarantee that. I didn't spend my life in the woods and actually know what some of the rest of the world looks like, so before you talk about my experiences defending my family, you may want to evaluate your own.

[DJM]

http://i.qkme.me/3sbfa9.jpg

[Macdon1588]

If the government becomes tyrannical, if a burglar comes into your home to steal, rape or kill, just get a knife and hide behind the door. If you're motivated enough, it works, it's what I learned from this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



I do. There was an armed officer. Now, the excuse is the training? is that the projection when Sandy Hook 2 happens and there's an officer there? "He wasn't trained enough", "He didn't have enough guns","The NRA said there should be, perhaps, 2 officers"?

I said protocol not training. Entrances need to be secured and main entrances can be designed to isolate a would be attacker.

[Coolazice]

If the government becomes tyrannical, if a burglar comes into your home to steal, rape or kill, just get a knife and hide behind the door. If you're motivated enough, it works, it's what I learned from this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



I do. There was an armed officer. Now, the excuse is the training? is that the projection when Sandy Hook 2 happens and there's an officer there? "He wasn't trained enough", "He didn't have enough guns","The NRA said there should be, perhaps, 2 officers"?

Did you even read the link I posted? If not, here it is again: The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)
Educate yourself a little and lay off the immature and sarcastic responses.

[bikeswimlive]

Did you even read the link I posted? If not, here it is again: The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)
Educate yourself a little and lay off the immature and sarcastic responses.

Nope. That website has no sources or citations of who published it. Call me crazy, but I like to know my info is legit.

[longBallLima]

I said protocol not training. Entrances need to be secured and main entrances can be designed to isolate a would be attacker.

so, let everyone access guns as they are now and make the school into a fortress to defend the children from the citizen/soldiers on the streets?

[bikeswimlive]

I said protocol not training. Entrances need to be secured and main entrances can be designed to isolate a would be attacker.

Sandy Hook was secured. He shot the door open.

[DJM]

If the government becomes tyrannical, if a burglar comes into your home to steal, rape or kill, just get a knife and hide behind the door. If you're motivated enough, it works, it's what I learned from this discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



I do. There was an armed officer. Now, the excuse is the training? is that the projection when Sandy Hook 2 happens and there's an officer there? "He wasn't trained enough", "He didn't have enough guns","The NRA said there should be, perhaps, 2 officers"?

VT had their own police dept

[Coolazice]

I certainly hope no one goes in your kids or grandkids school and slaughters them with the guns you so proudly defend, you'd feel like an ass and borderline murderer then, wouldn't you?

I've seen plenty more gun violence in my time than you have, I can guarantee that. I didn't spend my life in the woods and actually know what some of the rest of the world looks like, so before you talk about my experiences defending my family, you may want to evaluate your own.

I'd blame the shooter, not the gun.

Maybe you need to reevaluate you logic... or lack of.

[Coolazice]

Nope. That website has no sources or citations of who published it. Call me crazy, but I like to know my info is legit.

Try and disprove it. I know most of the info be fact and would be interested to see if you could disprove any of it (with citations :rolleyes:).

[longBallLima]

Did you even read the link I posted? If not, here it is again: The Truth About Assault Weapons (http://www.assaultweapon.info/)
Educate yourself a little and lay off the immature and sarcastic responses.

AssaultWeapon.info is where someone like you would get your information, wouldn't it?

And how's this for a sarcastic inappropriate response:

"Wow... you are hopeless. Hope nobody ever needs to use a gun to protect or feed you or your family because you'd feel like a real ass then, wouldn't you?"

As much as some of the points made by some folks here that I disagree with are OK, consistent, respectable and all, I feel that the most ignorant, idiotic points came from you and everyone just tip-toes around this ignorance to not derail the discussion, until you come to me with shit like what an asshole i'll be when someone tries to kill my family...

[longBallLima]

I'd blame the shooter, not the gun.

Maybe you need to reevaluate you logic... or lack of.

Well, you assume that, because you, unlike many people, never lost a child to gun violence, isn't that correct? Deer violence caused great impact on your life though.


Try and disprove it. I know most of the info be fact and would be interested to see if you could disprove any of it (with citations :rolleyes:).

Oh, so it's up to him to discredit your stupid source?\

Here: "Ease of access to guns are related to gun violence". Disprove that with sources, scientific unbiased data that cannot be argued. It's your responsibility to disprove what I pull out of my ass.

[Macdon1588]

Let me ask you this, who would pay for the officer? The training? I would want a highly trained employee, not some rent-a-cop rambo. Also, if you were planning a mass murder and you knew there was a single armed guard, wouldn't you target that person first?

Taxes pay for actual police officers in schools, here in some schools. So financing it has to be a state issue. It's by no means the ultimate safe guard because you're right, someone could go for the officer first. That's why the architectural function of the building has to be considered and modified.

But again, it's only slight sarcasm when I posted earlier that I've changed to a pro-ban point of view.
Perhaps a law can stop crazies from killing children. I doubt it based on a history of atrocity that far predates the gun.

[bikeswimlive]

Try and disprove it. I know most of the info be fact and would be interested to see if you could disprove any of it (with citations :rolleyes:).

The onus of proof isn't on me. You offered up something as fact and I asked you to prove it with valid sources and you say you can't/won't (and then in turn tell me to disprove). That's pedantic and immature arguing.

I could say "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" and if challenged, the responsibility of proof is on myself (the one making the claim). You haven't written very many papers in your day have you?

[Coolazice]

AssaultWeapon.info is where someone like you would get your information, wouldn't it?

And how's this for a sarcastic inappropriate response:

"Wow... you are hopeless. Hope nobody ever needs to use a gun to protect or feed you or your family because you'd feel like a real ass then, wouldn't you?"

As much as some of the points made by some folks here that I disagree with are OK, consistent, respectable and all, I feel that the most ignorant, idiotic points came from you and everyone just tip-toes around this ignorance to not derail the discussion, until you come to me with shit like what an asshole i'll be when someone tries to kill my family...

There was no ignorance in that post at all. It is a reality that depending on where you live - at some point in your life, someone may need to use a gun to protect or feed your family with use of a gun. I've had to use a gun to prevent a crackhead from entering a house I was staying at and I have used a gun to feed my family.

[bikeswimlive]

I've had to use a gun to prevent a crackhead from entering a house I was staying at

Not unlikely in NE Ohio...

Why didn't you just lock the doors bro?

[Coolazice]

Well, you assume that, because you, unlike many people, never lost a child to gun violence, isn't that correct? Deer violence caused great impact on your life though.

No, I haven't lost a child to gun violence - thank God. It's not an assumption either...I've lost people I knew/cared for from gun violence. I've had a gun stuck in my face on a few occasions though and it doesn't change the way I feel about them.

Have you lost a child to gun violence?

[DJM]

Not unlikely in NE Ohio...

Why didn't you just lock the doors bro?

i dont lock my doors alot of the time, no gun either, i have 2 teacup poodles, beware

[BBG]

i dont lock my doors alot of the time, no gun either, i have 2 teacup poodles, beware

Stop being modest you always have two guns in the pics I've seen of you ;)

[longBallLima]

There was no ignorance in that post at all. It is a reality that depending on where you live - at some point in your life, someone may need to use a gun to protect or feed your family with use of a gun. I've had to use a gun to prevent a crackhead from entering a house I was staying at and I have used a gun to feed my family.

Well, now, we would be fooling ourselves if there was any expectation that you would see your own ignorance, wouldn't we?

In an appropriate discussion, it is common between gentlemen that one doesn't put the perspective of one's personal experience (as in what an ass i'd feel like when my family was threatened.) without knowledge of said experience. I've been threatened with guns before and have experienced some results of gun violence, so I don't feel like an ass hoping that those guns weren't there.

[Macdon1588]

Sandy Hook was secured. He shot the door open.

Again, something that can be overcome with proper design.

[longBallLima]

Again, something that can be overcome with proper design.

steel concrete doors in schools? and my place of work? trained officer here too?

a lot of work to keep NRA affiliates happy.

[Coolazice]

Not unlikely in NE Ohio...

Why didn't you just lock the doors bro?

I'm not your bro and don't call me a liar when you weren't there. If you really need me to, I'll PM you the dudes name and you can check out the police records since he ended up being arrested for it.

[longBallLima]

No, I haven't lost a child to gun violence - thank God. It's not an assumption either...I've lost people I knew/cared for from gun violence. I've had a gun stuck in my face on a few occasions though and it doesn't change the way I feel about them.

Have you lost a child to gun violence?

It is a big time assumption because you haven't been in the situation. You project what you would feel or how you would act. that is what an assumption is.

and i'll pull back from the personal stuff.

and enough is enough with the insults, carry on if you will, i'll disengage.

[BBG]

Guns are banned in China - literally, the police are not allowed to have guns. Only the military. Crazy people still use guns to kill people: China attack illustrates U.S. gun law divide - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/china-us-school-attack/index.html)

[longBallLima]

I'm not your bro and don't call me a liar when you weren't there. If you really need me to, I'll PM you the dudes name and you can check out the police records since he ended up being arrested for it.

? I fail to see where he called you a liar. He said it is not unlikely that happened to you.

[Rodja]

The onus of proof isn't on me. You offered up something as fact and I asked you to prove it with valid sources and you say you can't/won't (and then in turn tell me to disprove). That's pedantic and immature arguing.

I could say "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" and if challenged, the responsibility of proof is on myself (the one making the claim). You haven't written very many papers in your day have you?

Nice to see someone here knows some logical fallacies when they see it.

[Coolazice]

The onus of proof isn't on me. You offered up something as fact and I asked you to prove it with valid sources and you say you can't/won't (and then in turn tell me to disprove). That's pedantic and immature arguing.

I could say "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" and if challenged, the responsibility of proof is on myself (the one making the claim). You haven't written very many papers in your day have you?

If someone wants to say something is wrong, then they need to prove that point. You dimwits are the ones that are misdefining what an assault rifle is and that is one of the main points in the information.

[bikeswimlive]

I'm not your bro and don't call me a liar when you weren't there. If you really need me to, I'll PM you the dudes name and you can check out the police records since he ended up being arrested for it.

Why so hostile bro?

Please re-read I said "not unlikely" which means likely (aka I agreed with what you said). Kent State (near you) offers a wide array of Adult Education and Literacy courses. Ohio Literacy Resource Center (http://literacy.kent.edu/)

[longBallLima]

Guns are banned in China - literally, the police are not allowed to have guns. Only the military. Crazy people still use guns to kill people: China attack illustrates U.S. gun law divide - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/china-us-school-attack/index.html)

not kill. the article even delineates this. the main difference here is 22 injured children X 22 dead children.

as much as no one wants to see a hurt child, the sandy hook parents would gladly trade the attacks.

[Coolazice]

? I fail to see where he called you a liar. He said it is not unlikely that happened to you.

Oops... I misread that as not likely. My apologies.

- - - Updated - - -


Why so hostel bro?

Please re-read I said "not unlikely" which means likely (aka I agreed with what you said). Kent State (near you) offers a wide array of Adult Education and Literacy courses. Ohio Literacy Resource Center (http://literacy.kent.edu/)

I already apologized for misreading that and incorrectly replying. It was somewhat hostile because I read it as being called a liar.

[longBallLima]

hostile*

[Rodja]

If someone wants to say something is wrong, then they need to prove that point. You dimwits are the ones that are misdefining what an assault rifle is and that is one of the main points in the information.

You just added argument from ignorance to your logical fallacies.

Here's some reading for you since you don't seem to know what you're doing here:
Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof)
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

[Coolazice]

hostile*

Uh oh.... the spelling police are out again. :eek:

[longBallLima]

Uh oh.... the spelling police are out again. :eek:

its just that i think he originally used the word sarcastically, as in how "bros" would spell it. i could be wrong though

[DJM]

open debates and discussions are great, we all have opinions based on a myriad of things........but lets keep it to that and leave the personal shit out as it contributes nothing

[Coolazice]

You just added argument from ignorance to your logical fallacies.

Here's some reading for you since you don't seem to know what you're doing here:
Philosophic burden of proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof)
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

Thanks Rodja. :rolleyes: This is starting to seem more like a personal thing you have against me and less to do with what I'm actually saying here. Am I wrong? Feel free to PM me about it.

[Rodja]

Thanks Rodja. :rolleyes: This is starting to seem more like a personal thing you have against me and less to do with what I'm actually saying here. Am I wrong? Feel free to PM me about it.

Zero personal issues, but your arguments are fallacious. A fallacious argument needs to be pointed out.

[Coolazice]

Zero personal issues

If you say so.

[Macdon1588]

steel concrete doors in schools? and my place of work? trained officer here too?

a lot of work to keep NRA affiliates happy.

I suppose so. I guess now I understand that laws are the only thing can possibly keep us safe. I see that gun laws are working well in East Chicago and Gary Indiana. Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the less affluent areas of Washington D.C are lovely. Let us do this: Make guns sales illegal like we do with pot, roids and pills without a script. I'm sure all of our gun problems will go away.

[Rodja]

If you say so.

If you take me pointing out your fallacies personally, then that's your issue.

[longBallLima]

Thanks Rodja. :rolleyes: This is starting to seem more like a personal thing you have against me and less to do with what I'm actually saying here. Am I wrong? Feel free to PM me about it.

i'm gonna have to jump in here. again, no offense, but he is pointing out the obvious, which is the invalidity of your argument. in arguing, one can not present something as fact with no ability to prove it as such and just shoot the burden of proof to the other party.
I have no personal quarrel with you, other than I didn't appreciate your name calling and bringing my personal experiences into a discussion when you have no knowledge of it, but personal or not, an argument is an argument and there are standards to be followed or else it's just opinionated noise.

[longBallLima]

I suppose so. I guess now I understand that laws are the only thing can possibly keep us safe. I see that gun laws are working well in East Chicago and Gary Indiana. Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the less affluent areas of Washington D.C are lovely. Let us do this: Make guns sales illegal like we do with pot, roids and pills without a script. I'm sure all of our gun problems will go away.

Again, I don't think it was anybody's point in the thread to make gun sales completely illegal and have a complete ban on all guns.
Plus, I don't think there's a measure that will make gun problems go away, specially in a culture of people that are so ready to "defend themselves" even when there's no threat, "stand your ground" instead of walk away or "fight for what's right" when there's nothing wrong.
If going away is not an option, a serious reduction is what might be achieved at this point.

[bikeswimlive]

shoot the burden of proof

I see what you did there...

[longBallLima]

I see what you did there...

LOL

[Macdon1588]

Zero personal issues, but your arguments are fallacious. A fallacious argument needs to be pointed out.

So is the weakness of the argument that laws prevent crimes going to be addressed on its merits? All law is applicable to the degree to which it can be enforced (paraphrasing a Supreme Court justice). It is irrelevant what guns are allowed because law abiding citizens won't, by definition, use a gun to commit a crime. Banning the sales of guns does little to stop the violence, in part because of the prevalence of weapons already in circulation. So, if criminals are criminal because they don't follow laws, what will one more law serve? Nothing.

[longBallLima]

So is the weakness of the argument that laws prevent crimes going to be addressed on its merits? All law is applicable to the degree to which it can be enforced (paraphrasing a Supreme Court justice). It is irrelevant what guns are allowed because law abiding citizens won't, by definition, use a gun to commit a crime. Banning the sales of guns does little to stop the violence, in part because of the prevalence of weapons already in circulation. So, if criminals are criminal because they don't follow laws, what will one more law serve? Nothing.

Don't James Holmes and Adam Lanza disprove the notion that law abiding citizens are not dangerous with guns??

[Coolazice]

Today happens to be the 1 year anniversary of the death of a classmate and friend of mine from high school. She was shot and killed in her driveway by her longtime boyfriend, just 4 doors (a couple hundred feet) from my grandma's house. Still, I don't blame the gun. If he didn't have a gun, he would have found a different way to accomplish his goals. He was a twisted individual and was set on ending her life no matter what. He died by his own hand like many of the other cowards that choose that path. I think one of the worst parts about it is that her daughter lost both parents that night.

[Rodja]

So is the weakness of the argument that laws prevent crimes going to be addressed on its merits? All law is applicable to the degree to which it can be enforced (paraphrasing a Supreme Court justice). It is irrelevant what guns are allowed because law abiding citizens won't, by definition, use a gun to commit a crime. Banning the sales of guns does little to stop the violence, in part because of the prevalence of weapons already in circulation. So, if criminals are criminal because they don't follow laws, what will one more law serve? Nothing.

Red herring there, buddy.

The whole gun debate is full of fallacious arguments as it's an overly complex issue that cannot be easily legislated or solved due to the multiple avenues of obtaining a gun.

Bottom line is that something needs to change as the current approach is obviously not working. Whether it be some form of restriction on firearms, more rigorous methods for legally obtaining one, extra firearm safety/awareness, etc., something needs to be done and the people sitting on their asses screaming, "2nd amendment!!" are holding shit back. There's a lot of parallels here between gun reform and healthcare reform in that people are bitching about potential changes being implemented yet the current system isn't working.

[burlyman30]

Commercial break, guys...

I started all this by asking h2s' views. I stated some of my own. I don't agree with certain views and you won't all agree with mine. But PLEASE let's keep this civil. There is no need to call anyone ignorant or assholes here. Leave the personal attacks out of it.

If you disagree just state the reason, i.e. "the numbers I've seen disagree with this sentiment " vs. saying "You're an idiot".

Disagreement and dissenting is fine. But we have some great people here... let's not tear each other up over this.

So... this whole thing started with my question... my fault, I guess. I know this is a heated topic with strong beliefs on both sides.

Carry on.

[Coolazice]

Commercial break, guys...

I started all this by asking h2s' views. I stated some of my own. I don't agree with certain views and you won't all agree with mine. But PLEASE let's keep this civil. There is no need to call anyone ignorant or assholes here. Leave the personal attacks out of it.

If you disagree just state the reason, i.e. "the numbers I've seen disagree with this sentiment " vs. saying "You're an idiot".

Disagreement and dissenting is fine. But we have some great people here... let's not tear each other up over this.

So... this whole thing started with my question... my fault, I guess. I know this is a heated topic with strong beliefs on both sides.

Carry on.

This can't be blamed on you, Burly. This same debate is on the tip of a lot of peoples tongues and is happening at thousands of water coolers worldwide right now. Point taken though. :)

[longBallLima]

Commercial break, guys...

I started all this by asking h2s' views. I stated some of my own. I don't agree with certain views and you won't all agree with mine. But PLEASE let's keep this civil. There is no need to call anyone ignorant or assholes here. Leave the personal attacks out of it.

If you disagree just state the reason, i.e. "the numbers I've seen disagree with this sentiment " vs. saying "You're an idiot".

Disagreement and dissenting is fine. But we have some great people here... let's not tear each other up over this.

So... this whole thing started with my question... my fault, I guess. I know this is a heated topic with strong beliefs on both sides.

Carry on.

you have no fault here burly, sorry for my indulgence in shitty behavior.

[BBG]

not kill. the article even delineates this. the main difference here is 22 injured children X 22 dead children.

as much as no one wants to see a hurt child, the sandy hook parents would gladly trade the attacks.

The article actually mentions that the guy used a knife, not a gun. I didn't mean to be misleading with what I originally typed...

I'm not for gun control, but that guy attacked a bunch of kids with a knife and didn't kill any. They would easily all be dead if a gun was used.

[Macdon1588]

Red herring there, buddy.

The whole gun debate is full of fallacious arguments as it's an overly complex issue that cannot be easily legislated or solved due to the multiple avenues of obtaining a gun.

Bottom line is that something needs to change as the current approach is obviously not working. Whether it be some form of restriction on firearms, more rigorous methods for legally obtaining one, extra firearm safety/awareness, etc., something needs to be done and the people sitting on their asses screaming, "2nd amendment!!" are holding shit back. There's a lot of parallels here between gun reform and healthcare reform in that people are bitching about potential changes being implemented yet the current system isn't working.

Red herring as in I'm miss leading, or that the enforceability of a law is irrelevant to this argument? I hardly see that. It's been a while since I majored in philosophy, so I'm unsure of the merits of your accusation.
At any rate, the effectivity of the law must be considered. People site other countries' low gun rate being the result of purely regulation which is not true.

[burlyman30]

This can't be blamed on you, Burly. This same debate is on the tip of a lot of peoples tongues and is happening at thousands of water coolers worldwide right now. Point taken though. :)


you have no fault here burly, sorry for my indulgence in shitty behavior.

We all have opinions based on many factors. Our viewpoint comes from our upbringing, environment, experiences, and how we assimilate facts into our worldview. No one is 100% wrong or right here.

Thanks for pulling some punches, guys. :cool:

[Macdon1588]

Don't James Holmes and Adam Lanza disprove the notion that law abiding citizens are not dangerous with guns??

No, because both crazies used the guns illegally.

[Rodja]

Red herring as in I'm miss leading, or that the enforceability of a law is irrelevant to this argument? I hardly see that. It's been a while since I majored in philosophy, so I'm unsure of the merits of your accusation.
At any rate, the effectivity of the law must be considered. People site other countries' low gun rate being the result of purely regulation which is not true.

It's a red herring because it steers the argument toward a different, and irrelevant, direction. When you look at many of the major shootings (I'd have to dig in further to quantify all), they all had and used firearms that were obtained legally. By your logic, the arms used should've been black market items, but they weren't. Now, it's speculation, but I can confidently say that many of these would not have happened if the arms had to obtained via the black market. Columbine is the one that I most familiar with and the amount of arms they had at their disposal was just absurd.

Prevention is impossible and using this fact as a reason to not amend current legalities is such a BS argument.

[burlyman30]

It's a red herring because it steers the argument toward a different, and irrelevant, direction. When you look at many of the major shootings (I'd have to dig in further to quantify all), they all had and used firearms that were obtained legally. By your logic, the arms used should've been black market items, but they weren't. Now, it's speculation, but I can confidently say that many of these would not have happened if the arms had to obtained via the black market. Columbine is the one that I most familiar with and the amount of arms they had at their disposal was just absurd.

Prevention is impossible and using this fact as a reason to not amend current legalities is such a BS argument.

Some might argue that the only individuals who will abide by the new regulations are the same ones who are also no danger to society. Illegal weapons will always be available, even if they are not available legally.

[Rodja]

Some might argue that the only individuals who will abide by the new regulations are the same ones who are also no danger to society. Illegal weapons will always be available, even if they are not available legally.

I understand that, but restriction of access makes it more difficult to obtain said weapons and, when it becomes part of that world, becomes a very expensive commodity. Illegal weapons were available for many of the shootings, but the ones used were obtained legally. Yes, a handgun will still kill people, but not close to the extent of the AR15 used by Holmes.

[Rulk]

I'm all for the 2nd amendment, but I think more should be done overall to protect society. Here are some ideas I have heard or my own ideas that I think would help.

more education on guns in general would help
it should be required to attend and pass a safety awareness class
gun locks and safes should be either a part of gun purchases, or already installed
more thorough background checks
mental evaluation tests possibly

Also drug interaction. If someone is taking perscription drugs, that should be part of the determing factor in purchasing a gun. Maybe a doctor endorsment, along with a completed piss test?

And that's just for gun owners. I think gun ownship should be taken more seriously, but there are other points to this argument, so this is only part of the suggestions to improve violence in America.

[burlyman30]

I understand that, but restriction of access makes it more difficult to obtain said weapons and, when it becomes part of that world, becomes a very expensive commodity. Illegal weapons were available for many of the shootings, but the ones used were obtained legally. Yes, a handgun will still kill people, but not close to the extent of the AR15 used by Holmes.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the legally obtained weapons often end up being used by someone other than the original purchaser. This leads me to laws about safe storage of weaponry to keep it out of the wrong hands. Isn't it Switzerland who has a gun in the gun safe of every able bodied male? But it is locked away most of the time. Extremely low gun death rates their if memory serves me correctly. I think shooting is basically a national sport there.

[Rodja]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the legally obtained weapons often end up being used by someone other than the original purchaser. This leads me to laws about safe storage of weaponry to keep it out of the wrong hands. Isn't it Switzerland who has a gun in the gun safe of every able bodied male? But it is locked away most of the time. Extremely low gun death rates their if memory serves me correctly. I think shooting is basically a national sport there.

That is often the case which brings me back to the point of access.

[Macdon1588]

It's a red herring because it steers the argument toward a different, and irrelevant, direction. When you look at many of the major shootings (I'd have to dig in further to quantify all), they all had and used firearms that were obtained legally. By your logic, the arms used should've been black market items, but they weren't. Now, it's speculation, but I can confidently say that many of these would not have happened if the arms had to obtained via the black market. Columbine is the one that I most familiar with and the amount of arms they had at their disposal was just absurd.

Prevention is impossible and using this fact as a reason to not amend current legalities is such a BS argument.

The effectivity of the proposed law is entirely relevant. In Connecticut, the crazy killed his mother to obtain the weapon which is an illegal means. My logic did not presume a black market, though I am reasonably confident that regulation would create a black market as vibrant as the steroid black market. At the end of the day, I think education and training as well as other cultural changes will be more effectual.

I'm surrendering the argument however because honestly, I know this government can't fix the problem. It just makes me sad that people think it can.

[burlyman30]

That is often the case which brings me back to the point of access.

I'm sure we could find agreement between us on at least some of these areas.

At this point in our gun infiltrated nation, I am not sure stricter laws on weapons themselves is the answer, but we all know there are plenty of people who should not have access to any weapons. Guns, knives, explosives, etc.

Unnecessary deaths are a problem, no matter which side of the debate you sit on. How to reduce the problem (i didn't say fix) is the best area of debate to focus our energies.

Certainly better screening could be implemented. Safety training could be another. Thanks Noa, for your input. I'm interested in hearing any other potential ways to improve safety of citizens.

[Macdon1588]

I have a child that is the same age as the victims of Sandy Hook. My initial feeling as a father was ask myself, are gun rights worth this? My heart says off course not, but my mind says disarming the masses isn't either. Hopefully intelligent people will find a good solution.

[markam]

Now that I'm back from work, I've just read through this thread and although 'I know' there are valid reasons why guns should be heavily restricted, etc, I doubt I have the skills to put it across properly.

Anyway, addressing the 'concrete doors in schools' solution, what happens when the kids go out to play and someone in a near building takes pot shots at them?

Guns are too quick and deadly and easily used by cowards that would be too scared to attack people when contact is necessary and there's a greater degree of vulnerability.

The laws an ass, but until something better comes along, it's all we've got. Yes, it won't cure the problem, but if it stops an idiot buying a gun and leaving it lying around so some four year old kid shoot's himself, then it's a necessary law.

But that's unfair to those of us who are responsible with guns.

Tough. Think of the greater good.

I haven't seen one convincing argument for not banning guns in this thread.

[Cobalt]

Lets throw some gasoline on this debate!


Sandy hook was a setup by the government to tug on the hearts of americans, so that they could ban assault weapons. It has been planned all along so the government could take the powerful weapons away from the citizens. The government started to fear the general population, which is how it should be.

[DJM]

Lets throw some gasoline on this debate!


Sandy hook was a setup by the government to tug on the hearts of americans, so that they could ban assault weapons. It has been planned all along so the government could take the powerful weapons away from the citizens. The government started to fear the general population, which is how it should be.


in all honesty iv seen arguments with tons of evidence that could lead one to believe 911 was done to yourselves as well

[Coolazice]

Lets throw some gasoline on this debate!


Sandy hook was a setup by the government to tug on the hearts of americans, so that they could ban assault weapons. It has been planned all along so the government could take the powerful weapons away from the citizens. The government started to fear the general population, which is how it should be.


Many people believe that already. The question is are you really being sarcastic or are you testing the waters to see how people will react to it?

- - - Updated - - -


in all honesty iv seen arguments with tons of evidence that could lead one to believe 911 was done to yourselves as well

What do you think?

[Cobalt]

Many people believe that already. The question is are you really being sarcastic or are you testing the waters to see how people will react to it?
What do you think?

I'm being 100% sarcastic.
I've heard of the theory that it was a hoax, but much like what was reported on TV, I don't pay much attention to it so I have no conclusions.

I don't trust the news, and while I'm not saying that the story was a lie, I'm just saying I don't believe what I see on TV anymore.

[Coolazice]

I'm being 100% sarcastic.
I've heard of the theory that it was a hoax, but much like what was reported on TV, I don't pay much attention to it so I have no conclusions.

I don't trust the news, and while I'm not saying that the story was a lie, I'm just saying I don't believe what I see on TV anymore.

Smart!!!

[DJM]

Many people believe that already. The question is are you really being sarcastic or are you testing the waters to see how people will react to it?

- - - Updated - - -



What do you think?


understanding how corrupt govt can be, and collateral damage, im leaning slightly to it was planned from within......and im sorry but the manner in which bin laden was killed and subsequently sent to sea because its what his family/religion wants.....not sold on that either

[Coolazice]

understanding how corrupt govt can be, and collateral damage, im leaning slightly to it was planned from within......and im sorry but the manner in which bin laden was killed and subsequently sent to sea because its what his family/religion wants.....not sold on that either
Cool... we finally agree on something! lol

[burlyman30]

understanding how corrupt govt can be, and collateral damage, im leaning slightly to it was planned from within......and im sorry but the manner in which bin laden was killed and subsequently sent to sea because its what his family/religion wants.....not sold on that either

The story that was told has more holes than a wheel of swiss cheese.

[DJM]

Cool... we finally agree on something! lol

on the latter, most outside america see that as fishy.......youd think america's most wanted for a decade would have been brought before court at a minimum and so on, much like saddam.....he was shot, killed, and floated off inside 2 hours......and footage/pics are sketchy at best.............jmo, hes somewhere laughing and happy and probably looks like robert redford after his million dollar plastic surgery to disappear

[Coolazice]

on the latter, most outside america see that as fishy.......youd think america's most wanted for a decade would have been brought before court at a minimum and so on, much like saddam.....he was shot, killed, and floated off inside 2 hours......and footage/pics are sketchy at best.............jmo, hes somewhere laughing and happy and probably looks like robert redford after his million dollar plastic surgery to disappear

Could be. It would not surprise me one bit.

[Macdon1588]

on the latter, most outside america see that as fishy.......youd think america's most wanted for a decade would have been brought before court at a minimum and so on, much like saddam.....he was shot, killed, and floated off inside 2 hours......and footage/pics are sketchy at best.............jmo, hes somewhere laughing and happy and probably looks like robert redford after his million dollar plastic surgery to disappear

But DJ, Obama said it was Osama. What more proof do you need?

[markam]

You live in Britain, right? Which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the developed world.

Given that one of the most vocal advocates for gun control in the aftermath of Sandy Hook has been a British citizen – Piers Morgan – who has used his platform on CNN to attack the second amendment, the contrast is illuminating.

Despite the fact that it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to obtain a gun through legal channels in Britain, the rate of violent crime in the UK is higher per capita than the US and the highest in the world amongst “rich” countries aside from Australia, which also instituted a draconian gun ban in the 1990′s.

Violent crime worse in Britain than in US | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html)

Preventing law-abiding people from owning guns clearly has no impact on violent crime, and if anything causes it to rise because the criminals know their victims will not be able to defend themselves.

In addition, you are more than twice as likely to be a victim of knife crime in the UK than you are a victim of gun crime in the United States, but there is no media debate about banning kitchen knives.

Chad Perrin: SOB Statistics 101: US Gun Crime vs. UK Knife Crime (http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=1323)

Despite virtually all handguns being outlawed in 1996 following the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland, with law-abiding people people rushing to turn in their firearms, over the next decade gun crime in the UK more than doubled. This proves that while law-abiding citizens willingly disarmed themselves, criminals were unfazed by the new laws and continued to use guns illegally. Therefore gun control only disarms innocent people since criminals do not follow the law.

Firearms offences more than double since Dunblane - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1450338/Firearms-offences-more-than-double-since-Dunblane.html)

As the Wall Street Journal recently noted, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres.”

Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html)

In summary, despite a widespread ban on gun ownership in the United Kingdom, it is the most dangerous place to live in terms of violent crime in the entire western world.

Apologies for not replying yesterday, but I had posted just before leaving for work.

Firstly, I'd disregard what the papers say, especially the sensationalist Mail. I will just talk about my own experience of the matter.

Anyway, I live in London and I have never even seen any gun or even knife crime for that matter. I'm sure if I were to frequent notorious crime areas I probably would have. This is just my experience of living in London and I should mention that I'm out gigging five nights a week so I'm hardly living a 'quiet life'. Where I live you get burglary and petty theft, but often that is usually due to someone's carelessness with their own security.

[Cobalt]

I agree with FPR on this. You get rid of guns, crime goes up.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
There was a robbery that turned into a hostage situation down the road from my house. You can see the gas station it happened at from the deck in the back yard - it was that close.
The SWAT team was called in, tons of police cars and other emergency vehicles in the area, lighting the place up.
Long story short, hostages were released and the guy was shot (he shot at a SWAT member).
This all started at about 2am. It was done and over with before sunrise. I didn't find out about it until I got to work and people were asking me about it. I slept through the whole thing and it was within viewing distance from my house.

Stuff happens and it was always happen.

[h2s]

I agree with FPR on this. You get rid of guns, crime goes up.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
There was a robbery that turned into a hostage situation down the road from my house. You can see the gas station it happened at from the deck in the back yard - it was that close.
The SWAT team was called in, tons of police cars and other emergency vehicles in the area, lighting the place up.
Long story short, hostages were released and the guy was shot (he shot at a SWAT member).
This all started at about 2am. It was done and over with before sunrise. I didn't find out about it until I got to work and people were asking me about it. I slept through the whole thing and it was within viewing distance from my house.

Stuff happens and it was always happen.

So someone took a hostage, most likely with a gun, and this shows that guns stop crime?

[markam]

I agree with FPR on this. You get rid of guns, crime goes up.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
There was a robbery that turned into a hostage situation down the road from my house. You can see the gas station it happened at from the deck in the back yard - it was that close.
The SWAT team was called in, tons of police cars and other emergency vehicles in the area, lighting the place up.
Long story short, hostages were released and the guy was shot (he shot at a SWAT member).
This all started at about 2am. It was done and over with before sunrise. I didn't find out about it until I got to work and people were asking me about it. I slept through the whole thing and it was within viewing distance from my house.

Stuff happens and it was always happen.

Don't agree, but anyway I'd rather have more crime and less dead children!

edit update.

As BigCLS so cleverly pointed out in the next post, killing children is also a crime. ya think?!?
Hopefully most of you will have realized that I was using the word crime in relation to the post I was replying to. Personally, I wouldn't refer to 'killing children' as just a crime, as 'cold blooded murder' seems more apt.

[BigCLS]

Don't agree, but anyway I'd rather have more crime and less dead children!

Children dead is a crime.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[markam]

Children dead is a crime.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2



I agree with FPR on this. You get rid of guns, crime goes up.

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
There was a robbery that turned into a hostage situation down the road from my house. You can see the gas station it happened at from the deck in the back yard - it was that close.
The SWAT team was called in, tons of police cars and other emergency vehicles in the area, lighting the place up.
Long story short, hostages were released and the guy was shot (he shot at a SWAT member).
This all started at about 2am. It was done and over with before sunrise. I didn't find out about it until I got to work and people were asking me about it. I slept through the whole thing and it was within viewing distance from my house.

Stuff happens and it was always happen.

The post I replied to was referring to a robbery/hostage situation. See post #248