# Guns in America



## tec (Jul 20, 2007)

American civilians have been heavily armed for over 200 years but it is only over the past few years that kids have been shooting up schools. Sounds to me like it is a problem with the kids rather than guns.


----------



## BAMF32 (Feb 12, 2005)

Or.....The problem is also the parents of these kids.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

I said it before. The problem is the 24 hour news coverage and the insane publicity.

It is responsible for the spread of these issues above all else (except the shooter themselves).


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

Saw some mother on TV this morning screaming at Trump.
Jimmy Kimmel was on TV last night blaming Trump.

I don't recall anyone saddling Obama with the responsibility of school shootings when he was in office.

Gayle King said on CBS Morning News that none of us should have an AR.

This sounds terrible....but I wish this kid had done what he did with a knife, tank of gas, and his grandfathers double barrel....just to show the issue is not the evil AR.

Obviously I wish it had NEVER happened...but you get the point.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

So where is Hollywood's responsibility? They want to take away guns yet they're unwilling to stop making movies glorifying extreme violence. What about video game manufacturers for the same reason? What about the numerous social media platforms such as Instagram, Youtube and Facebook? Why don't they report DIRECTLY to law enforcement when they see extremism/threats online? It seems most of these groups are great at pointing fingers yet unwilling to own their part. They scream about first amendment rights but it seems the 2nd amendment has saved MANY more people.


----------



## Cat O' Lies (May 21, 2004)

It is a social issue. The breakdown of family values, where respect and accountability have been cleansed by liberal ideology. Just look at liberal agenda in our public schools. 
Schools that use our tax dollars to brainwash our kids. We have to change the way our kids think. Laws against guns, knives, sticks, automobiles is not the answer.


----------



## Morpheus (Jul 25, 2016)

It is easier to blame an inanimate object for the troubles, than come out and say that the problem centers in the people that vote for the politician. 

Could you imagine someone standing in front of a microphone and saying the fault isn't in the weapon but the one holding the weapon and the holder's family and friends? Carrier would be over in a flash!!


----------



## KDubBlast (Dec 25, 2006)

My question is what can be done about this? I love my guns more than anyone and hunt more than most so don't think I'm against the but How can we as a society prevent more school shootings from happening? I honestly have no idea how they can be prevented. Do we monitor everyone's social media accounts, arm everyone, take everyone's guns away? What are yalls opinions?


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

High school kids used to have shotguns on a rack, in the back of their pickups... IN the school parking lot. It wasn't an uncommon occurrence. Nobody stole the shotguns. Nobody took them inside and shot up the school.

Something changed, and it wasn't the guns, nor the Constitution that allows us to own them.

Stalin saw successful, hard-working farmers as a threat to his glorious Communist regime. But the kulaks were producing many times more food than collective farms, and had too much power to attack directly. So he began a program of discrediting and demonizing them, including indoctrination of school children to believe that capitalism and Kulaks were evil. In private, he made speeches about the need to totally eliminate the kulaks, which he eventually did. But first he convinced them that if they turned in their guns, he wouldn't destroy them.

These people don't want to get rid of guns - they want to get rid of us. I've read too many of their papers where they state openly that, in order to really transform our government, tens of millions would have to die. And they speak openly of being in favor of exactly that. It's not conspiracy theory, it's their own words. (Obama had quite a few people in his cabinet who had advocated exactly that.) The sooner you understand that it's not just about the guns, the more things will make sense.

"Fact checkers" like Snopes and PolitiFact insist that gun control is not the same thing as gun confiscation. And they are right. It is a necessary first step toward confiscation.

Go look into how Stalin dealt with political enemies who were too powerful for him to simply destroy head-on. Then look at this whole gun control "debate". There is no question what is going on here.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

The kid was a nutcase and underage to legally could not buy a gun. What law would you change? No law can prevent a psycho from being a murderer unless we start killing the people determined to be mentally ill-and who will be the 'people' that make that determination?

Prevention:

Install metal detectors and an armed security guard is all I can think of. And arm teachers-just the stable ones (yes, some teachers are unstable-just look at the ones doing students, my old football coach, my old vice principal-all nuts and on power trips with no social thought).


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

KDubBlast said:


> My question is what can be done about this? I love my guns more than anyone and hunt more than most so don't think I'm against the but How can we as a society prevent more school shootings from happening? I honestly have no idea how they can be prevented. Do we monitor everyone's social media accounts, arm everyone, take everyone's guns away? What are yalls opinions?


Bring back God, the American flag, and corporal punishment to school administrations.


----------



## EddieL (Feb 3, 2011)

Lets wait and see what meds this kids was on and I will bet the answer lies in there. The advent of highly profitable psychiatric drugs for folks who can't handle reality is a relatively new thing.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

EddieL said:


> Lets wait and see what meds this kids was on and I will bet the answer lies in there. The advent of highly profitable psychiatric drugs for folks who can't handle reality is a relatively new thing.


The kid had a long history of psychosis-killing animals as a child, numerous police issues-he was sick in the brain from birth-of course he was on meds-doesn't mean he'll take them.


----------



## Morpheus (Jul 25, 2016)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle...ut-guns/ar-BBJc2tl?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

This story is about a teacher trying to find a way to identify kids that are in trouble mentally or on their way. She believes that if the kid is not accepted into "their" society at some point they will act out and get the notoriety they are seeking.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

KDubBlast said:


> My question is what can be done about this? I love my guns more than anyone and hunt more than most so don't think I'm against the but How can we as a society prevent more school shootings from happening? I honestly have no idea how they can be prevented. Do we monitor everyone's social media accounts, arm everyone, take everyone's guns away? What are yalls opinions?


See above. We focus on the REAL problem...the breakdown of the American family. We build a comprehensive solution where social media companies report to law enforcement, where media companies in Hollywood and gaming companies stop glorifying violence, where the American family is celebrated and nurtured rather than torn apart by anti-American values, where religion isn't villified and is supported. This is a culture problem, not a gun problem


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

Almost every school shooting was done by kids who have been prescribed psychotropic drugs. Somewhere along the line parents have decided to drug their kids to help compensate for poor parenting skills. The Florida shooter has a 6 ft list of issues both mental and behavioral. Was eevn on the Mayors "crazy bastage watch list". 

Further evidence is the number of kids killing them self because they were "bullied". Kids have always picked on other kids. It help make them stronger. But we gave it a word and that created victims. (example. Anytime somebody tried to bully my kid, he folded them up like a pretzel. The school would call me. I'd show up and they would say "we are sending him home for three days. I would reply "Like he11 you are" and wouls praise him for his actions in front of the officials. He has not had a single problem since 6 grade.) 

Add to that the crazy nonsense we are doing to our food (GMO, steroids, preservatives, antibiotics, growth hormones etc) and BINGO....a species in caos!

Throw is some couch potato games like Grand Theft Auto that they play 8 hours a day everyday. Yeah, that's good for social development!!


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

I think a ban on liberals would be MUCH more effective. Imagine the number of people who'd be alive if the Clintons were in jail!


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

My daughter is in college to become a teacher. She was telling me about a class, and I said, "That's clear Marxist terminology." And she said, "Oh, yeah. The professor says so." They have reached a point where they are openly teaching Marxism to the next generation of educators.

But it's worse than that. They are telling future teachers that it will be discussed in their employment interviews. If they don't agree to teach it to their students, they won't be able to get a job. Some crazy liberal college? Think again. It's part of the A&M system. And I'm not stretching the truth to make a point - it's open, and it's sanctioned. If you don't toe the party line, you won't be able to get a job, and they'll starve you out. It's been done before, many times, exactly that way. They thought that they had hit the tipping point, and that Hillary was going to finish the transformation. They were this close. And that's why they are so freaked out and frantic over Trump.

I've been seriously thinking that fighting this may be my life's work, with whatever years I have left. To the point I've even considered that I might give up fishing to spend my time doing something more important.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

You drive drunk and get a DWI-it's YOUR fault. (It aint the booze's fault)

You turn into oncoming traffic and cause a wreck-it's YOUR fault. (It aint the car's fault)

You shoplift a steak at the grocery store by putting it under your coat-it's YOUR fault. (It aint your coat's fault)

You shoot up a school, it's the GUN'S fault. Bullchip-it was the shooter's fault.


----------



## the hook (Aug 8, 2011)

Obviously I don't know the answer, but....We talk about what is different from when we were kids??....There are a few generations, in my case, to deal with...Each generation got worse, IMO....I still believe MOST people are good, EVEN Dems....We had the same problems then, EXCEPT for these mass shootings, again, imo...Are the younger people different??...Yes, imo...As said, the young have no responsibility what so ever for the most part...I'm going to use the LGBTQ movement AS an example...In MY time, there were gays, queers, mohos etc...Yeh, we knew some...Thing was, we ALL knew they weren't RIGHT...Nowadays, the same people are NORMAL and many other young 'items' are passed over as normal...I believe this 'hands off' policy is where 'we' went wrong...My mother didn't work, as a lot of my friends mothers didn't..Now, and for a some previous years, both parents work...Again, as mentioned, everyone gets a trophy...As far as guns, I don't even own a pistol or AR type gun...I WILL NOT call them assault weapons...I don't have one, but if my neighbor does, good for him, I just have no use...I agree that the parents should be held responsible(this case, no parents) if it pertains to it...No answer here, but????


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Jamaica Cove said:


> You drive drunk and get a DWI-it's YOUR fault. (It aint the booze's fault)
> 
> You turn into oncoming traffic and cause a wreck-it's YOUR fault. (It aint the car's fault)
> 
> ...


lets not forget that if you get drunk at a bar and get a DUI, lawyers have made it the bartender's fault...


----------



## Bad Bullet Bob (Nov 16, 2015)

Yo have got to admit that this man ( 19 ) was in mental fatigue, he had lost his dad and some months back lost his mom. To him I think he did not matter to anyone. Everyone he loved was gone left him. He needed help. And when the FBI was warned and said they could not find him, Horse S###. If the FBI wants you you are found. A ticking bomb, the kids saw it and knew. Mental instability is the cause in most of these cases. How can this info be given to the FBI for a gun purchase and stop it. DR.?, privacy laws who knows.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

photofishin said:


> lets not forget that if you get drunk at a bar and get a DUI, lawyers have made it the bartender's fault...


That's civil, not criminal. Big difference. The person with the DWI is criminally charged, the bartender aint given a DWI.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

Bad Bullet Bob said:


> Yo have got to admit that this man ( 19 ) was in mental fatigue, he had lost his dad and some months back lost his mom. To him I think he did not matter to anyone. Everyone he loved was gone left him. He needed help. And when the FBI was warned and said they could not find him, Horse S###. If the FBI wants you you are found. A ticking bomb, the kids saw it and knew. Mental instability is the cause in most of these cases. How can this info be given to the FBI for a gun purchase and stop it. DR.?, privacy laws who knows.


He was adopted. Likely his birth mother was some crackwho that caused dain bramage or ???. The kid had a long history as a child being a psychotic child-killing animals for fun as a child aint 'normal'.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

KDubBlast said:


> My question is what can be done about this? I love my guns more than anyone and hunt more than most so don't think I'm against the but How can we as a society prevent more school shootings from happening? I honestly have no idea how they can be prevented. Do we monitor everyone's social media accounts, arm everyone, take everyone's guns away? What are yalls opinions?


Put God back in the schools. Put prayer back in schools. Quit accommodating the degenerates. Quit trying to make everyone equal. The Constitution requires equal opportunity, not equal outcome. None of it will ever happen.


----------



## WILD_PHIL (Oct 27, 2013)

WOW! A reasonable debate on mass shootings in America. Never thought Iâ€™d see the day. 

Civilians carrying guns has drastically decreased since the 70s and crime has seriously increased. We can blame movies, video games, and the family upbringing of these losers, but at the end of the day they are attacking gun free zones. None of these Turds are going to an area where thereâ€™s a chance they get popped in the head after the pull a gun out. Until schools increase LEO patrols, and post signs all over the school that random teachers are armed we will see this continue. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## toolie (Feb 10, 2016)

Every one of these 'kids' is on some sort of medication, anti-depressants, ridillin, or something. That is never mentioned in any discussion because no one wants to offend the pharma's. I would like to see a real study/analysis of the drugs each of these shooters is being fed.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

98aggie77566 said:


> Saw some mother on TV this morning screaming at Trump.
> Jimmy Kimmel was on TV last night blaming Trump.
> 
> I don't recall anyone saddling Obama with the responsibility of school shootings when he was in office.
> ...


First off, I don't blame Trump it's much bigger issue than one person but there is a clear difference between him and Obama on this topic. Obama tried to implement some very reasonable gun control policy and it was rejected. Increase in background checks and not allowing individuals on the no-fly list to buy guns, I mean this is common sense stuff but the NRA benefactors won't have it. Whereas Trump won't even discuss any real strategy to reduce gun violence, only "thoughts and prayers".


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

The sad part is what everyone thinks needs to happen...won't. Selfish parents won't get off drugs or Facebook long enough to get involved with their kids' lives and actually raise their kids. Instead, they are letting society do it for them. Some more realistic approaches are: armed security, get rid of gun-free zones (deterrent), and perimeter fences similar to what prisons have.


----------



## Knot Kidding (Jan 7, 2009)

ChuChu said:


> Bring back God, the American flag, and corporal punishment to school administrations.


Exactly!


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Skifffer said:


> First off, I don't blame Trump it's much bigger issue than one person but there is a clear difference between him and Obama on this topic. Obama tried to implement some very reasonable gun control policy and it was rejected. Increase in background checks and not allowing individuals on the no-fly list to buy guns, I mean this is common sense stuff but the NRA benefactors won't have it. Whereas Trump won't even discuss any real strategy to reduce gun violence, only "thoughts and prayers".


LMAO because you used Obama and "common sense" in the same sentence...HILARIOUS!


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

photofishin said:


> LMAO because you used Obama and "common sense" in the same sentence...HILARIOUS!


So, do you have a problem with better background checks for gun purchases? How about preventing people that aren't considered safe enough to get on an airplane from buying guns? Does this seem unreasonable? There is national support for these changes.


----------



## WILD_PHIL (Oct 27, 2013)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Skifffer said:


> First off, I don't blame Trump it's much bigger issue than one person but there is a clear difference between him and Obama on this topic. Obama tried to implement some very reasonable gun control policy and it was rejected. Increase in background checks and not allowing individuals on the no-fly list to buy guns, I mean this is common sense stuff but the NRA benefactors won't have it. Whereas Trump won't even discuss any real strategy to reduce gun violence, only "thoughts and prayers".


Just curious, where was the left's and 0bama's outrage and call for gun control after the Kate Steinle murder? Just asking to gauge your doucheness....


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Skifffer said:


> So, do you have a problem with better background checks for gun purchases? How about preventing people that aren't considered safe enough to get on an airplane from buying guns? Does this seem unreasonable? There is national support for these changes.


You do understand that background checks are required right now? By law? Do the current laws call for half-*** background checks? I mean, is that the problem, that Congress wrote laws that call for cursory background checks?

Or are they just not enforcing the existing laws for some reason? Like they aren't enforcing border law for some reason.

Here's another fun idea. How about we prevent people who aren't considered safe enough to get on an airplane from getting on airplanes? Sooner or later you have to at least consider exploring why existing laws aren't being enforced, and question whether making new laws will somehow magically fix the problems.


----------



## fishguru00 (Aug 10, 2011)

it makes sense that obama would support using the no-fly list to restrict gun purchases, given the lack of due process. kind of like using a fake dossier to get a fisa warrant.

common sense, right.


----------



## Drrpm2004 (May 16, 2012)

And yet they honestly think that banning guns will completely prevent a bad person from getting their hands on one if they really want to. I'm just sick of seeing all these red flags pop up after something happens. Seems that their focus needs to be on that. 
Just in - a complaint was called into the FBI earlier in January about this recent teenager and his radical behavior and nothing was done....HuH?!?


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Skifffer said:


> So, do you have a problem with better background checks for gun purchases? How about preventing people that aren't considered safe enough to get on an airplane from buying guns? Does this seem unreasonable? There is national support for these changes.


I support any changes which don't infringe on our rights as citizens. Tell me what specific laws would have prevented the current shooting. You think this kid would have been stopped if AR15s didn't exist? These band aids you speak of wouldn't stop a single shooting. We need to stop focusing on peripheral issues and start focusing on the SOURCE of the problem.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

pocjetty said:


> You do understand that background checks are required right now? By law? Do the current laws call for half-*** background checks? I mean, is that the problem, that Congress wrote laws that call for cursory background checks?
> 
> Or are they just not enforcing the existing laws for some reason? Like they aren't enforcing border law for some reason.
> 
> Here's another fun idea. How about we prevent people who aren't considered safe enough to get on an airplane from getting on airplanes? Sooner or later you have to at least consider exploring why existing laws aren't being enforced, and question whether making new laws will somehow magically fix the problems.


Roughly 60 percent: the share of gun owners surveyed who did go through a background check when they obtained (through sale or transfer) their latest gun.
Roughly 40 percent: the share of gun owners who did not.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/private-sale-loophole-background-check-harvard-research/

You pose a very good question and I don't have an answer for why the laws aren't being enforced. 40% is not just a few slipping through the cracks.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Drrpm2004 said:


> Just in - a complaint was called into the FBI earlier in January about this recent teenager and his radical behavior and nothing was done....HuH?!?


It's almost like someone believes that allowing these shootings to happen will eventually force people to cave in on stricter gun control measures.

You can't tell me that in this age of supercomputers and huge databases, they couldn't correlate the FBI reports about this kid to the fact that he got a gun. It's not possible. So there has to be some other explanation.

I ran some very large datacenters. I promise you... 100% promise you... that I could take two programmers who worked for me in the past, and build an automated alert system where people who get these kind of reports to the FBI would pop up when they submit a background check for a gun purchase. And I could have it done in a matter of months. If they don't have a system, we should know why. If they do, we should know why they aren't using it.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

photofishin said:


> I support any changes which don't infringe on our rights as citizens. Tell me what specific laws would have prevented the current shooting. You think this kid would have been stopped if AR15s didn't exist? These band aids you speak of wouldn't stop a single shooting. We need to stop focusing on peripheral issues and start focusing on the SOURCE of the problem.


So, you tell me why none of these gun-control methods won't work in the US but do in other developed countries. We have the highest gun violence rate out of all the developed countries by a big margin. Why can't we get a handle on it, while other comparable countries can?

A half way decent background check should have kept a gun out of this kid's hands, he was waving just about every red flag possible.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

If yall notices most all of the killings or shootings were on "soft" targets, theatres, churches, schools etc. Armed, trained real police officers in schools who do intelligence , documentation etc. (real police work) will go a long ways to help with crazy shooters.Crazy shooters normally go where they have no resistance.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

fishguru00 said:


> it makes sense that obama would support using the no-fly list to restrict gun purchases, given the lack of due process. kind of like using a fake dossier to get a fisa warrant.
> 
> common sense, right.


Well he's no longer in office, the no-fly list process should be fixed and used as it is intended.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

Shall Not Be Infringed! Any laws pertaining to guns are of one agenda TO TAKE THEM! Never forget that. Secure our schools! Armed guards standing post at the limited access points is the only thing that will stop this pattern of massacres on soft targets.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Skifffer said:


> Roughly 60 percent: the share of gun owners surveyed who did go through a background check when they obtained (through sale or transfer) their latest gun.
> Roughly 40 percent: the share of gun owners who did not.
> 
> http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/private-sale-loophole-background-check-harvard-research/
> ...


Look, I'm not going to get into an argument with you. I've looked at that study, and it's utter, complete ****. The methodology isn't suspect, it's just intellectually dishonest. My college Statistics professor would have kicked me out of class for that. If someone working for me pulled that kind of stunt, I'd fire them. Then I'd fire myself for letting it get that far.

Remember that they said that there is a 97% consensus among scientists about man made global warming. Utterly not true, never was. But it entered the popular culture, where the sheep never question. Then they used it to ostracize the scientists who stood up to disagree, brand them as extremists, and ruin their careers to serve as a warning to other dissenters.

Let me make it short: you can't conclude what they claim to have proven through the "survey" methodology they used. Cannot. Period. I don't know what the truth is, but I know that's not it.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Skifffer said:


> So, you tell me why none of these gun-control methods won't work in the US but do in other developed countries. We have the highest gun violence rate out of all the developed countries by a big margin. Why can't we get a handle on it, while other comparable countries can?
> 
> A half way decent background check should have kept a gun out of this kid's hands, he was waving just about every red flag possible.


So tell me of another developed country with 300+ million citizens with the same rights we enjoy and the same economy we enjoy.
By the way, the kid bought the gun when he was 18 with NO priors, no arrests and a clean background...how are you going to prevent that without destroying everyone else's civil rights? MAYBE we ought to focus on SOLUTIONS versus the band aids you keep bringing up...and if you mention Norway or Australia, you automatically show your ignorance on gun violence.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Skifffer said:


> So, you tell me why none of these gun-control methods won't work in the US but do in other developed countries. We have the highest gun violence rate out of all the developed countries by a big margin. Why can't we get a handle on it, while other comparable countries can?
> 
> A half way decent background check should have kept a gun out of this kid's hands, he was waving just about every red flag possible.


No, you tell us why it isn't working. You have the goods on this subject. Tell us why a halfway decent background wasn't conducted. Speculate, Mr. Spock.



Skifffer said:


> Well he's no longer in office, the no-fly list process should be fixed and used as it is intended.


Unless, of course, he packed the upper level of the bureaucracy with people who are committed to his ideology, and are refusing to change with the new administration. In that case he would, in a very real sense, still be in office.

Do you see any things happening that look like that might possibly be the case?


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

photofishin said:


> So tell me of another developed country with 300+ million citizens with the same rights we enjoy and the same economy we enjoy.


BAM! You could stop right there. These people are quick to say that some things must be given up, in order to provide safety.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

pocjetty said:


> No, you tell us why it isn't working. You have the goods on this subject. Tell us why a halfway decent background wasn't conducted. Speculate, Mr. Spock.


Cruz had scores of run-ins with law enforcement prior to Wednesday's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School dating back to 2010 -- with one report saying sheriffâ€™s deputies responded to his home more than 35 times in just six years.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/1...fbi-cops-school-but-warning-signs-missed.html

This should be enough, right?


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Skifffer said:


> Cruz had scores of run-ins with law enforcement prior to Wednesday's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School dating back to 2010 -- with one report saying sheriffâ€™s deputies responded to his home more than 35 times in just six years.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/1...fbi-cops-school-but-warning-signs-missed.html
> 
> This should be enough, right?


There isn't a mf'r one in chicago or detroit that can pass a background check, toughest gun laws in the country yet.........

Where was your outrage when Kate Steinle was murdered?

It didn't fit you agenda now did it?


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Skifffer said:


> So, do you have a problem with better background checks for gun purchases? How about preventing people that aren't considered safe enough to get on an airplane from buying guns? Does this seem unreasonable? There is national support for these changes.


One last thing. I have lived all over the world. You are utterly clueless about how much violence is present in the every day lives of people in other countries. Your world view is so narrow, you don't know what you don't know.

You're conflating things that have nothing to do with each other. Yes, there is national support for enforcing the current laws. You're pretending that means that there is majority support for a bunch of new Draconian gun "control" measures. If there were, they would have already passed. (I suppose the NRA is blocking the will of the majority?)

The constant barrage of media propaganda is designed to create the impression that there is more support than there is. And the demonization of guns and 2A supporters is designed to make less-than-committed people shy away from being associated with gun ownership in any way.

You've clearly bought into the idea, and I won't change your mind on an Internet forum. But there's nothing scientific about your social science.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

Skifffer said:


> Cruz had scores of run-ins with law enforcement prior to Wednesday's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School dating back to 2010 -- with one report saying sheriffâ€™s deputies responded to his home more than 35 times in just six years.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/1...fbi-cops-school-but-warning-signs-missed.html
> 
> This should be enough, right?


It should be. So why wasn't it? Do we not require adequate background checks? Do the laws call for the FBI not to take them seriously? You've taken a strong position - you should have an answer for why.

Seriously, is it really logical to you that they aren't enforcing current law, but new law is going to fix that problem? Really?


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

boom! said:


> There isn't a mf'r one in chicago or detroit that can pass a background check, toughest gun laws in the country yet.........
> 
> Where was your outrage when Kate Steinle was murdered?
> 
> It didn't fit you agenda now did it?


I value each American life, I have no idea why you would make this assumption. I don't have an "agenda", I do have my opinions and questions on the matter like everyone else.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Skifffer said:


> Well he's no longer in office, the no-fly list process should be fixed and used as it is intended.


First, you need to understand what your considering...the no-fly list process

How do you get on the list?

Are you notified of being placed on the list?

How do you appeal and get off the list?

How many lawsuits have been filed and won claiming the Government violated their constitutional rights to travel by placing them on the no-fly list?

How can you support some super-secret government list?

Now you want to hand over a very powerful political tool to remove Americans Rights, without a trial, without a notice, without even criminal charges. So make no mistake, there are people willing to do anything for an agenda...and high on their list is banning guns. All the while smiling and telling you it's ok and we are safer now.

Criminals don't follow laws. Making new ones won't change that fact.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

bill said:


> First, you need to understand what your considering...the no-fly list process
> 
> How do you get on the list?
> 
> ...


By this logic we should eliminate all laws.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

Skifffer said:


> First off, I don't blame Trump it's much bigger issue than one person but there is a clear difference between him and Obama on this topic. Obama tried to implement some very reasonable gun control policy and it was rejected. Increase in background checks and not allowing individuals on the no-fly list to buy guns, I mean this is common sense stuff but the NRA benefactors won't have it. Whereas Trump won't even discuss any real strategy to reduce gun violence, only "thoughts and prayers".


Really? Nice snowflake response.

The kid was underage and not allowed to purchase ANY gun or AMMO. He had a long history of psychosis-was killing animals as a little kid-certainly a sign of a sicko.

You think a freaking law would stop this, then you are living in a bubble with a unicorn standing next to you. No law is going to stop a psychotic person from a terrible act-UNLESS the law is made to euthanize all psychotics-and who decides who/what is psychotic? You gonna do that?

Say you're driving and start turning channels on your radio and enter the opposite lane of traffic and hit someone head-on and kill them. Under your thinkiig, it's the car's fault, not yours. Geez.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

Skifffer said:


> By this logic we should eliminate all laws.


Only the ones deemed unconstitutional. :flag:

The FBI is too busy being used as a political weapon to do their job.

FBI Statement:
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBIâ€™s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruzâ€™s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.
Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.
We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

Jamaica Cove said:


> Really? Nice snowflake response.
> 
> The kid was underage and not allowed to purchase ANY gun or AMMO. He had a long history of psychosis-was killing animals as a little kid-certainly a sign of a sicko.
> 
> ...


He purchased the gun legally FYI.

Why the name calling?


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Skifffer said:


> By this logic we should eliminate all laws.


no...that's YOUR liberal logic...conservatives just suggest we actually enforce existing laws and we don't take away people's constitutionally granted rights. Why do you seem to have a problem with that?


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Skifffer said:


> By this logic we should eliminate all laws.


You should relocate to chicago or detroit where your laws are already there to protect you. Vote with your feet!!!


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

photofishin said:


> no...that's YOUR liberal logic...conservatives just suggest we actually enforce existing laws and we don't take away people's constitutionally granted rights. Why do you seem to have a problem with that?


I don't have any problems with that, if you got that message it was unintended. I don't understand how hoping we can do a better job of protecting lives is a liberal position, it is just natural instincts to me.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

boom! said:


> You should relocate to chicago or detroit where your laws are already there to protect you. Vote with your feet!!!


I hate cold weather.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

Sometimes things can't be fixed by regulating it. You allow the government to put mentally ill people on a list and we all become mentally ill. Any time a new law is put into place they push to take away whatever it is they are regulating . I disagree with parts of the drinking and driving law . I disagree with parts of the seat belt law. Both of which started out as a good thing but they keep pushing to take more away. These things only happen in gun free zones. But the bottom line is you can't regulate the danger out of everything. Crazy people and criminals will find away to kill or hurt others.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

Skifffer said:


> I don't have any problems with that, if you got that message it was unintended. I don't understand how hoping we can do a better job of protecting lives is a liberal position, it is just natural instincts to me.


You suggested more gun control to save lives. That is about as liberal as it gets. The only way to save lives is to place more people with guns at our schools. If anything pass laws allowing CC holders to be able to carry at our schools. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a good guy with a gun is not just a catchy slogan it's the truth.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Skifffer said:


> I hate cold weather.


Well I hate the gun violence that comes with your line of thinking and laws.How about you get chicago and detroit working since they already have the strictest laws like you are proposing during the summer months and come back with a valid argument.


----------



## Timemachine (Nov 25, 2008)

Skifffer said:


> First off, I don't blame Trump it's much bigger issue than one person but there is a clear difference between him and Obama on this topic. Obama tried to implement some very reasonable gun control policy and it was rejected. Increase in background checks and not allowing individuals on the no-fly list to buy guns, I mean this is common sense stuff but the NRA benefactors won't have it. Whereas Trump won't even discuss any real strategy to reduce gun violence, only "thoughts and prayers".


so the 20,000 gun laws are not fixing the problem?....hmmmm. Perhaps 20,001 will do the trick.

And how many will die at the hands of drunk drives this year. 13,000, 14,000? Why are we not banning alcohol or even better, get rid of cars.


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

98aggie77566 said:


> Saw some mother on TV this morning screaming at Trump.
> Jimmy Kimmel was on TV last night blaming Trump.
> 
> I don't recall anyone saddling Obama with the responsibility of school shootings when he was in office.
> ...


I don't think Trump had one thing to do with this. The punk kid said it was demons that made him do it.
The lady screaming at Trump was pushing the issue of putting laws in place for gun control. I can see her point after loosing your child to a gun. 
For a quick fix's to our problem I'm talking right now. Use our Military to guard the schools. I see no other way for the time being.
We can't just continue to do nothing.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

Skifffer said:


> I don't have any problems with that, if you got that message it was unintended. I don't understand how hoping we can do a better job of protecting lives is a liberal position, it is just natural instincts to me.


You know what protects lives? Profiling! You talk a lot about common sense. Well, it is common sense that, when 80% of violent crime is committed by 13% of a population, that law enforcement personnel should give that 13% more attention than they do to 80 year old grannies. But in todays, politically correct, everyone is equal world that is not only not allowed, it is reviled as racist and elitist. This is the way that liberals want it. You reap what you sow.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

Duckchasr said:


> You suggested more gun control to save lives. That is about as liberal as it gets. The only way to save lives is to place more people with guns at our schools. If anything pass laws allowing CC holders to be able to carry at our schools. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a good guy with a gun is not just a catchy slogan it's the truth.


If keeping firearms out of the wrong hands is liberal, go ahead and label me then.

Cops on school campuses is already happening, money I would assume is the biggest thing limiting it at some schools.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Something that MIGHT help. Some schools do have metal detectors in place. I know they are costly so schools buying them is not a good option. But I remember when the TSA was first started up, and during their process was buying metal detectors and body scanners. Each time they upgraded or just bought too many, they ended up in storage. I think there was one warehouse alone that had thousands just sitting inside....why don't we go ahead and start using them? Cost is zero other than, moving them and any repairs from sitting.

It's just a idea and I understand it's not a perfect option but it's something.

Next we need to address school access. No, I don't want military style compounds with razor wire...but it seems children loitering around, like in this case, 7th period when many don't have a class...running around unsupervised and the doors unlocked. Seems these children need to be in a central area.

I'm open for honest discussions on really making our kids safe. So far, blaming mental health and guns has failed. People set on harming others will find a way and the only things I can think of, is making that harder to do. Shutting off easy access imo is a good place to start.

Laws don't effect anyone other than law abiding people.


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

At what point do you stop relying on the govt to raise, protect and educate your children? 53% of the states budget already goes to education and you can bet they will want more. The fed money is about $68 BILLION

If one is concerned with violence in schools why not practice programs that already work (ex: Israel). On 2nd thought may not get govt out of education and let the market dictate based on security of your child. Your in control not the govt'.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Skifffer said:


> I don't have any problems with that, if you got that message it was unintended. I don't understand how hoping we can do a better job of protecting lives is a liberal position, it is just natural instincts to me.


you keep making statements that call for removing civil rights...THAT is a liberal position


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

toolie said:


> Every one of these 'kids' is on some sort of medication, anti-depressants, ridillin, or something. That is never mentioned in any discussion because no one wants to offend the pharma's. I would like to see a real study/analysis of the drugs each of these shooters is being fed.


Why were they on the meds?

NOT because they were well adjusted, sound individuals.

They had problems. Their parents saw it, the doctors saw it, so what were they suppose to do? Institutionalize them for life?

They did the only thing they could do. They tried to medicate. There is NO way of knowing what unmedicated psycho kid would have done or when.

And all that the meds tell me is they were sick / mentally ill.
I bet all these kids drank milk at some time in their lives too


----------



## banpouchi (Feb 21, 2011)

Two statements that I am sure will get me thrown in 2cool jail.

1. I would not want my children going to school in a prison as most here suggest.

2. Why not make all gun owners have a license, maybe not an FFL but something so if you go to buy or sell, your background can be really checked. Something similar to a drivers license as to different levels of gun ownership.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

BATWING said:


> At what point do you stop relying on the govt to raise, protect and educate your children? 53% of the states budget already goes to education and you can bet they will want more. The fed money is about $68 BILLION
> 
> If one is concerned with violence in schools why not practice programs that already work (ex: Israel). On 2nd thought may not get govt out of education and let the market dictate based on security of your child. Your in control not the govt'.


You might be on to something. Public schools are in trouble...not all but too many. Having private (free market) schools makes people responsible. In public schools don't feel the need to be accountable. There are all kinds of problems, with students and the staff (teachers all the way up to the administrators). Too much overhead, too many administrators. Too many bad people in teaching positions. I'm not saying all of them are bad, no two schools are the same and not all teachers are the same. We go to great lengths to single out the good and great teachers and schools that started thinking how to help the students learn. Never hear about the bad and what's being done to improve the schools or remove teachers until crimes have been committed.

Humans have never been able to figure out a way to remove violence. Since Man walked upright, there has been murder and mayhem. We just need to stop and figure out how to remove violence as an instrument of politics, because that is a the big problem in America. Everyone agrees what happened is horrible but that is where our common bond ends.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

banpouchi said:


> Two statements that I am sure will get me thrown in 2cool jail.
> 
> 1. I would not want my children going to school in a prison as most here suggest.
> 
> 2. Why not make all gun owners have a license, maybe not an FFL but something so if you go to buy or sell, your background can be really checked. Something similar to a drivers license as to different levels of gun ownership.


Armed teachers or guards would make a school a prison how? You do know that prisons try to keep people IN...right?

Why not a registry? Who cares if that is the first step to confiscation. What else should we have a registry for? LGBT's? Liberals? NRA members? Kind of sounds like 1930's Germany.


----------



## Drrpm2004 (May 16, 2012)

Unfortunately they don't have the man power to put more LEOs in schools as they do now and for obvious financial reasons. The fact is we getting overcrowded with more and more kids and the schools just continuously keep getting built and going up, trust me I know as I'm in the construction business and can honestly say that I've never seen so many schools being built in my life just in TX alone much less across the country. Eventually something has to give because we as Americans and or humans will eventually run out of room ,that's a fact. I hate to say it but here needs to be more regulations/laws on who and how many kids your allowed to have in this day and age but that is for a separate discussion.
Honestly, they should install fingerprint hidden wall safes all around schools or even in the classrooms with a pistol in each one and train some of these teachers how to react accordingly if a bad situation were to arise. I guarantee that a large percentage of teachers would not be opposed to this. Teachers that don't want to participate, so be it. Sad to say but it's actually not a bad idea in my book.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

photofishin said:


> you keep making statements that call for removing civil rights...THAT is a liberal position


Obviously there would be reasons/qualifications to remove that civil right from people who aren't fit to carry, just like you can currently lose your driver's license or the right to see your child.


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

ChuChu said:


> Bring back God, the American flag, and corporal punishment to school administrations.


How will that fix mental illness and other societal problems? Again, other developed nations DONâ€™T have God or the American flag in their classrooms and donâ€™t have anywhere close to the number of school shootings as we do.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

redhead fishin said:


> How will that fix mental illness and other societal problems? Again, other developed nations DONâ€™T have God or the American flag in their classrooms and donâ€™t have anywhere close to the number of school shootings as we do.


Amen!


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

If you see something;
Say something.

It's a great tool if used. More people close to individuals that might feel something is not right.

His friend called the FBI. Told them he wanted to kill, wanted to shoot up a school and had just got a gun.


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Timemachine said:


> so the 20,000 gun laws are not fixing the problem?....hmmmm. Perhaps 20,001 will do the trick.
> .


Lobbyists are destroying this country whether on the left or the right. Many gun laws are intentionally ignored or are overidden. Check out the amendment from former Rep Tiahrt. You canâ€™t enforce something with your hands tied.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

redhead fishin said:


> Lobbyists are destroying this country whether on the left or the right. Many gun laws are intentionally ignored or are overidden. Check out the amendment from former Rep Tiahrt. You canâ€™t enforce something with your hands tied.


OK I googled that amendment and I don't see how it is relevant AT ALL


> The Tiahrt Amendment is a provision of the U.S. Department of Justice appropriations bill that prohibits the National Tracing Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor in connection with a criminal investigation.


----------



## Lone-Star (Dec 19, 2009)

Based on my experience as a physician I believe that one day we will find that pysch meds are a contributing factor in these cases. Psych meds, particularly SSRIs, are passed out like candy and we really don't understand their effects on the mind.


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Lone-Star said:


> Based on my experience as a physician I believe that one day we will find that pysch meds are a contributing factor in these cases. Psych meds, particularly SSRIs, are passed out like candy and we really don't understand their effects on the mind.


What are the rates of prescribed psych meds here as compared to the rest of the developed world? I know that prescribed narcotics are exponentially higher here but psych meds?


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

Its parenting.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Massive psychopath is more like it. Bad wiring from birth. How do u keep a gun out , of a nut jobs hands without trampling on the second amendment is the Q. IDK.
My guess is the Columbine generation and beyond will have a completely different viewpoint.


----------



## cva34 (Dec 22, 2008)

muney pit said:


> Its parenting.


Big factor/broken homes/fatherless children/cell phones /computers/teachers hand are tied..and need to be untied..

Back Packs need to be banned in schools too easy to hide weapon...

Guns do not kill people/ People Kill People

I remember when Archie Bunker daughter got on a anti gun kick..He asked her would you "Rather be beat to death with a Baseball Bat"


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

I don't buy the its a social environment factor. These people are stone cold psychopaths. Mommy/Daddy never needed to tell me that killing people was wrong.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

muney pit said:


> Its parenting.


Why are the shooters white? Considering the black broken homes?

Why donâ€™t you see this in more liberal countries?

We agree itâ€™s not the access to gun, because if it wasnâ€™t guns it would be something else.

I tongue and cheek made a comment that itâ€™s the drinking culture in the US. That if these kids could sit down in the pub and have a beer we wouldnâ€™t have these problems.

So I started to think what makes the US different than liberal countries? Is it US work ethic? Is it that we are at work and our wives work?

I donâ€™t know. But to just say itâ€™s the parents is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Lone-Star (Dec 19, 2009)

redhead fishin said:


> What are the rates of prescribed psych meds here as compared to the rest of the developed world? I know that prescribed narcotics are exponentially higher here but psych meds?


Last data I saw was that it is higher. Would be interesting to see a comparison of prescribing rates and these incidents over several decades.

We know that SSRIs can push someone with suicidal ideation over the edge to suicide. It is something to consider if you have a borderline psychopath harboring homicidal thoughts could SSRI push them over the edge to homicide?


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

muney pit said:


> Its parenting.


So America has really bad parenting?


----------



## texcajun (Feb 22, 2009)

It's just going to keep happening and we can all sit around and tell ourselves it isn't the gun's fault. It's the parent's fault, blame whoever the heck you want, Democrats, Republicans, ner-do-wells, etc... As sad as it is to admit, I've become numb and apathetic. Seems prayer is all we have, because no on will do a **** thing to stop this senseless garbage. I just pray it won't touch my family or friends, but if I live long enough on this big ole ball, I suspect it will. Carry On! That's what we'll all do anyway.....


----------



## TxDuSlayer (Jun 24, 2006)

banpouchi said:


> Two statements that I am sure will get me thrown in 2cool jail.
> 
> 1. I would not want my children going to school in a prison as most here suggest.
> 
> 2. Why not make all gun owners have a license, maybe not an FFL but something so if you go to buy or sell, your background can be really checked. Something similar to a drivers license as to different levels of gun ownership.


Dumbest thing I have ever heard, so you expect me to give up my second amendment and have a license to posses firearms? An I am assuming you expect me to pay a fee or tax for your so called license? We already have background checks they didnâ€™t stop the church shooting in South Texas did they. As far as background checks go were at a point either you can have it or you can't end of story!!!


----------



## Liv'n_the_dream (Jun 11, 2016)

texcajun said:


> It's just going to keep happening and we can all sit around and tell ourselves it isn't the gun's fault. It's the parent's fault, blame whoever the heck you want, Democrats, Republicans, ner-do-wells, etc... As sad as it is to admit, I've become numb and apathetic. Seems prayer is all we have, because no on will do a **** thing to stop this senseless garbage. I just pray it won't touch my family or friends, but if I live long enough on this big ole ball, I suspect it will. Carry On! That's what we'll all do anyway.....


Took nine pages for someone to state the obvious. Simpleton statements like "it's parenting" no it's "drugs" no it's "bullying" no its "Stalin" no it's "the people who believe in Global Warming" or it's "Obama" or "Trump" or "gun free zones" or "unarmed teachers" or "God can't get into the school" just show how disjointed and dogmatic we have become. This will be over by next week and we will repeat in a couple of months. Rinse wash and repeat ad nauseum

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

redhead fishin said:


> How will that fix mental illness and other societal problems? Again, other developed nations DONâ€™T have God or the American flag in their classrooms and donâ€™t have anywhere close to the number of school shootings as we do.


We had just as many guns 50 - 75 years ago and none of the shootings. So, you tell me, what changed? Since there have always been guns, it's not the guns.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

pknight6 said:


> We had just as many guns 50 - 75 years ago and none of the shootings. So, you tell me, what changed? Since there have always been guns, it's not the guns.


24 hour media coverage
The size of the schools
The opinion that every kid needs to graduate 
Internet

AND to be fair the first school shooting that made national news, I am aware of, was at UT in 66 (over 50 years ago). Killed 14 wounded another 31.

Why is the US different than any other country is the question nobody is answering. Itâ€™s not that the parenting is that different.


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

"We had just as many guns 50 - 75 years ago and none of the shootings. So, you tell me, what changed? Since there have always been guns, it's not the guns"

Well, we didn't have as many military grade weapons out there.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Outearly said:


> "We had just as many guns 50 - 75 years ago and none of the shootings. So, you tell me, what changed? Since there have always been guns, it's not the guns"
> 
> Well, we didn't have as many military grade weapons out there.


(or 30 round...or, for that matter ..100 round magazines)lol


----------



## Ox Eye (Dec 17, 2007)

I have followed this thread with interest because it seems to be a unified opinion of most Americans that their country is rapidly spiraling down the toilet. I see it also begging the question on what point in time we stop beeching about it and start doing something about it. Can someone put a time line on this? I would hope that it would be at some point in my potentiaal life span. I'd sure hate to miss being a part of it.


----------



## banpouchi (Feb 21, 2011)

TxDuSlayer said:


> Dumbest thing I have ever heard, so you expect me to give up my second amendment and have a license to posses firearms? An I am assuming you expect me to pay a fee or tax for your so called license? We already have background checks they didnâ€™t stop the church shooting in South Texas did they. As far as background checks go were at a point either you can have it or you can't end of story!!!


Evidently you can't understand english. There is nothing I said to trample your 2nd amendment right. You have to have a license to even do most jobs now days.

At least I offered up a possible start to the problem. I don't know the answer and by your writing you offer up none, just criticizing and name calling. Oh well I expected that from here.

Have fun.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> (or 30 round...or, for that matter ..100 round magazines)lol





Outearly said:


> "We had just as many guns 50 - 75 years ago and none of the shootings. So, you tell me, what changed? Since there have always been guns, it's not the guns"
> 
> Well, we didn't have as many military grade weapons out there.


I donâ€™t agree.

What was the military weapon in the 60â€™s the M14. Well the civialian equivalent was the M1A and it was available.

M1 Garand, nice gun and a metric ton in civilian hands.

All the way back to the military using flintlocks. They have ALWAYS been available. And a lots of them out there , they just werenâ€™t black so for some reason you werenâ€™t as scared. :headshake:

You are reaching


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Outearly said:


> "We had just as many guns 50 - 75 years ago and none of the shootings. So, you tell me, what changed? Since there have always been guns, it's not the guns"
> 
> Well, we didn't have as many military grade weapons out there.


Exactly. How many on this thread owned an AR w/ 30-100 round magazines 10 years ago? 20? 30? Were you less safe back then? If we pine for the old days of country, God, religion, family, etc, ARs and 100 round drum magazines werenâ€™t in the picture. Shotguns, hunting rifles and revolvers were household firearms. Were we less safe?

Were your rights infringed because you didnâ€™t have something then that you could have now?


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

I've had an M1 30 round banana clip my whole life.


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

Bought my first Mini 14 when I was 18....from a friend...in the parking lot at school!

Guess what...I never shot anyone with it.

Like I said in an earlier post...until some whacko does this with traditional firearms, a vehicle, gasoline, etc...everyone is going to blame the evil black rifles.


----------



## ralph7 (Apr 28, 2009)

Outearly said:


> "We had just as many guns 50 - 75 years ago and none of the shootings. So, you tell me, what changed? Since there have always been guns, it's not the guns"
> 
> *Well, we didn't have as many military grade weapons out there*.


Is your memory shot?
During the 60's we had tons of military surplus from around the world available through the mail.
Woolworth's used to sell surplus carbines and Garands downtown.
The Garand shot a round that makes the default AR round look like a pellet gun in comparison.

IT AIN'T THE GUNS FAULT



> (or 30 round...or, for that matter


30 round magazines have been around forever, you should remember the M1 carbine, Tortuga....


----------



## 2Ws (Jun 28, 2016)

How much carnage would a 12ga PUMP do compared to the evil black SEMI-AUTO. I can put 12-16 deadly projectiles down range with each pull of the trigger with the 12ga. Would take 2-3 30 rnd mags to equal the shotgun.


----------



## Captain Marty (Jul 14, 2006)

*God's answer to school violence*

God's Answer to school violence.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

ralph7 said:


> Is your memory shot?
> During the 60's we had tons of military surplus from around the world available through the mail.
> Woolworth's used to sell surplus carbines and Garands downtown.
> The Garand shot a round that makes the default AR round look like a pellet gun in comparison.
> ...


No joke man. What about all those mass shooting that occurred when it was easier to buy an automatic weapon.... oooh wait nvm. You guys putting some blame on ARs are morons. Ban them just like drugs. That'll work great. Next you'll have to ban cars. Imagine what could've happened if he drove a truck through a crowd after school. What if he used grandpas old pump 12 with buck shot in the crowded halls. Wake up. You aren't living in a libtard utopia. Evil is real. And you are seriously mistaken if you think stuff like this won't happen without the terrible mean ARs. Don't you remember virgina tech....??? We could go further back..... 1764 10 dead in school. Killed by Indians with muskets and hand weapons


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

In the Sutherland Springs church case, and in this new Florida case, many mistakes were made by authorities that could have stopped both of these gunmen before they killed others. So, we know that criminals don't follow laws, and it has become very apparent that authorities and law enforcement aren't doing their job correctly. With those "givens", what makes anyone think that additional laws would help? This isn't a gun problem, this is a people problem. Liberals want to restrict the rights of good honest folks, yet won't punish the bad.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Most homicides, when a firearm is used involve handguns.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

Outearly said:


> "We had just as many guns 50 - 75 years ago and none of the shootings. So, you tell me, what changed? Since there have always been guns, it's not the guns"
> 
> Well, we didn't have as many military grade weapons out there.


So, it is because "military grade weapons" were produced that is to blame?


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

bill said:


> Most homicides, when a firearm is used involve handguns.


Liberals get all up in arms when there are multiple fatalities, but don't give a **** if 2000 are killed as long as it is one at a time. Their concern is not for the bodies, they just use that to further the anti gun agenda.


----------



## TxDuSlayer (Jun 24, 2006)

banpouchi said:


> Evidently you can't understand english. There is nothing I said to trample your 2nd amendment right. You have to have a license to even do most jobs now days.
> 
> At least I offered up a possible start to the problem. I don't know the answer and by your writing you offer up none, just criticizing and name calling. Oh well I expected that from here.
> 
> Have fun.


Obviously you failed reading comprehension in school. When you suggest that one has to have a "license" in order to posse a gun, then yes you have trampled on my second amendment!!!!!!!


----------



## banpouchi (Feb 21, 2011)

You might not like what I have proposed. However it is just your opinion, I have suggested one not being able own or have in possession a firearm unless a licence is obtained. Prequalifying by attending a class or obtaining a firearm licence might go a bit more that a background check. 

I have not blamed any gun, government or anyone for this mass killing. Most of what I have read is either lock down the schools, next comes churches, then grocery stores and finally walmart.

It is really amazing how many of your rights have already been removed that most of you will say are needed. You consent to a search at airports, have to wear badges to do most jobs, schools and many other things. Most people live in fear of the next big thing the media throws out. 

As stated earlier by someone else. Guns are not the problem. It is the acquisition of these firearms by those who should not have them that is the problem.

Again, I do not have the answer. Maybe my idea is not going to fly at all. Maybe it will. However I have offered up a suggestion ( I hope you know what suggestion means) to help. I am not just standing by and waiting for the miracle cure from who knows where and throwing darts at others.

Maybe you are suggesting we remove the training that is required of new hunters in hunter education which part of that is firearms training. Heck lets get rid of all licence requirements as I am sure we can expand our knowledge of the constitution to include them.

My last comment to you unless you want to discuss with some degree of intelligence and not just throw out zingers or insults.

Ok name calling begins. LOL


----------



## Worm Drowner (Sep 9, 2010)

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc are widely credited being responsible for over 50 million deaths, yet I don't recall specifics of any of them actually pulling the trigger themselves. It seems that they used speech & media to incite the murders. Additionally, when the old Hayes Code was in place and you didn't have glorified violence at every turn _and_ you had _less_ gun control, we didn't have these mass shooting as we do today. Now tell me again which is the more dangerous; The right to freedom of speech that Hollywood & the Left hold so sacred, or right to keep & bear arms?


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

banpouchi said:


> You might not like what I have proposed. However it is just your opinion, *I have suggested one not being able own or have in possession a firearm unless a licence is obtained.* Prequalifying by attending a class or obtaining a firearm licence might go a bit more that a background check.


That suggestion cannot happen unless preceded by a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution clearly states, "...shall not be infringed". That is not in any way vague. Like it, don't like it, but it's the Constitution and it cannot simply be ignored. Unlike what Obama says, the Constitution is already a living document. It can be changed, but not on a whim, or at the word of a single person. If you believe strongly in your idea, then go champion a Constitutional Amendment to make way for it. Good luck with that.

The Constitution doesn't say that guns are only available to those who are members of a well regulated militia. The nature of militias is that they are irregular troops, raised from the civilian population in the event of an emergency. They come together as needed, but they aren't a regular army. Which means, quite simply, that ordinary civilians would have to have guns in their homes, to be ready in the event that raising a militia becomes necessary.

The liberal/Marxist front keeps trying to re-write the_ intent_ of 2A, to make it sound like it's really something that they can infringe on at will. I won't even debate whether your suggestion is "good" or not. It infringes on the Constitution, and therefore could not be implemented without an Amendment. Period. It is a perfect example of a moot point. (But not a mute point.)


----------



## TxDuSlayer (Jun 24, 2006)

banpouchi said:


> You might not like what I have proposed. However it is just your opinion, I have suggested one not being able own or have in possession a firearm unless a licence is obtained. Prequalifying by attending a class or obtaining a firearm licence might go a bit more that a background check.
> 
> I have not blamed any gun, government or anyone for this mass killing. Most of what I have read is either lock down the schools, next comes churches, then grocery stores and finally walmart.
> 
> ...


----------



## banpouchi (Feb 21, 2011)

pocjetty said:


> That suggestion cannot happen unless preceded by a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution clearly states, "...shall not be infringed". That is not in any way vague. Like it, don't like it, but it's the Constitution and it cannot simply be ignored. Unlike what Obama says, the Constitution is already a living document. It can be changed, but not on a whim, or at the word of a single person. If you believe strongly in your idea, then go champion a Constitutional Amendment to make way for it. Good luck with that.
> 
> The Constitution doesn't say that guns are only available to those who are members of a well regulated militia. The nature of militias is that they are irregular troops, raised from the civilian population in the event of an emergency. They come together as needed, but they aren't a regular army. Which means, quite simply, that ordinary civilians would have to have guns in their homes, to be ready in the event that raising a militia becomes necessary.
> 
> The liberal/Marxist front keeps trying to re-write the_ intent_ of 2A, to make it sound like it's really something that they can infringe on at will. I won't even debate whether your suggestion is "good" or not. It infringes on the Constitution, and therefore could not be implemented without an Amendment. Period. It is a perfect example of a moot point. (But not a mute point.)


Thank you sir for an intelligent answer. Most of your answers are that I have read.

I agree with your "infringement" take. However something needs to be done. As I stated I am at least trying.

2A should not be changed. I agree. To be a liberal is a compliment as the folks that know me say I am so far right it is pathetic. LOL I am just trying to get to the root of the problem and that is keeping firearms from the folks who don't or should not own them. As stated, we need to get past this with progress and good progress that is right. Sitting still will only make this happen again and again.


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

banpouchi said:


> Thank you sir for an intelligent answer. Most of your answers are that I have read.
> 
> I agree with your "infringement" take. However something needs to be done. As I stated I am at least trying.


Fair enough. I'm not going to jam a guy up for that, ever. Ideas and debate are always good, because even the bad ones can lead to something better.

I'll give you my take, even though I know it sounds like conspiracy theory. I've spent a LOT of time doing actual research - a lot of reading - so it's not just something I cooked up or read on InfoWars.

We have laws that require background checks. We have a VAST amount of computing power, and existing databases, within our government. And yet we see, over and over, that they are not being implemented. We see time and again that most of the people committing these shootings were known to the feds, and should have been flagged during the background check process, and denied the ability to purchase a gun. (I don't think that anyone has a problem with denying a gun to criminals, or the insane.)

So if we have laws and processes, and the ability to enforce them, it doesn't seem logical that adding more laws (that won't get enforced) will change the problem. I don't eat spinach, even though it's good for me. Putting a second helping of spinach on my plate isn't going to make me healthier.

So the real question is WHY the laws aren't being enforced, and WHY the background checks are not being used to screen these obviously bad/crazy people, and prevent them from legally purchasing guns. It's not the NRA - they don't have any pull with the people responsible, regardless of what Nancy Pelosi says. Even IF they had pull with Trump, this pre-dates Trump. Plus, we have seen that even Trump doesn't influence the FBI. So it's obvious that there is some other reason.

I truly believe that the people who want to get rid of guns completely are willing to make a few sacrifices "for the greater good". If they stopped the shootings (or at least most of them) the gun "control" debate would go away.

Think that sounds crazy? History is full of examples of people doing exactly that same sort of thing.


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

More laws is not the answer....to think that new laws will stop this is naive.

We already have a law that you can't murder people....sheesh.

Now if you want fences around schools, metal detectors, armed guards in outlook posts...those are potential deterrents.

You will never...NEVER...keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys. They will get them through illegal means, one way or another, perhaps it takes them a bit longer but they will get them.

If they can't get a gun, they will use a vehicle, or an airplane, gasoline, diesel and fertilizer, etc.


----------



## ralph7 (Apr 28, 2009)

pocjetty said:


> I truly believe that the people who want to get rid of guns completely are willing to make a few sacrifices "for the greater good". If they stopped the shootings (or at least most of them)* the gun "control" debate would go away.*
> .


I have to disagree with you on this point.
There is a very large group of people who would like nothing better than to disarm this country and will not stop until they achieve this goal.
This is one reason why the NRA won't give an inch, even for what some deem "reasonable" gun control ideas.
Once they get their foot in the door, they will advance their agenda towards their goal.... total disarmament.


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

tec said:


> American civilians have been heavily armed for over 200 years but it is only over the past few years that kids have been shooting up schools. Sounds to me like it is a problem with the kids rather than guns.





BAMF32 said:


> Or.....The problem is also the parents of these kids.


The real problem is the liberal demCRAPs, POS liberal MSM, and POS liberal whorelywood trashes. They removed, God, Prayers, Pledge of Allegiance, and discipline from schools and they have caused this kind of violence. They could use an other means for killing not just at school but any public place.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

ralph7 said:


> 30 round magazines have been around forever, you should remember the M1 carbine, Tortuga....


'Forever' , Ralph ????? We were trained with 1903 Springfields....and were finally issued the Garand M1 at the tail end of our hitch....AND...as I recall..those M1s were 'fed' with *8 cartridge* 'clips'...

Comparing apples and oranges if comparing Garands and ARs..


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

ralph7 said:


> I have to disagree with you on this point.
> There is a very large group of people who would like nothing better than to disarm this country and will not stop until they achieve this goal.
> This is one reason why the NRA won't give an inch, even for what some deem "reasonable" gun control ideas.
> Once they get their foot in the door, they will advance their agenda towards their goal.... total disarmament.


Of course it would not go away with those people. My point is that it could not be sustained in the media or in popular culture, without these mass shootings to feed upon. They could cry "gun control" all they wanted, but the average citizen would not listen.

Every time there is a shooting, the idea of gun control gets stronger with people who are on the fence. And the people you are talking about know that.


----------



## ralph7 (Apr 28, 2009)

Tortuga said:


> 'Forever' , Ralph ????? We were trained with 1903 Springfields....and were finally issued the Garand M1 at the tail end of our hitch....AND...as I recall..those M1s were 'fed' with *8 cartridge* 'clips'...
> 
> Comparing apples and oranges if comparing Garands and ARs..


"Forever" being at least a generation ahead of the school shootings. 
High capacity magazines and ARs getting banned are not the answer to stopping these shootings, 
And Garands and AR's are both the "military grade" weapons that were being argued about being evil.

Surprised you don't remember 30 round M1 magazines.


----------



## BullyARed (Jun 19, 2010)

Commie will defeat us not because of their nuke but with their instruments liberal demCRAPs, POS liberal MSM, and POS liberal whorelywood trashes.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

There are over 300 million guns in this country. They are stolen every day. Some are sold felon to felon, friend to friend, given to family members, passed on from generation to generation. Weapons purchased from FFL holders, ( gun stores), are registered , so to speak. After the second sale, the weapons become invisible. 
Sadly, There will be more school shootings. 
Our only recourse is to turn these soft targets, ( gun free zones) , into hard targets. Be it private security, or LEO, they will have to be on site, and ready. 
If this means metal detectors and federal grants to fund this enormous expense, so be it.


----------



## banpouchi (Feb 21, 2011)

pocjetty said:


> Fair enough. I'm not going to jam a guy up for that, ever. Ideas and debate are always good, because even the bad ones can lead to something better.
> 
> I'll give you my take, even though I know it sounds like conspiracy theory. I've spent a LOT of time doing actual research - a lot of reading - so it's not just something I cooked up or read on InfoWars.
> 
> ...


Again I agree. All laws are enforce selectively. This is not only gun but all laws. The common denominator is people and money. Which do we get rid of first. Even communism was not able to get past this point of selective enforcement.

Ok licence is not the answer so we need to add a level on the background checks to make sure the people who are not suppose to have guns can't get them? My initial answer is hell no.

Again I say and you also said this discussion needs to continue to find the right answer. I do not feel I must be a part of it, I just want it to continue for personal reason.

1. I do not want to have my grandkids attend a prison to go to school

2. I don't want harm to come to my grandkids.

An answer is out there if we just get past our petty ability to throw darts at every thing brought up for suggestion (suggestion is a suggestion,not an answer).

This reminds me of the time there were a group from industry, government and environmentalist that was assembled to tackle response to an emergency in refineries. Union officials were invited to come also. They did come to one meeting and were there for 30 minutes. They all stood at once and proclaimed that once a regulation was written, they would instruct their membership on what needed to be done. They would not participate as they felt that they compromised their membership by saying anything. So they all walked out. In the end they did not even make public comment on what was developed but maybe could have gotten a few items inserted if they had participated, but sitting on the outside and just saying someone is full of it, will not help as you are asking folks like Pelosi to have her say and you none. I would like to be able to say I at least tried to stop the gun grabbers and make a reasonable attempt to stop this killing of kids. Also as Bill pointed out stop the hand gun killings as well

I do not know of but two ways to overcome this problem, discussion or killing. I opt for discussion but rational discussion.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

We have to allow cc holders to be able to carry at school. Any new laws passed should be to reduce gun free zones. As we see time and time again they have become soft targets for evil people to wreak havoc. But unfortunately the fruitcakes with go after the guns because that's what they do, because they have one agenda, disarm Americans.


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

Tortuga said:


> 'Forever' , Ralph ????? We were trained with 1903 Springfields....and were finally issued the Garand M1 at the tail end of our hitch....AND...as I recall..those M1s were 'fed' with *8 cartridge* 'clips'...
> 
> Comparing apples and oranges if comparing Garands and ARs..


Colt started selling the AR15 to the civilian population in 1964.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

donf said:


> Sadly, There will be more school shootings.
> Our only recourse is to turn these soft targets, ( gun free zones) , into hard targets. Be it private security, or LEO, they will have to be on site, and ready.
> If this means metal detectors and federal grants to fund this enormous expense, so be it.


Agree completely, Don..This is a 'fad' now with these kids...and WILL continue. Whatever the cost it must be stopped.. Congress can take some of those hundreds of millions of dollars they have in their 'secret fund' to buy off the whores they get involved with and spend that money on LEOs and screening equipment.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

Combine a sick society with hundreds of millions of guns, and you have a little problem....Almost anyone can buy a high-tech weapon, then get a brain tumor or miss his meds, and open fire on society. I expect a copycat shooting within the next two weeks.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

Trouthappy said:


> Combine a sick society with hundreds of millions of guns, and you have a little problem....Almost anyone can buy a high-tech weapon, then get a brain tumor or miss his meds, and open fire on society. I expect a copycat shooting within the next two weeks.


Iâ€™m not exactly sure what youâ€™re trying to say. Are you saying we need to sacrifice freedom for protection? Are you saying we have a mental health restrictions?

How do you feel about taking guns away from Veterans?

I agree with Mental health needing to be the focus, but it ain't as easy as repeating the mantra.

We can all be clasified with a mental defect easy enough. What you get is people who want help and need help, but refuse to seek it out or accept it, because in doing so they will lose something that is a RIGHT.


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

Trouthappy said:


> Combine a sick society with hundreds of millions of guns, and you have a little problem....Almost anyone can buy a high-tech weapon, then get a brain tumor or miss his meds, and open fire on society. I expect a copycat shooting within the next two weeks.


Explain this high tech weapon you speak of. What makes it high tech?


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Trouthappy said:


> Combine a sick society with hundreds of millions of guns, and you have a little problem....Almost anyone can buy a high-tech weapon, then get a brain tumor or miss his meds, and open fire on society. I expect a copycat shooting within the next two weeks.


Hi tech? ARs have been around for a minute or two.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

muney pit said:


> Explain this high tech weapon you speak of. What makes it high tech?


People throw around terms and donâ€™t think about context. In the revolution a rifled barrel was high tech considering the smooth bore rifles of the time and military grade (probably superior to what the military carried depending on the exact time or country in question)


----------



## SaltwaterSlick (Jun 11, 2012)

This is absolutely the solution:

2Ch 7:12 Then the LORD appeared to Solomon at night and said to him, "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. 
2Ch 7:13 "If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, 
2Ch 7:14 and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 
2Ch 7:15 "Now My eyes will be open and My ears attentive to the prayer offered in this place. 
2Ch 7:16 "For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that My name may be there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually. 

Short of this, we shall go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah, The Roman Empire and so many more civilizations who have turned their backs on the God of the universe...

I pray for an awakening... It is as plain as can be that God is near to removing His bless ing from this once great Nation that honored and lived by His ways...


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

I'm in the not negotiable group.


----------



## penguin (Mar 24, 2012)

It's funny how a lot of people want to stand firm with the second amendment, but they also want to trample all over the first amendment.

Not everyone in our county, or even in this forum believe in the same gods. I don't want your religion, whether it is Christianity, Hindu, Islam, Scientology or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be taught to my children. I don't know what will change these horrible events, but I know prayer and religion isn't the answer.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

penguin said:


> It's funny how a lot of people want to stand firm with the second amendment, but they also want to trample all over the first amendment.
> 
> Not everyone in our county, or even in this forum believe in the same gods. I don't want your religion, whether it is Christianity, Hindu, Islam, Scientology or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be taught to my children. I don't know what will change these horrible events, but I know prayer and religion isn't the answer.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Prayer IS the answer. There is just not enough people giving prayer to the one and only God.


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

penguin said:


> It's funny how a lot of people want to stand firm with the second amendment, but they also want to trample all over the first amendment.
> 
> Not everyone in our county, or even in this forum believe in the same gods. I don't want your religion, whether it is Christianity, Hindu, Islam, Scientology or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be taught to my children. I don't know what will change these horrible events, but I know prayer and religion isn't the answer.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Hahahaha that ****s so sad its funny.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

*Best case for 2nd amendment*






This is what "gun Control " means! MAGA:flag:


----------



## SaltwaterSlick (Jun 11, 2012)

penguin, I'm sorry you feel that way. I will pray for you. I know I nor anyone else here can change your mind, and that's OK, though it grieves my heart. Only the Holy Spirit can soften a hardened heart. What really grieves me is that you have the attitude of taking your kids down with you. THAT is sad.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

penguin said:


> It's funny how a lot of people want to stand firm with the second amendment, but they also want to trample all over the first amendment.
> 
> Not everyone in our county, or even in this forum believe in the same gods. I don't want your religion, whether it is Christianity, Hindu, Islam, Scientology or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be taught to my children. I don't know what will change these horrible events, but I know prayer and religion isn't the answer.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


Sorry You feel that way. Because outside of a relationship with God the Father, His Son Jesus and the Holy Spirit your life is doomed. This country started as a God Fearing Nation, morals where established by standing on God's Word. When we individually, as a church, and as a nation stop looking to God and Honoring God we are doomed. He will literally laugh at our calamity as we shake our fist of defiance to Him. Something to ponder have a blessed day. Watch the movie War Room it will give you some thoughts on Prayer models. Pray For our nation.:flag:


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

GuyFromHuntsville said:


> Colt started selling the AR15 to the civilian population in 1964.


True...but Ralph and I were discussing mag capacity and comparing 8 clip M1Garands issued in 1948 to us...not 30 mag AR15s in use now...

The Garand was a helluva improvement over the Springfield...but no where near the rapid fire power of the AKs in use now...

1940s...NOT 1960s

still apples and oranges...


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

*Guns in America.*

Three things:

Religion:

Our founders may have been God fearing, but certainly they were religion fearing as they started the Bill of Rights - before freedom of the press-trying to keep our government out of religion. I agree.

Religion:

I believe Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth. I'm curious what his take would be on this issue. If we establish an over/under on this, with under being he would believe in reasonable gun control, I'll take the under.

High Capacity Magazines:

We're lucky Charles Whitman didn't have what the Vegas shooter had.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

Tortuga said:


> True...but Ralph and I were discussing mag capacity and comparing 8 clip M1Garands issued in 1948 to us...not 30 mag AR15s in use now...
> 
> The Garand was a helluva improvement over the Springfield...but no where near the rapid fire power of the AKs in use now...
> 
> ...


The Tommy gun goes back to 1918. Close to 2 million produced. 100 round mags. If I remember the stories right, you could mail order them from sears.


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Outearly said:


> Three things:
> 
> Religion:
> 
> ...


Caveat: Born, raised and semi practicing Catholic. It amuses me when everyone starts quoting the Bible. If you are truly a God fearing, End of Times welcoming Christian, why arm yourself tooth and nail?

Matthew 25:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.â€

2 Corinthians 5:8 â€œWe are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.â€


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

redhead fishin said:


> Caveat: Born, raised and semi practicing Catholic. It amuses me when everyone starts quoting the Bible. If you are truly a God fearing, End of Times welcoming Christian, why arm yourself tooth and nail?
> 
> Matthew 25:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.â€
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:8 â€œWe are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.â€


Bible doesn't say not to protect yourself or family. And some of us just like firearms.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Exodus 22:2-3 â€œIf a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.â€

Luke 22:36 â€œHe said to them, â€œBut now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.â€

Proverbs 25:26 â€œLike a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.â€

Nehemiah 4:17-18 â€œWho were building on the wall. Those who carried burdens were loaded in such a way that each labored on the work with one hand and held his weapon with the other. And each of the builders had his sword strapped at his side while he built. The man who sounded the trumpet was beside me.â€


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Thanks for proving my point. If weâ€™re gonna invoke the Bible in this debate, who gets to decide which passage takes priority. Old or New Testament? Why not cherry pick from the Quran? 

All I know is that Jesus did a bit more then simply having thoughts and prayers for us.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Well that's not cherry picking. Plus the context is more relevant.... But you do you. Think up some more laws for criminals to break


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Csafisher said:


> Well that's not cherry picking. Plus the context is more relevant.... But you do you. Think up some more laws for criminals to break


With that logic, why have any laws? Criminals just break them....


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

redhead fishin said:


> Caveat: Born, raised and semi practicing Catholic. It amuses me when everyone starts quoting the Bible. If you are truly a God fearing, End of Times welcoming Christian, why arm yourself tooth and nail?
> 
> Matthew 25:52 "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.â€
> 
> 2 Corinthians 5:8 â€œWe are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.â€


My thought, not necessarily right, is that God gave you a brain to use and there is nothing wrong with defending yourself from evil.

I will add, and yes I know it is not an actual Bible quote, that God helps those that help themselves.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

redhead fishin said:


> With that logic, why have any laws? Criminals just break them....


Where's your logical argument/solution? You don't have one, only emotional arguments.


----------



## RLwhaler (Sep 10, 2005)

This violent have been going on way too long. Our kids and innocent lives have been taken more often than we can take. 

It's time.....it's time for us to do the right thing. It's time to remove all these " Gun-Free Zones" Time to armed ALL US Citizens .


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Csafisher said:


> Where's your logical argument/solution? You don't have one, only emotional arguments.


Please copy and paste my â€œemotionalâ€ argument.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Your rebuttals are based on how you feel. Not facts or logic. Otherwise you would have put up by now.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)




----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

Bocephus said:


>


Exactly!!!!

I made a similar point in this and a parallel thread...this makes it far more clear.


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Csafisher said:


> Your rebuttals are based on how you feel. Not facts or logic. Otherwise you would have put up by now.


What specific points have I rebutted? Iâ€™ve asked questions to either further clarify a posterâ€™s position or to further the discussion.

Funny you should mention facts and logic in your post.

Your bias is so ingrained that you only take the time to counter those who you feel do not have the same mindset as you. Did you take the time to post to counter RLwhalerâ€™s infographic? Switzerland does not require its citizens to possess firearms. Do some homework:

http://factmyth.com/factoids/switzerland-requires-citizens-to-own-guns/

His infographic coincides with your viewpoints so you accept it at face value.

If you are going to use the â€œfacts or logicâ€ counterpoint to my posts, please do so across the board.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

redhead fishin said:


> What specific points have I rebutted? Iâ€™ve asked questions to either further clarify a posterâ€™s position or to further the discussion.
> 
> Funny you should mention facts and logic in your post.
> 
> ...


You are whining because others don't feel the same way as you. I don't care what your viewpoint is or about some info graphic about Switzerlands gun laws. I care about our gun laws. And yes I'm biased, towards the constitution. lol. Lame point anyway. Everyone is biased in some way.....


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Csafisher said:


> You are whining because others don't feel the same way as you. I don't care what your viewpoint is or about some info graphic about Switzerlands gun laws. I care about our gun laws. And yes I'm biased, towards the constitution. lol. Lame point anyway. Everyone is biased in some way.....


Facts are lame. Gotcha.

The beauty of this country is that you have the prerogative to continue to â€œthink and prayâ€ and hope the slaughter of our school children stop. I have the prerogative to put thoughts and prayers into action and at least try/introduce new things to stop the slaughter of our children. Good luck with your method. History (facts) havenâ€™t been on your side as of late. Enjoy your weekend.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

redhead fishin said:


> Facts are lame. Gotcha.
> 
> The beauty of this country is that you have the prerogative to continue to â€œthink and prayâ€ and hope the slaughter of our school children stop. I have the prerogative to put thoughts and prayers into action and at least try/introduce new things to stop the slaughter of our children. Good luck with your method. History (facts) havenâ€™t been on your side as of late. Enjoy your weekend.


I don't see any actions? What are you doing? What "new" things have you introduced?


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

Bocephus-

I'll take a shot at explaining.

A convicted felon can buy a gun from an individual at an organized and advertised gun show. The felon is breaking the law, but because our gun laws lack teeth- due to the NRA-he still gets the gun.

A mentally ill person- likely just like the Florida shooter - just checks a few boxes and gets his AR. One of Trump's first acts was to loosen restrictions on the mentally ill getting access to guns.

No one would giving up rights if we enacted sensible gun laws.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Outearly said:


> Bocephus-
> 
> I'll take a shot at explaining.
> 
> ...


But what are the sensible laws?


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

Well, why not close the gun show loophole?

Outlaw/limit bumpstock type devices.

Expand background checks for military grade firearms. Having the same background check for a 20 gauge pump and an AR 15 just doesn't make sense to me.

I think we can do better.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

I understand the suggestions. But when was the last time a "mass killer" bought a gun at a gun show? 

Outlawing a bumpstock is an extremely slippery slope. The libtards will then be targeting triggers or who knows what. Also, you don't need a stock to bump fire....

Maybe you could expand a background check..?? But how much is too much? This guy passed a check, Vegas guy passed a check, the church shooter passed a check......


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

Outearly said:


> Well, why not close the gun show loophole?
> 
> Outlaw/limit bumpstock type devices.
> 
> ...


As others have stated, creating more laws wonâ€™t do a **** thing! Criminals donâ€™t abide by laws! What part of this do you people not understand? Criminals will just buy a gun off the street or steal one, so closing the gun show loophole wonâ€™t work. Do you think the criminals will turn in their bumpfire stock if they ban them? Yeah freaking right! Oh, and iâ€™m pretty sure a Mossberg 590 pump loaded with buckshot would be just as devastating as an AR in a crowd.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

Outearly said:


> Bocephus-
> 
> I'll take a shot at explaining.
> 
> ...


While we are enacting those sensible laws perhaps we should also enact laws to make shooting people illegal. And, maybe to make carrying guns onto a school property illegal. While we're at it, might as well make mass murder, terrorism, suicide bombing, and all other acts of violence illegal. Problem solved.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

How do you feel about taking guns away from Veterans?

I agree with Mental health needing to be the focus, but it ain't as easy as repeating the mantra.

We can all be clasified with a mental defect easy enough. What you get is people who want help and need help, but refuse to seek it out or accept it, because in doing so they will lose something that is RIGHT.

If you think about it, the first majorly publicized school shooter was a vet (Charles Whitman 1966)











For the record, I guess I'm in the do nothing camp. I want to curb the exaggerated media coverage that propagates these events, but not at the expense of a free press.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

*Privacy*



Skifffer said:


> Roughly 60 percent: the share of gun owners surveyed who did go through a background check when they obtained (through sale or transfer) their latest gun.
> Roughly 40 percent: the share of gun owners who did not.
> 
> http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/private-sale-loophole-background-check-harvard-research/
> ...


I blame HIPAA...The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals' medical records and other personal health information...it is a Federal law established 1996....

Yes, I really do blame HIPAA as doctors/healthcare professionals must obtain adjudication before any action can be taken against the mentally ill ...teachers, nurses, doctors must catch the mentally ill early in the life of the mentally disturbed....the mentally ill must be flagged in police/NICS data bases and watched....then if a mentally disturbed person tries to buy a gun, there is a big red flag alert....

This is a balance between the privacy rights of the mentally ill and helping to stop mass shootings....

i believe this is a start and I do not know all the answers....write your congressman if you feel the way I do...no answer from my man Ted Cruz yet.


----------



## Outearly (Nov 17, 2009)

Here's what I do understand:

The majority of Americans want common sense gun control. 

Through cash and organization, the NRA has delivered toothless gun laws and widespread marketing and ownership of military grade weapons.

I believe we're seeing the tide change.

If you want to be part of the conversation about the future of gun ownership, now is the time to be reasonable.

At some point, the NRA stance is going to backfire.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

Outearly said:


> Here's what I do understand:
> 
> The majority of Americans want common sense gun control.
> 
> ...


I don't think the tide is turning and i support the NRA....it is the mentally ill issue...they need to be watched and tagged.


----------



## 2Ws (Jun 28, 2016)

Outearly said:


> Bocephus-
> 
> I'll take a shot at explaining.
> 
> ...


 So I should HAVE to do a background check to GIVE a gun to my son, grandson??? The mentality ill you speak of would have included MY DAD and MILLIONS of others who went to war for this country and who DARN sure mentally capable to own a firearm, BUT LIBERALS know more about my dads mental state than his own family.
Bless your heart.


----------



## Cut n Shoot (Dec 11, 2015)

Outearly said:


> Bocephus-
> 
> I'll take a shot at explaining.
> 
> ...


This is a lie.What happened was ,if a senior citizen wanted his finances ran by a second party, he was automatically banned from owning or purchasing a firearm for protection. What Trump did is take this decision out of the hands of bureaucrats and gave it to judges.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Outearly said:


> Here's what I do understand:
> 
> The majority of Americans want common sense gun control.
> 
> ...


"Common Sense" to liberals isn't common sense. The big bad NRA doesn't spend that much money either. Hell they even suggested the ATF reexamine the bump stocks for more regulation. There isn't a tide change unless you watch CNN.


----------



## 2Ws (Jun 28, 2016)

DIHLON said:


> Oh, and iâ€™m pretty sure a Mossberg 590 pump loaded with buckshot would be just as devastating as an AR in a crowd.


7 loads of blue whistlers thru a PUMP shotgun will lay more hate down with 7 pulls of the trigger than a black semi-auto can do with 2 30 round mags.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Outearly said:


> Here's what I do understand:
> 
> The majority of Americans want common sense gun control.
> 
> ...


Where do I get in on this widespread ownership of military grade weapons? All I could get is some AR-15â€™s and such.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Outearly said:


> Well, why not close the gun show loophole?
> 
> Outlaw/limit bumpstock type devices.
> 
> ...


"Military Grade Firearms"...you don't have a clue what the hell you're talking about.

And expand background checks ?....what's this "expand" you're talking about ? If a background check is ran and no arrests, felonies, etc come up....what do you expand ?

Turn off MSNBC it's making you really stupid.



2Ws said:


> 7 loads of blue whistlers thru a PUMP shotgun will lay more hate down with 7 pulls of the trigger than a black semi-auto can do with 2 30 round mags.


Exactly, if you're clearing a room and you want to inflict as much damage as possible an AR isn't the most lethal weapon of choice.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

jomo888 said:


> I blame HIPAA.......
> 
> *This is a balance between the privacy rights of the mentally ill and helping to stop mass shootings....*


I can't argue against the above.

We know that more gun laws won't help, because only law abiding people follow laws.

Doctors and LEO's are generally law abiding people and can't find or give warnings about possible shooters due to the law, HIPAA.

It seems that the only chance is to reduce some of the restrictions about HIPAA and privacy, even though I don't like that idea. Giving up one right to save another isn't a great choice, but I don't know another answer that makes more sense. Open to suggestions ....


----------



## Wade Fisher (May 22, 2006)

There is already an expanded background check in place for *military grade weapons*.

FFL required.

Pay your $200.00 fee to Uncle Sugar and your local sheriff does the background checking. Uncle Sugar lost interest in you when your check cleared.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Outearly said:


> Bocephus-
> 
> I'll take a shot at explaining.
> 
> ...


. Thatâ€™s false. Of course you knew that already...


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

******



Whitebassfisher said:


> I can't argue against the above.
> 
> We know that more gun laws won't help, because only law abiding people follow laws.
> 
> ...


****...I thought I was the only one who thinks the key is watching/tagging mentally ill....


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Mentally Ill ???

Go ahead and put everyone that is a Democrat on that mentally ill list.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

Bocephus said:


> Mentally Ill ???
> 
> Go ahead and put everyone that is a Democrat on that mentally ill list.


This is serious and not a joking matter.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

jomo888 said:


> This is serious and not a joking matter.


So who gets to decide who is ill and what are the grounds to determine this?


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

Csafisher said:


> So who gets to decide who is ill and what are the grounds to determine this?


I am planting the seed....i do not know the particulars....all I know is that the privacy of the mentally disturbed should not trump the safety of others....watch them and track them...


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

jomo888 said:


> This is serious and not a joking matter.


Trust me on this one Bucko...I'm being dead serious. Liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

jomo888 said:


> I am planting the seed....i do not know the particulars....all I know is that the privacy of the mentally disturbed should not trump the safety of others....watch them and track them...


Then how can you expect to implement some such idea if you have no clue on the particulars? lol Maybe you are infected as Bo suggests haha


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Csafisher said:


> Then how can you expect to implement some such idea if you have no clue on the particulars? lol Maybe you are infected as Bo suggests haha


There needs to be a way for a doctor to place a flag on a patient so he cannot purchase firearms, but also an avenue for that doctor to pull the flag back at his discretion.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

ChuChu said:


> There needs to be a way for a doctor to place a flag on a patient so he cannot purchase firearms, but also an avenue for that doctor to pull the flag back at his discretion.


Yes, but still a slippery slope. Bunch of liberal docs out there. And each case would be different and probably subjective.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Csafisher said:


> Yes, but still a slippery slope. Bunch of liberal docs out there. And each case would be different and probably subjective.


True, But I'm sure there are those that can fine tune such a program.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

Csafisher said:


> "Common Sense" to liberals isn't common sense. The big bad NRA doesn't spend that much money either. Hell they even suggested the ATF reexamine the bump stocks for more regulation. There isn't a tide change unless you watch CNN.


30 million to Trump and 2+million to many others isn't "that much money"?

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/20...the-2016-election-and-won-almost-all-of-them/


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

A maniac on a killing spree only highlights my right, and reinforces my desire, to have powerful, effective weapons for my defense. Gun free zones are govâ€™t enabled killing fields.

I agree that crazy is the leading factor here for containing these folks however depending on who is leading this with a zero tolerance offensive could have some issues. Ex: Marriage Counseling


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Skifffer said:


> 30 million to Trump and 2+million to many others isn't "that much money"?
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...the-2016-election-and-won-almost-all-of-them/


Compared to what the campaign costs were, and other contributions, it is not that much.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

Bocephus said:


> Mentally Ill ???
> 
> Go ahead and put everyone that is a Democrat on that mentally ill list.





jomo888 said:


> I am planting the seed....i do not know the particulars....all I know is that the privacy of the mentally disturbed should not trump the safety of others....watch them and track them...


I said it in post 172.

You are >< close to taking guns away from any veteran that seeks out help.

Canâ€™t you see that?


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

ChuChu said:


> There needs to be a way for a doctor to place a flag on a patient so he cannot purchase firearms, but also an avenue for that doctor to pull the flag back at his discretion.


That is a start...


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

Bocephus said:


> Trust me on this one Bucko...I'm being dead serious. Liberalism is a mental disorder.


That is fine...


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

Csafisher said:


> Then how can you expect to implement some such idea if you have no clue on the particulars? lol Maybe you are infected as Bo suggests haha


Already gave you my clue,...as already stated by someone else...plant the seed then let others with more brain power fine tune the particulars...

Can you imagine if the Florida shooter was placed on NICS as mentally disturbed then maybe some lives could have been saved....but then he'd get a hammer, axe, screwdriver...etc,..


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

ChuChu said:


> There needs to be a way for a doctor to place a flag on a patient so he cannot purchase firearms, but also an avenue for that doctor to pull the flag back at his discretion.


So now we have to have a National gun registry and make sure every firearm in the country is accounted for on said registry. I mean how else will we know how many guns the individual has?

So, lets just start knocking on doors and taking a count.

I vote we give you that job. (not really, I don't know you and you might be a great guy, and whoever gets that job is likely going to die).


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

Csafisher said:


> So who gets to decide who is ill and what are the grounds to determine this?


Idiots like Nancy Pelosi will. So guess what happens then. If you ever went to the doctor and get some anxiety medication to ease some stress/anxiety from a loved one passing away, or any other reason, you may possibly now fall under this category of being "mentally ill". Think of how many millions of Americans that is, myself included.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> There needs to be a way for a doctor to place a flag on a patient so he cannot purchase firearms, but also an avenue for that doctor to pull the flag back at his discretion.


I've known a few who I think were mentally ill who wouldn't even consider going to a Doctor...What then????

and if a Doc made the decision..and he was wrong..what then ? He better have dammed good lawyers and gazillions of dollars worth of liability insurance...

This whole deal is full of holes and I don't think anyone can plug them all..

IMHO..an armed guard, metal detectors and locked doors can put a dent in the school problem...but a determined psycho will find a way....and if we make the schools too difficult..they will look for another public gathering.. The Houston Rodeo comes to mind...churches ?..concerts ?...we're gonna need a helluva lot of metal detectors...

I think the horse is already out of the barn.. This krap is a new normal. The guns are already here...and the crazies are gonna find a way to get them.

One step at a time I guess...


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

Skifffer said:


> 30 million to Trump and 2+million to many others isn't "that much money"?
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...the-2016-election-and-won-almost-all-of-them/


Hillary contributors:

Paloma Partners $21,613,800Pritzker Group $16,626,207Renaissance Technologies $16,543,000Saban Capital Group $12,283,411Newsweb Corp $11,016,642Soros Fund Management $10,556,793Asana $6,005,556Slim-Fast Foods $6,005,400Lone Pine Capital $5,015,300Carpenters & Joiners Union $5,005,954Laborers Union $4,753,623DE Shaw Research $4,058,757Plumbers/Pipefitters Union $4,008,894Herb & Marion Sandler/Sandler Foundation $4,002,700Laurel Foundation $3,422,863Operating Engineers Union $3,012,155Bohemian Foundation $3,005,400American Federation of Teachers $2,598,462Bls Investments $2,530,400Emerson Collective $2,509,535


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

DIHLON said:


> Idiots like Nancy Pelosi will. So guess what happens then. If you ever went to the doctor and get some anxiety medication to ease some stress/anxiety from a loved one passing away, or any other reason, you may possibly now fall under this category of being "mentally ill". Think of how many millions of Americans that is, myself included.


Yep exactly. "Let someone with more brain power figure out the details." My gosh.... I guess jomo has a lot of faith in the government.


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

DIHLON said:


> *Idiots like Nancy Pelosi will*. So guess what happens then. If you ever went to the doctor and get some anxiety medication to ease some stress/anxiety from a loved one passing away, or any other reason, you may possibly now fall under this category of being "mentally ill". Think of how many millions of Americans that is, myself included.


Oh yeah. And we will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.:headknock


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Can we agree to start simple.

If Law Enforcement is called to a resident for some type of domestic trouble, how about those at the resident (everyone) get placed on a no buy list/or at a minimum get the names flagged for more in-depth background check for some amount of time...30 days...90 days?

If law enforcement is called multiple times to the same residents, then there are problems that need to be addressed. By who, I don't know. But it could be considered. Complete some type of counseling before getting cleared to purchase weapons.

If the Courts can remove weapons in cases of domestic abuse, then why not prevent someone from accessing weapons.


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Csafisher said:


> "Common Sense" to liberals isn't common sense. The big bad NRA doesn't spend that much money either..





Skifffer said:


> 30 million to Trump and 2+million to many others isn't "that much money"?
> 
> http://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...the-2016-election-and-won-almost-all-of-them/





Csafisher said:


> Compared to what the campaign costs were, and other contributions, it is not that much.


Are you ever wrong? You specifically stated they donâ€™t spend that much money. When confronted with facts you then rationalize and pigeon hole the context. FACT: In 2015 the NRA spent $345 MILLION. Where and how they spent it is unknown (Super PACs) but I donâ€™t know too many people that donâ€™t think $32 Million isnâ€™t a lot of money, let alone $345 Million!

As soon as a few on this thread start to disagree with suggestions and ideas presented, the labels of â€œlibtard, infected and stupidâ€ start. Way to keep the discussion professional, mature and Christian......


----------



## SD Hawkins (Jan 2, 2008)

DIHLON said:


> Oh yeah. And we will have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.:headknock


Truly one of my all time favorite quotes by that witch. Obviously lived a privileged life and never signed a contract that she had to uphold herself, or signed one and made a mistake and had to eat it or in her case she was able to execute force majure.


----------



## Cut n Shoot (Dec 11, 2015)

The 500,000,000 taxpayers give planned parenthood a year to kill kids would go a long way to protect our school kids with video,metal detectors armed guards..just sayin.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

redhead fishin said:


> Are you ever wrong? You specifically stated they donâ€™t spend that much money. When confronted with facts you then rationalize and pigeon hole the context. FACT: In 2015 the NRA spent $345 MILLION. Where and how they spent it is unknown (Super PACs) but I donâ€™t know too many people that donâ€™t think $32 Million isnâ€™t a lot of money, let alone $345 Million!
> 
> As soon as a few on this thread start to disagree with suggestions and ideas presented, the labels of â€œlibtard, infected and stupidâ€ start. Way to keep the discussion professional, mature and Christian......


I'm simply saying the 32M is not much compared to other contributions. Obviously 32M is a lot to you or me. Also, not all of the expenditures go to campaigns. Anyway, it is kind of their job.... Where do you think the money comes from? A whole lot of supporters......

Anyway, you didn't answer my question as to what exactly you are doing other than "planting a seed" on a fishing forum while sitting on some moral high ground.

Your seed is not a solid idea. Sure it is a suggestion, whoop dee doo. How can it ACTUALLY work?


----------



## Cut n Shoot (Dec 11, 2015)

Here's the list of NRA members that has committed mass murder.




There's not enough bandwidth to list the leftwing libtards that has committed mass murder.


----------



## BATWING (May 9, 2008)

The strength of the NRA is not its contributions (small in comparison) but its members. The members are unified and they vote.


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Cut n Shoot said:


> Here's the list of NRA members that has committed mass murder.
> 
> There's not enough bandwidth to list the leftwing libtards that has committed mass murder.


Itâ€™s â€œhaveâ€ not â€œhasâ€. If youâ€™re going make fun of people, please make sure your grammar is correct.


----------



## Cut n Shoot (Dec 11, 2015)

redhead fishin said:


> Itâ€™s â€œhaveâ€ not â€œhasâ€. If youâ€™re going make fun of people, please make sure your grammar is correct.


Ok professor...I will not make fun of you,I can see you're getting your feelings hurt. Have a cup of hot chocolate and try not to cry.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

redhead fishin said:


> Itâ€™s â€œhaveâ€ not â€œhasâ€. If youâ€™re going make fun of people, please make sure your grammar is correct.


You couldn't refute what he said...

So you attack his grammar. That's weak.


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Bocephus said:


> You couldn't refute what he said...
> 
> So you attack his grammar. That's weak.


Yet immature insults arenâ€™t weak. Gotcha. Enjoy your echo chamber.

BTW. Please show me the political affiliation of mass school shooters. They were all registered Democrats?


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

Cut n Shoot said:


> The 500,000,000 taxpayers give planned parenthood a year to kill kids would go a long way to protect our school kids with video,metal detectors armed guards..just sayin.


However, abortions are actually not a big part of what Planned Parenthood says it does â€" 3 percent of the services it provided last year were abortion-related, according to the organization's annual report.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsall...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

How do you keep guns away from psychopathic killers without trampling on the second amendment rights of ordinary American citizens? 

New laws, old laws? I have no idea. But the status quo is not working. If only it was simple.


----------



## Cut n Shoot (Dec 11, 2015)

Skifffer said:


> However, abortions are actually not a big part of what Planned Parenthood says it does â€" 3 percent of the services it provided last year were abortion-related, according to the organization's annual report.
> 
> http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...lanned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money


Believe what you want. They kill 3 thousand kids a day..


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Bocephus said:


> You couldn't refute what he said...
> 
> So you attack his grammar. That's weak.


He has nothing. Still not answering my question lol.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Csafisher said:


> He has nothing. Still not answering my question lol.


I guess I shouldn't tell him I'm a "Life Member" of the NRA.

His head might explode !


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Csafisher said:


> He has nothing. Still not answering my question lol.


Iâ€™ll give you that courtesy when you answer some of mine from a few pages ago. Conversations are usually a two way exchange.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

poppadawg said:


> How do you keep guns away from psychopathic killers without trampling on the second amendment rights of ordinary American citizens?
> 
> New laws, old laws? I have no idea. But the status quo is not working. If only it was simple.


We accepted this as a fact, but is it?

Is the chance of a school shooting anything more than a statistical anomaly, given the number of kids we educate?


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Your smartarse rhetorical questions like am I ever wrong or why even have laws at all?


----------



## manwitaplan (Dec 9, 2005)

redhead fishin said:


> Iâ€™ll give you that courtesy when you answer some of mine from a few pages ago. Conversations are usually a two way exchange.


WHy in the world are folks like you against guns. Everyone you are arguing with on here probably carries a gun on a daily basis such as myself. I have never shot up any place or person hell, I have never pulled for that matter.

You and the rest of your supporters are completely misguided. YOU need to start addressing MENTAL HEALTH. Stop the money heading to the gun rights and start building an over due data base of mentally jack up people. It seems that every single time we hear of some one doing this their is catch phrase "depressed". So how much medication is being prescribed for depression especially for young people. We can start with that data base. Just becuase you are in the database would flag your gun purchase if done legally.

Food for thought........


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

bill said:


> If the Courts can remove weapons in cases of domestic abuse, then why not prevent someone from accessing weapons.


Careful, Bill. "...during child custody disputes, up to 70 percent of domestic violence allegations are deemed to be unnecessary or fabricated." Going through a divorce, your spouse cooks up an abuse claim, gets a TRO - and you lose your guns? More importantly, your right to EVER own guns in the future?

There are a lot of people who consider spanking to be child abuse, no matter what. A LOT of people, many of whom are influential within the government. If they have their way, they would gleefully take away gun ownership rights over spanking a child.

We allowed the government to cook up "hate crimes" for crimes that already have well-defined punishments. Now they have moved on to "hate speech", and we see almost daily attempts to stifle ideas by calling them hate speech. Go to Europe or Australia, and you'll see that they have gone completely nuts about limiting speech. They're even putting people in jail for suggesting that too many Middle Eastern immigrants might be bad for the country. In jail. None of those people would question whether hate speech should be grounds for denying gun ownership.

It's not a stretch - all of these things are already happening, to some degree. The clear plan is to set precedent, get people used to the idea that enumerated rights can be infringed... and then simply expand the criteria. It's not a slippery slope, it's a cliff with a crumbling edge.


----------



## TexasWineGuy (Jun 19, 2017)

pocjetty said:


> careful, bill. "...during child custody disputes, up to 70 percent of domestic violence allegations are deemed to be unnecessary or fabricated." going through a divorce, your spouse cooks up an abuse claim, gets a tro - and you lose your guns? More importantly, your right to ever own guns in the future?
> 
> There are a lot of people who consider spanking to be child abuse, no matter what. A lot of people, many of whom are influential within the government. If they have their way, they would gleefully take away gun ownership rights over spanking a child.
> 
> ...


truth.

Twg


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Skifffer said:


> Cruz had scores of run-ins with law enforcement prior to Wednesday's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School dating back to 2010 -- with one report saying sheriffâ€™s deputies responded to his home more than 35 times in just six years.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/1...fbi-cops-school-but-warning-signs-missed.html
> 
> This should be enough, right?


So based off of this, it's OBVIOUS the problem is with how laws are reported and enforced and NOT with the gun.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

DIHLON said:


> Idiots like Nancy Pelosi will. So guess what happens then. If you ever went to the doctor and get some anxiety medication to ease some stress/anxiety from a loved one passing away, or any other reason, you may possibly now fall under this category of being "mentally ill". Think of how many millions of Americans that is, myself included.


There are enough level headed Republicans in congress that would probably not let that happen...I foresee teachers, nurses, doctors with input to a bipartisan (guru Mental panel) or i don't know just a thought, that would determine who gets tagged and who doesn't....


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

poppadawg said:


> How do you keep guns away from psychopathic killers without trampling on the second amendment rights of ordinary American citizens?
> 
> New laws, old laws? I have no idea. But the status quo is not working. If only it was simple.


Hopefully the psychos could be tagged early in their childhood....


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

banpouchi said:


> You might not like what I have proposed. However it is just your opinion, I have suggested one not being able own or have in possession a firearm unless a licence is obtained. Prequalifying by attending a class or obtaining a firearm licence might go a bit more that a background check.
> 
> I have not blamed any gun, government or anyone for this mass killing. Most of what I have read is either lock down the schools, next comes churches, then grocery stores and finally walmart.
> 
> ...


I might suggest you look up the part of the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be infringed"....notice it DOESN'T say people must have a license, not own a specific type of firearm etc. (by the way, when the US Constitution was drafted, the musket was an extremely powerful firearm...as was the cannon.) Neither were mentioned for a specific reason...because the term "shall not be infringed" covers it...period. Unfortunately we have a number of liberal lawyers in the US who don't understand simple English.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

manwitaplan said:


> WHy in the world are folks like you against guns. Everyone you are arguing with on here probably carries a gun on a daily basis such as myself. I have never shot up any place or person hell, I have never pulled for that matter.
> 
> You and the rest of your supporters are completely misguided. YOU need to start addressing MENTAL HEALTH. Stop the money heading to the gun rights and start building an over due data base of mentally jack up people. It seems that every single time we hear of some one doing this their is catch phrase "depressed". So how much medication is being prescribed for depression especially for young people. We can start with that data base. Just becuase you are in the database would flag your gun purchase if done legally.
> 
> Food for thought........


manwitaplan.....BINGO....right on.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

jomo888 said:


> I blame HIPAA...The HIPAA Privacy Rule establishes national standards to protect individuals' medical records and other personal health information...it is a Federal law established 1996....
> 
> Yes, I really do blame HIPAA as doctors/healthcare professionals must obtain adjudication before any action can be taken against the mentally ill ...teachers, nurses, doctors must catch the mentally ill early in the life of the mentally disturbed....the mentally ill must be flagged in police/NICS data bases and watched....then if a mentally disturbed person tries to buy a gun, there is a big red flag alert....
> 
> ...


I blame the Shooter a cowardly murderer, The FBI that had a tip about him, But most of all I blame our politicians that thought Gun Free Zones would protect our kids. If we are serious about the safety of our kids then we need to end gun free zones today. The only purpose they serve is to disarm law abiding citizens and allowed armed criminals to shoot at will unarmed targets in fact that is why the locations are chosen.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

penguin said:


> It's funny how a lot of people want to stand firm with the second amendment, but they also want to trample all over the first amendment.
> 
> Not everyone in our county, or even in this forum believe in the same gods. I don't want your religion, whether it is Christianity, Hindu, Islam, Scientology or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be taught to my children. I don't know what will change these horrible events, but I know prayer and religion isn't the answer.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk


it seems a LOT misinterpret the 1st Amendment too...they keep thinking it says "Freedom FROM religion" when in fact it says "freedom OF religion"


----------



## Cut n Shoot (Dec 11, 2015)

Duckchasr said:


> I blame the Shooter a cowardly murderer, The FBI that had a tip about him, But most of all I blame our politicians that thought Gun Free Zones would protect our kids. If we are serious about the safety of our kids then we need to end gun free zones today. The only purpose they serve is to disarm law abiding citizens and allowed armed criminals to shoot at will unarmed targets in fact that is why the locations are chosen.


Yep, Joe Biden sponsored the gun free school zone bill and GHW Bush signed it.It's been a shooting gallery since.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

Duckchasr said:


> I blame the Shooter a cowardly murderer, The FBI that had a tip about him, But most of all I blame our politicians that thought Gun Free Zones would protect our kids. If we are serious about the safety of our kids then we need to end gun free zones today. The only purpose they serve is to disarm law abiding citizens and allowed armed criminals to shoot at will unarmed targets in fact that is why the locations are chosen.


I 100% with you as your reasoning is a great part of the equation....but man oh man, we need to tag the mentally ill early in their lives and watch them as they grow...if the mentally ill show that mental ill signs and behavior are still there, then tag in NICS and keep watching them. (professionals know the signs).


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Outearly said:


> Bocephus-
> 
> I'll take a shot at explaining.
> 
> ...


OK, I'll respond...when the convicted felon buys the gun from an individual at a gun show or an illegal gun from someone on craigslist...he STILL IS BREAKING THE LAW. What is your solution? create more laws he can continue to ignore? MY solution is to target the criminal...NOT to take away the civil rights of law abiding citizens. MY solution is what the NRA supports...why is it people have so hard a time understanding simple English?


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

jomo888 said:


> This is serious and not a joking matter.


actually if you look at the definition of insanity...most Democrats ARE insane...they keep going further left and absolutely bastardizing the US Constitution.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

jomo888 said:


> Already gave you my clue,...as already stated by someone else...plant the seed then let others with more brain power fine tune the particulars...
> 
> Can you imagine if the Florida shooter was placed on NICS as mentally disturbed then maybe some lives could have been saved....but then he'd get a hammer, axe, screwdriver...etc,..


actually it's been proven over and over that mental patients can easily recover if given the right treatment. He likely could have been a productive member of society with the right treatment BEFORE he committed murder


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

photofishin said:


> actually if you look at the definition of insanity...most Democrats ARE insane...they keep going further left and absolutely bastardizing the US Constitution.


i hope and pray you are wrong...Joe Manchin seems to be sensible, hope there are more....i fear the worse if Dems keep resisting.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

photofishin said:


> actually it's been proven over and over that mental patients can easily recover if given the right treatment. He likely could have been a productive member of society with the right treatment BEFORE he committed murder


agree...but we need to do something...thats why I said tag em and watch em..


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

jomo888 said:


> I 100% with you as your reasoning is a great part of the equation....but man oh man, we need to tag the mentally ill early in their lives and watch them as they grow...if the mentally ill show that mental ill signs and behavior are still there, then tag in NICS and keep watching them. (professionals know the signs).


Ok it scares the heck out of me who determines these things. A dr. that hates guns decides they are going to put that designation on whoever they can. 
Or now some psycho that can't buy a gun at walmart because he was flagged goes to the local crack house to see what they got in way of guns. Finds one to his liking and now studies on the closes gun free zone knowing he will not be met with resistance. And wala another batch of victims gunned down in cold blood because the government took away their right to protect themselves.

The folks saying it's the new normal are right. Unless we do away with gun free zone designations for our schools and allow the staff to be armed as well as guards it is going to continue. No matter how many new laws they pass that INFRINGE on the rights of law abiding citizens.


----------



## livintofish (Dec 4, 2009)

CNN Headline: Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station. BAN ALL GUNS!!!! that will fix everything.


----------



## Cut n Shoot (Dec 11, 2015)

Yeah,this is tough.Dims want to ban firearms, arm students with can goods to throw at armed attackers.That idea has to be offensive or it must hurt someone's feelings. Maybe the hungry or homeless. Great idea though. These dims are full of great ideas.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

Duckchasr said:


> Ok it scares the heck out of me who determines these things. A dr. that hates guns decides they are going to put that designation on whoever they can.
> Or now some psycho that can't buy a gun at walmart because he was flagged goes to the local crack house to see what they got in way of guns. Finds one to his liking and now studies on the closes gun free zone knowing he will not be met with resistance. And wala another batch of victims gunned down in cold blood because the government took away their right to protect themselves.
> 
> The folks saying it's the new normal are right. Unless we do away with gun free zone designations for our schools and allow the staff to be armed as well as guards it is going to continue. No matter how many new laws they pass that INFRINGE on the rights of law abiding citizens.


I bet in Texas at least, gun free zones in schools will be abolished...i'm sure there would be checks and balances so that one Doctor does not have the sole say-so....


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

jomo888 said:


> Jamaica Cove....what makes you think I'm a Libturd? ****!


This wasn't directed at me, but let me take a stab at it.

Because you are having American citizens, who have committed no crime, put on watch list and surveilled in the name of a crime they MIGHT commit.

A crime maybe 3 people a year commit.

Not to mention all the bureaucracy you must support that you would have to create to implement such a thing. You are looking for bigger, more intrusive government.

AND you still never answered how you treat our soldiers / veterans who have a PTSD diagnosis?

You are openly advocating exchanging a right for protection.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

pocjetty said:


> Careful, Bill. "...during child custody disputes, up to 70 percent of domestic violence allegations are deemed to be unnecessary or fabricated." Going through a divorce, your spouse cooks up an abuse claim, gets a TRO - and you lose your guns? More importantly, your right to EVER own guns in the future?


A very good point! 
I remember a TRO against me and I questioned it, "I have never hurt anybody in my life. What is this TRO about?" Lawyer said "Any female can get one against a male for no reason. Don't worry about it hurting you in the future."


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/what-the-second-amendment-means-today/
Good article


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

Another good article: I can't post the link for you because of a particular word, but Google "Aging Millennial Engineer" and you'll see a link for his article titled "F... You, I Like Guns!"


----------



## WineyFishrman (Aug 5, 2011)

Make no bones about it... the left wants all guns, and to diminish the NRA influence

AR'S are just the topic right now, it's all about the socialist democrats agenda to control Americans rights completely. After AR'S are gone, then it's semi auto shotguns and pistols, then downward from there to all firearms.

The left is highly dangerous, more so than us legal gun owners. Vote your consciousness. .. but history does repeat, anyone that thinks that all guns could not be banned,,, well 1938 Germany and other countries socialist uprisings should be your guide to what's ahead if we the people do not stand strong.


----------



## MarkU (Jun 3, 2013)

What more does the left want? We've already given them Gun Free Zones? The left needs to educate their base. And explain to them, don't bring guns to these places. Well, then that would fall on the teachers, and parents. That they make sure their prescription drug induced kids can read, and comprehend.


----------



## I Fall In (Sep 18, 2011)

jomo888 said:


> ****...I thought I was the only one who thinks the key is watching/tagging mentally ill....


I thought liberals were against profiling.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

jomo888 said:


> i hope and pray you are wrong...Joe Manchin seems to be sensible, hope there are more....i fear the worse if Dems keep resisting.


Joe Manchin is the ONLY Democrat on that side of the fence who's got any resemblance of common sense. Keep in mind the only reason he's that way is that he's in a completely red state and one that went for Trump. The Democratic Party of Kennedy died a LONG time ago.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

jomo888 said:


> agree...but we need to do something...thats why I said tag em and watch em..


Personally I think we need a system that identifies potential psychos.
There are characteristics that these people show which would let law enforcement evaluate a need to get them into a mental health facility. Keep in mind people who fall into the same category as the Las Vegas shooter and the Florida shooter show these sorts of warning signs well in advance. (sometimes years) They don't just wake up one day and decide to go on a mass shooting spree. Police after 9/11 use a 10 or 11 point system to identify potential suicide bombers. It wouldn't be difficult for law enforcement to work with social media companies to identify people who fit into these categories.
By the way, you'll likely not see anyone on this board showing any or even 1 of those tendencies. HIPPA rules would have to be amended...however as long as those records are used by law enforcement only there should be no problem. 
We need to focus on solutions which solve the ROOT problem...and stop this nonsensical kneejerk reaction by those who think stepping on someone's constitutional rights is the way forward.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

photofishin said:


> Personally I think we need a system that identifies potential psychos.
> There are characteristics that these people show which would let law enforcement evaluate a need to get them into a mental health facility. Keep in mind people who fall into the same category as the Las Vegas shooter and the Florida shooter show these sorts of warning signs well in advance. (sometimes years) They don't just wake up one day and decide to go on a mass shooting spree. Police after 9/11 use a 10 or 11 point system to identify potential suicide bombers. It wouldn't be difficult for law enforcement to work with social media companies to identify people who fit into these categories.
> By the way, you'll likely not see anyone on this board showing any or even 1 of those tendencies. HIPPA rules would have to be amended...however as long as those records are used by law enforcement only there should be no problem.
> We need to focus on solutions which solve the ROOT problem...and stop this nonsensical kneejerk reaction by those who think stepping on someone's constitutional rights is the way forward.


"HIPPA rules would have to be amended..."
Absolutely agree....HIPAA would most definitely have to be amended...thats why I espouse to tag em for the NICS data base and watch em to see if they get mentally worse or better.


----------



## John Redcorn (Sep 8, 2009)

I think we would be better off as a nation if we could get past the left vs. right BS and sit down and make wise, rational decisions. When our Worldly outlook is based on info fed to us from CNN or Fox News, we are doomed. Politicians on both sides are bought and paid for by special interest groups. The media is turning us against each other while we become the laughing stock of the world.


----------



## WineyFishrman (Aug 5, 2011)

John Redcorn said:


> I think we would be better off as a nation if we could get past the left vs. right BS and sit down and make wise, rational decisions. When our Worldly outlook is based on info fed to us from CNN or Fox News, we are doomed. Politicians on both sides are bought and paid for by special interest groups. The media is turning us against each other while we become the laughing stock of the world.


Agree 1000pct,,, problem is the left have become an obstructing party that truly has rejected mutual problem solving since they lost the primary, and the media won't stop their hate filled attacks which won't let them to even remotely engage. I don't see any common sense progress happening,,,, if anything the republicans will need to bring a bill with some cross over of dem's but you won't see majority bi partisan efforts,, they will attach other garbage bills to this , just like DACA and it will die on the floor.


----------



## Archer (Jul 10, 2006)

The sad fact is that we are all debating he wrong thing. The problem here is not the gun, honestly itâ€™s not really even the nut job holding the gun. What we should be debating is why we as a society claim that our children are our most precious resource then send them off every day to the most insecure location imaginable. In most areas of the country our schools are completely unsecured and there is little if any armed security presence in them. In fact in most cases they are purposely gun free (read shooting gallery). How many more school shootings have to take place before we wake up and begin to take the security of our children seriously?

We secure our government buildings, office buildings, even many areas of our public hospitals and churches but anyone can walk in to most schools with little to no trouble. Why shouldnâ€™t campuses be fenced in and all public entrances locked and key carded? Why shouldnâ€™t there be members of the staff who are trained and licensed to carry weapons as a backup because no system is fool proof? You donâ€™t need metal detectors at every door, just good magnetic locks with key card/coded access. Every faculty member and student gets an ID, many schools already have ID requirements so not a big deal or even that big of an expense. 

In many ways I think itâ€™s because that would take away a rallying cry of the left for restricting the rights of our citizens to own weapons. Make no mistake, the left is about power and control first, all else is second, including the lives of innocent children. The left in this country will never succeed in their quest for power and control as long as there are millions of armed citizens in this country who may one day decide enough is enough and start fighting back. They know this and seek to restrict our rights to own weapons in any way they can. If that means some children die then so be it, as long a they get our weapons. An armed society can never be subjected to overt tyranny, they simply wonâ€™t stand for it. An unarmed society has no choice and will be subject to whatever flavor of tyranny the government decides to inflict on it.


----------



## SaltwaterSlick (Jun 11, 2012)

Archer said:


> The sad fact is that we are all debating he wrong thing. The problem here is not the gun, honestly itâ€™s not really even the nut job holding the gun. What we should be debating is why we as a society claim that our children are our most precious resource then send them off every day to the most insecure location imaginable. In most areas of the country our schools are completely unsecured and there is little if any armed security presence in them. In fact in most cases they are purposely gun free (read shooting gallery). How many more school shootings have to take place before we wake up and begin to take the security of our children seriously?
> 
> We secure our government buildings, office buildings, even many areas of our public hospitals and churches but anyone can walk in to most schools with little to no trouble. Why shouldnâ€™t campuses be fenced in and all public entrances locked and key carded? Why shouldnâ€™t there be members of the staff who are trained and licensed to carry weapons as a backup because no system is fool proof? You donâ€™t need metal detectors at every door, just good magnetic locks with key card/coded access. Every faculty member and student gets an ID, many schools already have ID requirements so not a big deal or even that big of an expense.
> 
> In many ways I think itâ€™s because that would take away a rallying cry of the left for restricting the rights of our citizens to own weapons. Make no mistake, the left is about power and control first, all else is second, including the lives of innocent children. The left in this country will never succeed in their quest for power and control as long as there are millions of armed citizens in this country who may one day decide enough is enough and start fighting back. They know this and seek to restrict our rights to own weapons in any way they can. If that means some children die then so be it, as long a they get our weapons. An armed society can never be subjected to overt tyranny, they simply wonâ€™t stand for it. An unarmed society has no choice and will be subject to whatever flavor of tyranny the government decides to inflict on it.


Well said sir! I quoted you so your post would appear again... those who did not read it the first time should go back and read it!

Green on ya!


----------



## driftfish20 (May 13, 2006)

Archer said:


> The sad fact is that we are all debating he wrong thing. The problem here is not the gun, honestly itâ€™s not really even the nut job holding the gun. What we should be debating is why we as a society claim that our children are our most precious resource then send them off every day to the most insecure location imaginable. In most areas of the country our schools are completely unsecured and there is little if any armed security presence in them. In fact in most cases they are purposely gun free (read shooting gallery). How many more school shootings have to take place before we wake up and begin to take the security of our children seriously?
> 
> We secure our government buildings, office buildings, even many areas of our public hospitals and churches but anyone can walk in to most schools with little to no trouble. Why shouldnâ€™t campuses be fenced in and all public entrances locked and key carded? Why shouldnâ€™t there be members of the staff who are trained and licensed to carry weapons as a backup because no system is fool proof? You donâ€™t need metal detectors at every door, just good magnetic locks with key card/coded access. Every faculty member and student gets an ID, many schools already have ID requirements so not a big deal or even that big of an expense.
> 
> In many ways I think itâ€™s because that would take away a rallying cry of the left for restricting the rights of our citizens to own weapons. Make no mistake, the left is about power and control first, all else is second, including the lives of innocent children. The left in this country will never succeed in their quest for power and control as long as there are millions of armed citizens in this country who may one day decide enough is enough and start fighting back. They know this and seek to restrict our rights to own weapons in any way they can. If that means some children die then so be it, as long a they get our weapons. An armed society can never be subjected to overt tyranny, they simply wonâ€™t stand for it. An unarmed society has no choice and will be subject to whatever flavor of tyranny the government decides to inflict on it.


TRUTH! You nailed it!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

Nailed it! Turn the soft targets into hard targets, and turn the " gun free zone" into a " staff are armed and trained and will use deadly force zone".


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Archer said:


> The sad fact is that we are all debating he wrong thing. The problem here is not the gun, honestly itâ€™s not really even the nut job holding the gun. What we should be debating is why we as a society claim that our children are our most precious resource then send them off every day to the most insecure location imaginable. In most areas of the country our schools are completely unsecured and there is little if any armed security presence in them. In fact in most cases they are purposely gun free (read shooting gallery). How many more school shootings have to take place before we wake up and begin to take the security of our children seriously?
> 
> We secure our government buildings, office buildings, even many areas of our public hospitals and churches but anyone can walk in to most schools with little to no trouble. Why shouldnâ€™t campuses be fenced in and all public entrances locked and key carded? Why shouldnâ€™t there be members of the staff who are trained and licensed to carry weapons as a backup because no system is fool proof? You donâ€™t need metal detectors at every door, just good magnetic locks with key card/coded access. Every faculty member and student gets an ID, many schools already have ID requirements so not a big deal or even that big of an expense.
> 
> In many ways I think itâ€™s because that would take away a rallying cry of the left for restricting the rights of our citizens to own weapons. Make no mistake, the left is about power and control first, all else is second, including the lives of innocent children. The left in this country will never succeed in their quest for power and control as long as there are millions of armed citizens in this country who may one day decide enough is enough and start fighting back. They know this and seek to restrict our rights to own weapons in any way they can. If that means some children die then so be it, as long a they get our weapons. An armed society can never be subjected to overt tyranny, they simply wonâ€™t stand for it. An unarmed society has no choice and will be subject to whatever flavor of tyranny the government decides to inflict on it.


that's a good FIRST step, however societal reform is what's REALLY needed long term to really solve this problem and not just put a band aid on it. Rebuild the American family. Rebuild American morals and values. Bring God back in the home and in schools, bring back proper discipline. All of these things are counter to liberal mantra.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Archer said:


> The sad fact is that we are all debating he wrong thing. The problem here is not the gun, honestly itâ€™s not really even the nut job holding the gun. What we should be debating is why we as a society claim that our children are our most precious resource then send them off every day to the most insecure location imaginable. In most areas of the country our schools are completely unsecured and there is little if any armed security presence in them. In fact in most cases they are purposely gun free (read shooting gallery). How many more school shootings have to take place before we wake up and begin to take the security of our children seriously?
> 
> We secure our government buildings, office buildings, even many areas of our public hospitals and churches but anyone can walk in to most schools with little to no trouble. Why shouldnâ€™t campuses be fenced in and all public entrances locked and key carded? Why shouldnâ€™t there be members of the staff who are trained and licensed to carry weapons as a backup because no system is fool proof? You donâ€™t need metal detectors at every door, just good magnetic locks with key card/coded access. Every faculty member and student gets an ID, many schools already have ID requirements so not a big deal or even that big of an expense.
> 
> In many ways I think itâ€™s because that would take away a rallying cry of the left for restricting the rights of our citizens to own weapons. Make no mistake, the left is about power and control first, all else is second, including the lives of innocent children. The left in this country will never succeed in their quest for power and control as long as there are millions of armed citizens in this country who may one day decide enough is enough and start fighting back. They know this and seek to restrict our rights to own weapons in any way they can. If that means some children die then so be it, as long a they get our weapons. An armed society can never be subjected to overt tyranny, they simply wonâ€™t stand for it. An unarmed society has no choice and will be subject to whatever flavor of tyranny the government decides to inflict on it.


That is it right there....

Secure the **** school. I have more security at my office than my child does at school. Modern access control and surveillance systems can identify and prevent these type of incidents. Why in the world can any random stranger just walk into a school and have unrestricted access to the children?

First thing people want to start discussing after these events is gun control. Why not focus on something we can all agree on like securing our children through better school security. I think both the left and right can agree that our children deserve better protection. They need to work together and make this happen. These nut cases wouldn't pick out schools if they were not such a soft target.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

fishinguy said:


> That is it right there....
> 
> Secure the **** school. I have more security at my office than my child does at school. Modern access control and surveillance systems can identify and prevent these type of incidents. Why in the world can any random stranger just walk into a school and have unrestricted access to the children?


These shooters are rarely random strangers.

It's not uncommon that they ARE the student you are locking in.

When is the last time you have been to a school? You don't just walk in off the street. All the doors are locked except the main office door where they cattle heard you to he office where they run your drivers license before letting you proceed to a hall, if you have business there. High schools may be different, due to sports fields, lunch courtyard layout, etc. but Elementary schools aren't.

Lets get rid of high school sports, because how can we secure kids on a sports field, and let's get rid of recess, because playgrounds, I mean we can't keep these kids safe if they are allowed to go outside.

*Look at Sandy Hook. It was locked down and it was the deadliest school shooting I can think of.*

If we are just so determined we HAVE to do something, it is the least instructive to the masses, but it is just a measure so some can feel good about doing something, while accomplishing nothing.

(But I'm OK with doing nothing.)


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

Guns guns guns. Then they ban them. Nothing happens. You can't get rid of guns there's 4 trillion guns out there. The average Texans has at least 20 or more.
Secure the schools is the answer. 
Its not right for kids to be scared of going to school everyday. I've read on here that its people telling kids to say this on TV. 
If I was a kid in their shoes I'd be griping too. These kids saw their classmates being killed with their own two eyes. I'm 61 and thank god I've never had to go through what they went through. 
Trump are whoever is in charge of this needs to do this immediately.
Someone mentioned vets to guard our schools. I would rather see active military secure our schools. JMO!


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

jomo888 said:


> Well I sure as hell wouldn't know...ask your libtard friends...


Easy there, you might offend redhead fishin.... :smile:


----------



## THA (Jan 5, 2016)

We have a school teacher here who has, what she thinks, is perfect solution. She has put a hammer by the door and appointed one of her "pet students" to immediately go to that station and grab hammer. If someone comes in door, he must hit them on head. She is dead serious. 

Now the kicker is that she is a college professor.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

THA said:


> We have a school teacher here who has, what she thinks, is perfect solution. She has put a hammer by the door and appointed one of her "pet students" to immediately go to that station and grab hammer. If someone comes in door, he must hit them on head. She is dead serious.
> 
> Now the kicker is that she is a college professor.


I an engineering college professor that brought a "paper weight" to class every day. It was a rock about the size of your palm so he could throw it. Lol. One of the best profs I had.


----------



## THA (Jan 5, 2016)

Csafisher said:


> I an engineering college professor that brought a "paper weight" to class every day. It was a rock about the size of your palm so he could throw it. Lol. One of the best profs I had.


Yeah but he probably only threw it at students like you who were not paying attention or were asleep in class:work::work::work:


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

One thing I think is sad and actually dangerous...is that the people involved in this debate in Florida are either way too young and/or are way too involved emotionally to be making rational decisions. Frankly the fact that Democrats are pouncing on this as a way to enact gun control reminds me of a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. I watched a youngster blame Trump for this tragedy and when asked about the FBI, he pointed it right back at Trump. No mention of the numerous school shootings under Obama where NOTHING was done.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

photofishin said:


> One thing I think is sad and actually dangerous...is that the people involved in this debate in Florida are either way too young and/or are way too involved emotionally to be making rational decisions. Frankly the fact that Democrats are pouncing on this as a way to enact gun control reminds me of a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers. I watched a youngster blame Trump for this tragedy and when asked about the FBI, he pointed it right back at Trump. No mention of the numerous school shootings under Obama where NOTHING was done.


It seems that the other branches of government are part of that process, he did however use his executive actions to implement some policy. Some of which was repealed by Trump. You may want to refresh your memory before making such claims.

Congress blocked Obama's call for new gun laws after mass shootings
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ss-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

Skifffer said:


> It seems that the other branches of government are part of that process, he did however use his executive actions to implement some policy. Some of which was repealed by Trump. You may want to refresh your memory before making such claims.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ss-blocked-obama-call-gun-control-mass-shoot/


You forget that Obama had a majority Democrat House and Senate for much of his term. He used that to enact drastic measures on Global Warming that was such a crisis that the sun didn't come out until 2016. (sarcasm alert) He also shoved Obamacare up the rear end of America...another HUGE farce. He did NOTHING to quell the violence. NO measures to go after people who shouldn't own guns such as the mentally ill, nor any measures to actually ENFORCE existing law...unless you include unlawfully going after Clive Bundy.
He vilified the police and military and generally created the unrest we're in today.
Let's not forget Fast and Furious. Holder should be in jail on that one and Obama had his hands in it too.


----------



## Skifffer (Aug 11, 2016)

photofishin said:


> You forget that Obama had a majority Democrat House and Senate for much of his term. He used that to enact drastic measures on Global Warming that was such a crisis that the sun didn't come out until 2016. (sarcasm alert) He also shoved Obamacare up the rear end of America...another HUGE farce. He did NOTHING to quell the violence. NO measures to go after people who shouldn't own guns such as the mentally ill, nor any measures to actually ENFORCE existing law...unless you include unlawfully going after Clive Bundy.
> He vilified the police and military and generally created the unrest we're in today.
> Let's not forget Fast and Furious. Holder should be in jail on that one and Obama had his hands in it too.


I'm not sure what all the other issues have to do with this one but sir, you are just wrong about the gun control portion. Read this article, if you care to be informed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiesola/2016/01/06/obama-gun-control/#6eeecf623f36


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

Itâ€™s alarming to me how many people seem to really believe itâ€™s not about the guns, the guns havenâ€™t changed, etc. When you look at the US mass murders versus any other country, the only credible distinction is that we have nearly unlimited access to high-capacity, rapid fire weapons. And the numbers of these weapons in the US has exploded in the past decade, right along with the incidence of mass murder.

Sure there are some societal influences such as mental illness, social media, etc, but does anyone really believe these mass murders would have occurred at even a tiny fraction of the current rate if the murderers did not have easy access to such remarkably deadly weapons? Does anyone really believe that the US is uniquely exposed to mental illness, or bad social media influences, or religious differences, or quality parenting? We just simply make it incredibly easy for anyone with a grudge to express it in an incredibly lethal way.

We can all argue all we want about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the efficacy of new laws, and other societal issues, but to deny that the virtually unlimited access to high-capacity guns (call them whatever you want) isnâ€™t the biggest reason for our increase in mass murders is just complete denial. Iâ€™m a gun owner, Iâ€™m a Christian, and Iâ€™m not a Republican or a Democrat (after giving up on both parties). This isnâ€™t about being conservative or liberal, itâ€™s just about plain common sense.

I appreciate that even if we agreed with the main problem, the fix is not an easy one. Sure we can better protect the schools, and we probably should no matter what else we do. But what about all other public and private places? If we harden one type of place they will just go to another as long as they have the weapon access to do gross harm somewhere else. Do we keep hardening every place until we live in a virtual prison? We're going to continue going down a very bad road and with very limited success unless we finally address the real issue.


----------



## JimG (May 2, 2005)

BruceJ, sorry not about the weapon. He was in a gun free zone totally unopposed. Had plenty of time. He could have done the same damage with a lever action deer rifle and two boxes of 30-30... Your focus, however passionate, is on the wrong thing...


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Unfortunately we will probably have to fortify our schools and other soft targets. Maybe a military type presence similar to Israel wherever crowds gather. It is unsettling. Who would've thought one day we need to go to such extremes to protect ourselves from other Americans?


----------



## John Redcorn (Sep 8, 2009)

Bruce J said:


> Itâ€™s alarming to me how many people seem to really believe itâ€™s not about the guns, the guns havenâ€™t changed, etc. When you look at the US mass murders versus any other country, the only credible distinction is that we have nearly unlimited access to high-capacity, rapid fire weapons. And the numbers of these weapons in the US has exploded in the past decade, right along with the incidence of mass murder.
> 
> Sure there are some societal influences such as mental illness, social media, etc, but does anyone really believe these mass murders would have occurred at even a tiny fraction of the current rate if the murderers did not have easy access to such remarkably deadly weapons? Does anyone really believe that the US is uniquely exposed to mental illness, or bad social media influences, or religious differences, or quality parenting? We just simply make it incredibly easy for anyone with a grudge to express it in an incredibly lethal way.
> 
> ...


Amen


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

JimG said:


> BruceJ, sorry not about the weapon. He was in a gun free zone totally unopposed. Had plenty of time. He could have done the same damage with a lever action deer rifle and two boxes of 30-30... Your focus, however passionate, is on the wrong thing...


It would be mildly interesting to see a side by side test of someone firing and reloading a lever action rifle with a couple boxes of shells compared to someone with an AR and a bag full of 30-round magazines. The AR could shoot, what, 10 times as many rounds in the same time? Gotta be a huge difference and that would translate right into the amount of death inflicted if given many targets. There shouldn't be any surprise that virtually all of the more recent mass shootings were with high capacity, rapid fire weapons -and for that obvious reason.


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

Bruce J said:


> It would be mildly interesting to see a side by side test of someone firing and reloading a lever action rifle with a couple boxes of shells compared to someone with an AR and a bag full of 30-round magazines. The AR could shoot, what, 10 times as many rounds in the same time? Gotta be a huge difference and that would translate right into the amount of death inflicted if given many targets. There shouldn't be any surprise that virtually all of the more recent mass shootings were with high capacity, rapid fire weapons -and for that obvious reason.


So where does it stop? Just the AR? all mags over 10rds? 5 rds? No semi's at all? What about Pistols? You can't stop that snowball once it starts.


----------



## JimG (May 2, 2005)

He had plenty of time. Not a race. Not about speed. No one shooting back. My point is this: if someone has intent to kill, the weapon is not the issue. What if the AR's are all gone, and someone walks in with a Glock and ten full mags. Still tragic death. Blame those guns too? 
Folks, it is the anti-depressants that all of these killers were on that is the issue, not the choice of tool.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

It's not the guns fault or anyone else. You could kill a bunch more with a trip to an auto supply and feed store. Should we ban fertilizer, wire and car batteries?


----------



## ralph7 (Apr 28, 2009)

Bruce J said:


> It would be mildly interesting to see a side by side test of someone firing and reloading a lever action rifle with a couple boxes of shells compared to someone with an AR and a bag full of 30-round magazines. The AR could shoot, what, 10 times as many rounds in the same time? Gotta be a huge difference and that would translate right into the amount of death inflicted if given many targets.
> *There shouldn't be any surprise that virtually all of the more recent mass shootings were with high capacity, rapid fire weapons -and for that obvious reason*.


Either that, or the new generation of mass killers wouldn't know how to operate a lever action rifle any more than a 4 speed floor shift.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

They could outlaw the sales of AR's & high capacity mags today...right now !

But...there are millions of AR's already out there, and millions have been sold person to person with no way to track them. Hell, I could buy 50-75 AR's a year off the 2Cool classifieds if I wanted to. There's always a few for sale.

And there are maybe 100 million high capacity mags out there in the real world. That may be a very conservative estimate. 

Point is...even if outlawed there are plenty out there for criminals, and mad men to buy on the street. The Government can NEVER control the criminals, or mad men. The don't follow the laws anyway....how hard is that to understand Liberals ??? But we need more gun laws !!!!

So...what's the plan now Snowflakes ?


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

You can dream up all sorts of ways that people can kill others, and occasionally they choose another means. But the vast, vast majority prefer the high-capacity, easily available weapons for very obvious reasons. Not too many black-powder mass murderers out there.

No one step "solves" the problem, but that doesn't excuse us from taking a few moderate, reasonable steps to do better than what we're doing now, which is absolutely nothing.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Bruce J said:


> You can dream up all sorts of ways that people can kill others, and occasionally they choose another means. But the vast, vast majority prefer the high-capacity, easily available weapons for very obvious reasons. Not too many black-powder mass murderers out there.
> 
> No one step "solves" the problem, but that doesn't excuse us from taking a few moderate, reasonable steps to do better than what we're doing now, which is absolutely nothing.


Nothing ? Really ?

I obey the existing gun laws....99.99% of Americans obey the existing gun laws. But if a person wants to commit a crime, or murder with a gun, they can easily do so by breaking those gun laws.

So...more gun laws, more restrictions on certain guns, and magazines will be to end all solution to gun crimes, & murders (including mass murder) ?

You think the criminals, and mad men will abide by the new laws & restrictions ?


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

Bruce, these horrible episodes are not about the choice of weapon . The same carnage or worse could have beeen inflicted with a shotgun and 00 buck. Or a car driven into a playground. Or a can of gasoline , or a homemade bomb. 
Our schools have been turned into soft targets . Bill Clinton did it, its called the " gun free zone" . Our vetted and trained teachers and staff who have CHL privilges have been legislated out of their right to personal defense, and the defense of others.
There are 300 -400 million guns in this country, many of them , millions perhaps, are owned by felons, and traded or stolen every day. They are not going to disappear, and you cannot have them found and removed from lawful owners. Just not gonna happen. And, lunatics are gonna lunatic.
The only solution is to money up and turn these soft targets into hard targets. Impenetrable. On site LEO , trained and armed teachers and staff. Metal detectors and limited entry controlled access. 
A deranged killer won't stay alive for two seconds after he walks in the school lobby and pulls out a gun . 
Is this going to stop shootings in the parking lot, or the football stadium, or at a track meet? Nope. But we can at least keep them safe inside the building . 
One liberal talking head last night was whining about schools Are supposed to be happy places, and tighter security would " mess that up". The question is, what kind of mess do you want to clean up?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

A homicidal whacked out moron ban would be better.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Liberals always point to Australia as an example of how it could be if firearms were banned. I think Mexico would be a better example of how it could be.


----------



## JimG (May 2, 2005)

Bruce J said:


> You can dream up all sorts of ways that people can kill others, and occasionally they choose another means. But the vast, vast majority prefer the high-capacity, easily available weapons for very obvious reasons. Not too many black-powder mass murderers out there.
> 
> No one step "solves" the problem, but that doesn't excuse us from taking a few moderate, reasonable steps to do better than what we're doing now, which is absolutely nothing.


Name one of those steps...


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

*Knife-wielding attackers kill 29, injure 130 at China train station*

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/01/world/asia/china-railway-attack/index.html

*When are we gonna outlaw sharp knives ?????*


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Bruce J said:


> You can dream up all sorts of ways that people can kill others, and occasionally they choose another means. But the vast, vast majority prefer the high-capacity, easily available weapons for very obvious reasons. Not too many black-powder mass murderers out there.
> 
> No one step "solves" the problem, but that doesn't excuse us from taking a few moderate, reasonable steps to do better than what we're doing now, which is absolutely nothing.


Bo beat me to it.... knife attack in china. Not to mention the several that occurred in Europe and the truck attack. Heck there was one in NY not long ago, that could have been much worse. Do you want hi cap mags banned? Ban ARs? Just ARs? What are your moderate reasonable steps? Do they infringe what shall not be infringed?


----------



## redhead fishin (Aug 27, 2008)

Bruce J said:


> You can dream up all sorts of ways that people can kill others, and occasionally they choose another means. But the vast, vast majority prefer the high-capacity, easily available weapons for very obvious reasons. Not too many black-powder mass murderers out there.
> 
> No one step "solves" the problem, but that doesn't excuse us from taking a few moderate, reasonable steps to do better than what we're doing now, which is absolutely nothing.


Bingo. Donâ€™t let them distract with circular arguments, straw-men and all or nothing comparisons. The thread title is â€œGuns in Americaâ€. Someone can feel free to start a different thread for solving: Knives in China, Shoe Bombers, Truck Bombers, Cross Bow wielding maniacs etc etc etc.


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

It is again just the simple fact that virtually all of these mass murders have taken place with high-capacity weapons. You can all cite an example or two about how someone else was killed or how someone could deploy a shotgun or lever-action rifle if they wanted to. They could smother them all with pillows and are we going to ban all pillows?!? But seriously, how can you dismiss the 99% of the time that in fact they go to the very easily acquired weapon of mass killing to do the job? It's simple, cheap, reliable, deadly and they can get one or many plus all the magazines at any gun show. No background checks, no waiting periods, no magazine limitations, etc.?

Those are some simple steps, but they won't completely solve the problem of course. That's a false goal as no single step could ever solve a problem that is now so deeply entrenched. But that is not an excuse for doing nothing and continuing to point the blame elsewhere.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Gun Control Across The World Only Leads To Acid, Knifings, And Bombings.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/21/gun-control-across-world-leads-acid-knifings-bombings/


----------



## JimG (May 2, 2005)

Well yes, they chose what they thought was the best for their deed. If they could not get one of those, they would choose the next best. 

What are your steps, BruceJ?


----------



## Tom (Jul 14, 2005)

Itâ€™s all the gunâ€™s fault and I have guns all over the house. I hope they donâ€™t come after me some night.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

It's not the guns fault. It is a lot more efficient at killing then knives, homemade bombs, or acid. Full auto would be the most effective. But semi auto or bump stock would be very destructive as well. Is what it is. Crazy people get guns and kill people. No idea how you keep guns out of nut jobs hands without infringing on their rights. Or mine. It is worth trying to figure out tho.


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

JimG said:


> Well yes, they chose what they thought was the best for their deed. If they could not get one of those, they would choose the next best.
> 
> What are your steps, BruceJ?


Sure, they might try something else, but each step gets harder and less lethal. It would be an improvement in our situation. Elimination of the risk is not possible.

I mentioned some of the steps earlier.


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

Bruce J said:


> Sure, they might try something else, but each step gets harder and less lethal. It would be an improvement in our situation. Elimination of the risk is not possible.
> 
> I mentioned some of the steps earlier.


You mentioned background checks, waiting periods, and mag limits. How is that going to change anything?

Planned parenthood kills kids everyday. Why no outrage?


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

Bocephus said:


> Nothing ? Really ?
> 
> I obey the existing gun laws....99.99% of Americans obey the existing gun laws. But if a person wants to commit a crime, or murder with a gun, they can easily do so by breaking those gun laws.
> 
> ...


No! No! & he!! no. But we need to protect our schools right now. 
I don't care what the kids say, but we are responsible to help them and protect them not tomorrow today and everyday.
Its like me taking care of birds. I have to take care of them from demons.
You've seen my post on catching demons trying to kill my flocks.
Same difference. Guess what I use to protect them with? A gun.
I just now went out and used my gun to kill a demon that was rooting up my property. The almighty hog.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Bruce J said:


> It is again just the simple fact that virtually all of these mass murders have taken place with high-capacity weapons. You can all cite an example or two about how someone else was killed or how someone could deploy a shotgun or lever-action rifle if they wanted to. They could smother them all with pillows and are we going to ban all pillows?!? But seriously, how can you dismiss the 99% of the time that in fact they go to the very easily acquired weapon of mass killing to do the job? It's simple, cheap, reliable, deadly and they can get one or many plus all the magazines at any gun show. No background checks, no waiting periods, no magazine limitations, etc.?
> 
> Those are some simple steps, but they won't completely solve the problem of course. That's a false goal as no single step could ever solve a problem that is now so deeply entrenched. But that is not an excuse for doing nothing and continuing to point the blame elsewhere.


The top five list includes one bomb, one pistol, one bolt action gun, and two ARâ€™s. Youâ€™re falling for the media talking points here..

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/an-assault-weapon-ban-wont-stop-mass-sho

â€œYesterday's mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, has predictably provoked renewed calls, long on outrage and short on logic, for a federal ban on so-called assault weapons. "We don't want your prayers," writes New York Daily News columnist Linda Stasi, responding to Donald Trump's post-massacre tweet. "What we want from you right now is to ban assault weapons; we want you to make it impossible for civilians to have AR-15s. Period. We want YOU, elected officials, to stop killing our children while praising God. You know nothing of God, because if you did, you phony liars, you'd stop the killing without question by changing the law."

Americans own something like 15 million AR-15-style rifles, which have been one of the biggest-selling firearm categories during the last decade or so. These guns are almost never used to commit violent crimes. According to the FBI, rifles of all kinds accounted for just 3 percent of firearm homicides in 2016, while handguns accounted for 65 percent. Contrary to what you may have heard, handguns are also by far the most common choice for mass shooters. A Mother Jones review of mass shootings from 1982 through 2012 found that 66 percent of the weapons were handguns, while just 14 percent would qualify as "assault weapons" under the definition used in a 2013 bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). More recent data show a similar pattern.

Politicians, activists, and journalists who have decided to blame mass shootings on "assault weapons" either do not acknowledge these facts or wave them away. "While semi-automatic handguns still account for the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings across the United States," says The Miami Herald, "semi-automatic rifles are increasingly common weapons of choice." How can certain kinds of guns be "weapons of choice" when other guns are chosen much more often?

It is true that the guns Feinstein wants to ban show up more frequently in the modern mass shootings with the highest death tolls. But two points should be kept in mind when considering those attacks.

First, it is clearly possible to carry out attacks similar to yesterday's, which killed 17 people, without using "assault weapons." Nine of the mass shootings with the 20 highest death tolls involved handguns or long guns that are not covered by Feinstein's bill. That includes the third deadliest mass shooting, which killed 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007, as well as two other attacks that killed 17 or more people.

Second, the fact that the perpetrators of the deadliest mass shootings tend to favor "assault weapons" does not mean that choice makes the attacks deadlier than they otherwise would be. That proposition seems pretty doubtful in light of the "assault weapon" definitions used by legislators, which are based on appearance rather than lethality.

The latest version of Feinstein's bill covers any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine if it also has a pistol grip or forward grip, a grenade launcher or rocket launcher, a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel, or a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock. Those features may help explain why some mass shooters like the looks of these guns (just as Feinstein hates the looks of these guns), but they do not explain why one mass shooter kills 10 people while another kills five.

Feinstein's bill does not apply to the millions of "assault weapons" that are already in circulation, so it would not actually "make it impossible for civilians to have AR-15s," as Linda Stasi recommends. But even if the government could magically make all the guns targeted by Feinstein disappear, there is no reason to believe it would have a noticeable impact on the frequency or lethality of mass shootings. The notion that legislators can "stop the killing...by changing the law" is perennially appealing, but it is completely divorced from reality.â€œ


----------



## JimG (May 2, 2005)

I guess I was looking for actual, meaningful, steps. Ones that would do something. I am not trying to a smart alec, nor pick on anyone. But I have been hearing the phrases "common sense gun laws" and "reasonable steps" a lot lately. And no one can explain what it means.


----------



## Rubberback (Sep 9, 2008)

JimG said:


> I guess I was looking for actual, meaningful, steps. Ones that would do something. I am not trying to a smart alec, nor pick on anyone. But I have been hearing the phrases "common sense gun laws" and "reasonable steps" a lot lately. And no one can explain what it means.


It doesn't mean squat.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

Bruce J said:


> Sure, they might try something else, but each step gets harder and less lethal. It would be an improvement in our situation. Elimination of the risk is not possible.
> 
> I mentioned some of the steps earlier.


So, do you intend to confiscate items from those that already own them?


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

So if you donâ€™t think some new controls would have any effect, then do you think manufacturing and selling even more guns in an almost completely unregulated environment will produce a better, safer society? Will that reduce the chances of a bad guy getting a gun and shooting a few dozen people? So far, that experiment has not been working so well for us. We talk about mental illness, but whatâ€™s that definition of insanity again: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result? 

Iâ€™m in favor of taking some steps that will have some effect over time even if we cannot solve the problem overnight. Youâ€™ve all read some of the proposals. I donâ€™t know which ones would be most effective, but they are worthy of consideration and debate. And given our poor performance so far compared to any other country, we have lots of room for improvement. We can hardly fail to get somewhat better by doing almost anything. Again, progress not perfection is the appropriate goal.


----------



## manwitaplan (Dec 9, 2005)

Bruce J said:


> It is again just the simple fact that virtually all of these mass murders have taken place with high-capacity weapons. You can all cite an example or two about how someone else was killed or how someone could deploy a shotgun or lever-action rifle if they wanted to. They could smother them all with pillows and are we going to ban all pillows?!? But seriously, how can you dismiss the 99% of the time that in fact they go to the very easily acquired weapon of mass killing to do the job? It's simple, cheap, reliable, deadly and they can get one or many plus all the magazines at any gun show. No background checks, no waiting periods, no magazine limitations, etc.?
> 
> Those are some simple steps, but they won't completely solve the problem of course. That's a false goal as no single step could ever solve a problem that is now so deeply entrenched. But that is not an excuse for doing nothing and continuing to point the blame elsewhere.


Sir I am not going to argue but your facts are wrong!

Hand guns are the number one weapon:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

Secondly: Have you ever been to a gun show? Have you purchased anything from one? There are dealers, collectors, and your average citizen there to sell and buy. If you buy from a dealer they do checks. Yes you can buy used guns off individuals at the shows. It is not a free for all like you want to believe.

So because of MENTALLY ILL people it should be harder for me to buy guns? Dumb.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

A good step prior to any of us giving up any of our rights lies within this journalism piece. Start here...

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-02-21.html


----------



## John Redcorn (Sep 8, 2009)

manwitaplan said:


> So because of MENTALLY ILL people it should be harder for me to buy guns? Dumb.


Jeez, hate to inconvenience you to save a few lives.


----------



## Trouthappy (Jun 12, 2008)

The police have been militarized and it looks like the schools are next.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

JimG said:


> I guess I was looking for actual, meaningful, steps. Ones that would do something. I am not trying to a smart alec, nor pick on anyone. But I have been hearing the phrases "common sense gun laws" and "reasonable steps" a lot lately. And no one can explain what it means.


I mentioned several:
Have social media organizations actually work with law enforcement to target and weed out people who are showing signs of mental illness...such as threats online, showing weapons in their profiles, continued agitation, drug use etc. (not just one but all or many of the symptoms) Get those folks help... and temporarily remove/ban them from having weapons. Expand background checks to include a national database which allows gun sellers to check if a person has a history of mental illness/violence. Armed security in schools. Long term, build a better society where the family comes first...where morals are followed, children are raised to respect their elders, and where love and discipline are center.

Notice above doesn't mention banning guns/taking away people's 2nd amendment rights. You have to realize the US Constitution is in place for a reason. States like Maryland and California which bastardize the 2nd amendment by taking away magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, require you to register every handgun, that have 10+ day waiting periods etc. have a LOT higher gun violence than other states like Texas. Guns are NOT the problem. Any liberal who starts the conversation talking about "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" automatically shows they have NO CLUE as to what they're talking about and should simply be either educated or told to shut the F up.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

JimG said:


> I guess I was looking for actual, meaningful, steps. Ones that would do something. I am not trying to a smart alec, nor pick on anyone. But I have been hearing the phrases "common sense gun laws" and "reasonable steps" a lot lately. And no one can explain what it means.


To me, the words "common sense" and "reasonable" are catch words being used by the media to promote their side. If you have "common sense", or if you are "reasonable", then you you will support additional gun regulations per them.

Although I think some court rulings have misinterpreted the 1st amendment, I try to understand and appreciate the freedoms we have. Our amendments are there for a reason. If courts are to err, I prefer it to be in the direction of freedom rather than restrictions.

The huge majority of us, law abiding contributors to society, must work together to fight criminals, rather than fight each other. "Common sense gun laws" will rate right along with "Affordable Care Act" as being oxymoron titled legislation.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

John Redcorn said:


> Jeez, hate to inconvenience you to save a few lives.


 Are you an American? Do you believe in the freedoms that our country is founded upon? If so, then taking away the rights of law abiding citizens should concern you. By the way...gun control has NEVER been shown to save lives. If you bring up Australia or Norway or some other tiny country to make your argument, you're even more dumb than other liberals making that same lame argument.


----------



## John Redcorn (Sep 8, 2009)

photofishin said:


> Are you an American? Do you believe in the freedoms that our country is founded upon? If so, then taking away the rights of law abiding citizens should concern you. By the way...gun control has NEVER been shown to save lives. If you bring up Australia or Norway or some other tiny country to make your argument, you're even more dumb than other liberals making that same lame argument.


American here, believer of all things freedom related. Did you read the post I quoted? That would help put my reply in context.


----------



## JimG (May 2, 2005)

photofishin said:


> I mentioned several:
> Have social media organizations actually work with law enforcement to target and weed out people who are showing signs of mental illness...such as threats online, showing weapons in their profiles, continued agitation, drug use etc. (not just one but all or many of the symptoms) Get those folks help... and temporarily remove/ban them from having weapons. Expand background checks to include a national database which allows gun sellers to check if a person has a history of mental illness/violence. Armed security in schools. Long term, build a better society where the family comes first...where morals are followed, children are raised to respect their elders, and where love and discipline are center.
> 
> Notice above doesn't mention banning guns/taking away people's 2nd amendment rights. You have to realize the US Constitution is in place for a reason. States like Maryland and California which bastardize the 2nd amendment by taking away magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, require you to register every handgun, that have 10+ day waiting periods etc. have a LOT higher gun violence than other states like Texas. Guns are NOT the problem. Any liberal who starts the conversation talking about "assault weapons" or "weapons of war" automatically shows they have NO CLUE as to what they're talking about and should simply be either educated or told to shut the F up.


This is a good answer.

One thing I worry about is mental health/psych evaluations. We have to be very careful, I think. Who makes the determination if someone can or canâ€™t have a gun? You donâ€™t trust your government in many ways, are you going to trust them to decree your mental health state? What if you had a trying time in your life, (loss of a loved one, etc.), and sought counseling? Could your government tell you no, you cannot own a gun? What if you were prescribed anti-depressants? Lots of evidence that the shooters were all on these drugs. Could be a reason to deny your rights. What if your ex-wife called you crazy? Is that all it would take to keep you from owning a gun? Just be careful what you wish for, you just might find yourself on the other side of the fenceâ€¦


----------



## manwitaplan (Dec 9, 2005)

John Redcorn said:


> Jeez, hate to inconvenience you to save a few lives.


That liberal way of thinking is what scares me about the voting public. And WHY do you continue to blame the gun? I know, because it is easy. We know what you would like to happen and that is ban all guns.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

Euthanize all mental cases. Euthanize all murderers. Oh wait, that means euthanizing all citizens, because euthanizing mental cases by virtue of a law, makes all citizens murderers. I guess that won't work (just being facetious in light of some of the nutty responses under this thread). 

Maybe try metal detectors and an armed guard, plus CHL/Training of certain administrators/teachers at schools (like what Montgomery County has done at schools)? Works at Courthouses, Gummint buildings and even some workplaces have them in place. The cost is minimal compared to some goofy 'Tag and Watch" proposal that is likely unconstitutional and may lead to what I posted above, plus how many FBI agents would be needed to be hired. Removing 'easy targets' would lessen these cowardly acts of murder. I don't think they can ever be totally stopped-what's to prevent some kid bringing a load of ammonium nitrate and diesel in their car and plowing into a school or for that matter any bldg? A nutcase will find a way to do horrendous things-just like a burglar will bust into a house-it can happen. 

I'm through with this thread.


----------



## Africanut (Jan 15, 2008)

I have read the majority of these posts- and two pink elephants jump out and beg to be recognized.

1. Okay, we toughen the reporting of "mental" health issues into a database of some kind. What tenet do we use to determine a "mental condition"? Someone who lost a loved one and went on some sleeper or serotonin uptake med? Someone who saw one of those nifty info commercials on tv that assault us ad nauseum and endlessly- telling us that we should ask our doctor about the newest drug to hit the market because we have self diagnosed ourselves with the flavor of the month condition that requires it? Who adjudicates the determination that we are a threat to ourselves or others? Your doctor? Most healthcare professionals are of the left leaning position. Just like most welders or oilfield are of the right. Do we form a new alphabet soup agency to make that determination? We know that the present Federal alphabets have no political bias - right? Do we give that power to the cops on a local level. Some would handle it correctly- maybe, but we all know of departments that are agendised- militarized and would go out of their way to make it known that some swat mentality wannabe is the only one that they view of being worthy to have a weapon at all. 

2. Most of the proposals so far is like they are being proposed and are avoiding the obvious taboo. Nobody is willing to utter the worst language of all........
REGISTRATION/ LICENSING.
None of the above would work effectively without it. It wouldn't be worth the paper the law was written on without it. How else would the powers that be come scoop up your weapon after a doctor of alphabet determines you are no longer trustworthy - without being able to identify you even have one? Why when you fill out that 4473 and go thru background- aren't those records destroyed after 90 days?

As much as I hate to say it - if we view this whole thing as actionable - then we have no choice but to make our schools a hard target thru any reasonable means. My kid goes to one of them. His teachers pack- the staff packs- they drill and know how to shoot. I have shot with them. He goes to school and the nasty thought really doesn't cross my mind. It has been like that for five years- they made it National news five years ago and caught hell about it then- seems it may come into vogue now. The reason they did it was because the popo on a good day was 45 minutes away. Most of these things are over in less that five minutes- all the cops in the world would not stop these things unless Krispy Kreme set up in the parking lots of schools on a daily basis. 
Israel does it- we can too. Not the world I would like- but got to break some eggs to make an omelet.


----------



## Ltrichel (Jan 18, 2013)

love this thread, great to see so many different solutions, opinions, and positions on such a sensitive topic. all with reasonable justification, passion, and emotion. last few posts dealt with how do we control.....or consistently execute rulings etc. Some of that control is going on today. Quick story:

Father in law goes to doc at age 96 for check up, overall health is pretty good doc says and asks him what meds he is taking. FIL says he is not sure as his wife MIL gives them to him. Apparently Doc asks some more questions that FIL could not answer. FIL goes home two days later gets a letter from Texas DPS saying his drivers license was revoked and he can no longer legally drive a car. This was the right decision for sure but DPS and no one else was involved in the evaluation other than the doc. So, the concerns expressed by a lot of you are real, what constitutes a 'ineligible state' for gun ownership is a very slippery slop. Convicted felons and other broken laws become the easiest but others not so much.


----------



## HuntinforTail (Mar 29, 2011)

I think most people here aren't addressing apples to apples.

The situation currently being talked about in the media is school shootings that take place when a mentally unstable student quickly and legally obtains a gun that is capable of killing lots of people quickly and brings it into a school. This isn't specifically about ARs. This could mean a shotgun, pistol, etc. Obviously there will be a new talking point at hand depending on the circumstance of the shooting (vegas), but to have an effective debate we should be addressing the topic at hand.

We aren't talking about career criminals or terrorists. No new restrictions or improved security at schools would help with those problems, but that is not what we are talking about here. 

The latest argument I hear many from our side clinging to is arming teachers and securing schools. This has many problems. A kid could still set up outside of the school and shoot into common areas or outdoor areas. Kids could switch to pipe bombs incendiary devices, knives, etc. HISD alone has over 218 schools. One or 2 officers or security guards per school would not be enough to quickly stop a threat before mass casualties. Even 10 wouldn't be enough. I know many school teachers, as my wife is one, many are young women. Arming these young women with concealed carry pistols to combat a prepared attacker and expecting this to work is not a feasible option. They would become the first targets. Many have said that their office buildings have better security than their schools. Most office buildings are built with limited points of entry and don't have the amount of people as a school. Can you imagine all students going through airport security each time they have to enter their school, or even having to badge in to go through doors? Its infeasible and would take all day.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm against any 2nd amendment restrictions, but throwing out these classic media-fed, right wing responses that don't even apply to the situation make us look unsympathetic, unable to think critically and prevent us from having a proper debate.

What could seriously be done to prevent a mentally unstable kid from quickly and legally buying a gun capable of killing lots of people without infringing on our second amendment rights? 

To me, the focus on this situation should be on, the fact that the FBI did not take the proper action when notified, improving school policies on handling suspected troubled students, improving and enforcing background checks, and improving personal sales regulations. I think these all can be accomplished without infringing on our 2nd amendment rights. 

Would I be against increased wait times, licensing, or required training for gun ownership? I don't know. I can see how it would help in situations like this, but I see how it could infringe on our rights and potentially start a snowball effect of regulation. If it was my daughter or son that was killed in one of these shootings that could have been prevented by this, I for sure know what my answer would be.


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

Seems a lot of you pro[posing 'new laws' are forgetting the psycho kid from sandy Hook-he didn't buy a gun-he took Mommy's gun. A nut will do whatever it takes-and they are cowards most of all. Just like the M.E. Terrorists as well as the Boston Marathon bomber terrorists-they will find a way and will inflict harm, whether it be a gun, pressure cooker, pipebomb, ammonium nitrate mix, poison gas, gasoline poured at exits, whatever, how the hell are you going to stop it-you can't-but you can stop making 'easy targets' at schools and fairly simple to do and not so darn expensive to cost billions. 

Now I'm done with this thread.


----------



## Africanut (Jan 15, 2008)

Can anyone please look up the last time a modern school had a kid killed from a fire?


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Africanut said:


> Can anyone please look up the last time a modern school had a kid killed from a fire?


Now exactly 'modern'..but....I remember this one...

http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-new-london-school-explosion/

We can never cover ALL the bases....


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

From 2009-2013, U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 5,100 structure fires in educational properties, annually, which accounts for 1% of all structure fires. These fires caused an annual average of one civilian death, 79 civilian fire injuries and $88 million in direct property damage.


----------



## Africanut (Jan 15, 2008)

ChuChu said:


> From 2009-2013, U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 5,100 structure fires in educational properties, annually, which accounts for 1% of all structure fires. These fires caused an annual average of one civilian death, 79 civilian fire injuries and $88 million in direct property damage.


Thank you.
Now wouldn't it be safe to say that some of those were from criminal acts?
Arson, vandalism, etc?
Anyone care to guess how much percentage wise a modern school spends as part of initial construction cost for fire prevention, hardening of structures, alarms, suppression, etc. ?
Probabably in the millions for a school the size of Parkland.
You know where I am going with this...
Are the fireman doing a better job than the "policemen"?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Africanut said:


> Thank you.
> Now wouldn't it be safe to say that some of those were from criminal acts?
> Arson, vandalism, etc?
> Anyone care to guess how much percentage wise a modern school spends as part of initial construction cost for fire prevention, hardening of structures, alarms, suppression, etc. ?
> ...


An estimated 650 structure fires per year were reported in college classrooms and adult education centers (13%), while an average of 580 structure fires (11%) was reported annually in day care centers.
Intentionally set fires were the leading cause of fires in educational properties taken as a whole, accounting for nearly two of five of fires in these properties (38%).
Almost 30% of the fires in educational properties began in a lavatory or locker room, while 20% of fires began in a kitchen or cooking area.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

JimG said:


> This is a good answer.
> 
> One thing I worry about is mental health/psych evaluations. We have to be very careful, I think. Who makes the determination if someone can or canâ€™t have a gun? You donâ€™t trust your government in many ways, are you going to trust them to decree your mental health state? What if you had a trying time in your life, (loss of a loved one, etc.), and sought counseling? Could your government tell you no, you cannot own a gun? What if you were prescribed anti-depressants? Lots of evidence that the shooters were all on these drugs. Could be a reason to deny your rights. What if your ex-wife called you crazy? Is that all it would take to keep you from owning a gun? Just be careful what you wish for, you just might find yourself on the other side of the fenceâ€¦


what I'm proposing wouldn't be as simple as a single doctor saying he thinks you're crazy. Evidence should be submitted to a judge...it's not difficult to look at the symptoms many/most of these mass shooters possess. It doesn't happen overnight and typically, like the Florida shooter, there is a long history of violent tendencies and behavior exhibited online, in school, in the family etc. Look at the whole picture. There needs to be a formal process where local and national law enforcement works with social media companies and doctors and judges to identify people who match these sorts of characteristics. This doesn't include "Bob" who just got mad because his wife complained about him not taking out the garbage so he went on Facebook and posted a negative comment. This would be targeted at Johnny or Suzy whose parents were never around, who has been in trouble for violence in school, who posts numerous posts about drugs and guns and who has had run ins with the law in the past. We ALL know people who DO and DON'T fit this category. This DOESN'T target law abiding citizens. It DOESN'T violate anyone's civil rights and DOES work to keep people safe. That's what I call common sense.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

John Redcorn said:


> American here, believer of all things freedom related. Did you read the post I quoted? That would help put my reply in context.


I saw EXACTLY what you posted. Hence the reason I asked the question...because you inferred that we invoke laws/rules which cause law abiding citizens to lose their 2nd amendment rights. I'd suggest you look up the term "shall not be infringed" and tell me where it says, except you can only have 10 round magazines or that specific arms are/are not included.
To me, and I defy any lawyer to show real evidence to the contrary...shall not be infringed means EXACTLY what it means. That means if I want to own an AR15 with a 100 round mag and have 50,000 rounds in my garage...legally I can. If I want to own a tank...the 2nd Amendment doesn't state "except for tanks". What we've seen over the years is a bastardization of our civil rights. We either have them or we don't.


----------



## John Redcorn (Sep 8, 2009)

photofishin said:


> I saw EXACTLY what you posted. Hence the reason I asked the question...because you inferred that we invoke laws/rules which cause law abiding citizens to lose their 2nd amendment rights. I'd suggest you look up the term "shall not be infringed" and tell me where it says, except you can only have 10 round magazines or that specific arms are/are not included.
> To me, and I defy any lawyer to show real evidence to the contrary...shall not be infringed means EXACTLY what it means. That means if I want to own an AR15 with a 100 round mag and have 50,000 rounds in my garage...legally I can. If I want to own a tank...the 2nd Amendment doesn't state "except for tanks". What we've seen over the years is a bastardization of our civil rights. We either have them or we don't.


You still must have missed the boat here. My response was to manwitaplan's statement that "so because of mentally ill people it should be harder for me to buy guns? dumb"

The inference here is to make it more difficult to buy guns possibly weeding out the unfit, not deny a sane/legal person the right.


----------



## photofishin (Aug 7, 2009)

John Redcorn said:


> You still must have missed the boat here. My response was to manwitaplan's statement that "so because of mentally ill people it should be harder for me to buy guns? dumb"
> 
> The inference here is to make it more difficult to buy guns possibly weeding out the unfit, not deny a sane/legal person the right.


glad you clarified it in this thread as even reading it again wasn't clear. I agree we need to weed out psychos...we need to also protect everyone's civil rights


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

*To Add*



photofishin said:


> what I'm proposing wouldn't be as simple as a single doctor saying he thinks you're crazy. Evidence should be submitted to a judge...it's not difficult to look at the symptoms many/most of these mass shooters possess. It doesn't happen overnight and typically, like the Florida shooter, there is a long history of violent tendencies and behavior exhibited online, in school, in the family etc. Look at the whole picture. There needs to be a formal process where local and national law enforcement works with social media companies and doctors and judges to identify people who match these sorts of characteristics. This doesn't include "Bob" who just got mad because his wife complained about him not taking out the garbage so he went on Facebook and posted a negative comment. This would be targeted at Johnny or Suzy whose parents were never around, who has been in trouble for violence in school, who posts numerous posts about drugs and guns and who has had run ins with the law in the past. We ALL know people who DO and DON'T fit this category. This DOESN'T target law abiding citizens. It DOESN'T violate anyone's civil rights and DOES work to keep people safe. That's what I call common sense.


To add to your ideas the below is a quote from Dana Loesch...

Signs of a potential school shooter:
1) Tells people online that heâ€™s going to be a school shooter
2) Messages classmates with death threats
3) Parents report that he has â€œput a gun to othersâ€™ heads in past.â€
4) Authorities visit 39 times, 2 FBI tips

And FBI didn't do anything....


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

jomo888 said:


> To add to your ideas the below is a quote from Dana Loesch...
> 
> Signs of a potential school shooter:
> 1) Tells people online that heâ€™s going to be a school shooter
> ...


I like what Greg Gutfield said on Foxâ€¦.from his online blogâ€¦

I say let's make it simple:

We need to harden soft targets. Big companies do this already -- they're surrounded by guards. So should schools. It's a trillion-dollar industry waiting to happen.

Bring back psychiatric hospitals. Right now, they house less than one-tenth of the people they did 60 years ago. A Florida agency looked at this latest creep in 2016, but they let him go. Do you want to bet it was based on space, that he wasn't worth a bed?

We also must slash the media footprint of killers and reduce the appeal for infamy. Creeps obsess over the fame of previous creeps. It's their drug. Let's take away that drug.
We need to think offensively. Instead of asking how do we rig the system to stop perps from getting guns? Ask, how do we tag the perps and keep them from getting guns? We want to get the bad eggs, not the law-abiding ones. You see the difference?

Florida was preventable. The fiend was all red flags, perfect for a database of nuts and perps who shouldn't get guns. This guy had no violent felonies, so a civil tag is what could have nailed him. Based on testimony from cops, students and school officials, a judge could then issue a simple court order.
Rather than defensively cast a wide net that catches tons of fish we don't want, you tag the right people who are placed into one single database along with violent felons. If you're in it, no gun. And if you violate the database, that's mandatory prison time.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)




----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

Trouthappy said:


> The police have been militarized and it looks like the schools are next.


Who gives a **** what the school looks like? I am all for my daughters' school looking like a prison with fences, razorwire, and armed guards if I know it will keep them safe.


----------



## charlie23 (Jan 11, 2005)

An interesting perspective about AR15...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

charlie23 said:


> An interesting perspective about AR15...
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/


No, thats the ballistics of a normal 223. Whether its from a single shot, mini 14, ar15, etc. When you promote the verbiage of " the ar15 did this" it promotes ignorance.

Kinda like its a " assault rifle, gun violence " and all the other media catch phrases.


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

#securetheschools


----------



## Csafisher (Nov 16, 2010)

charlie23 said:


> An interesting perspective about AR15...
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/


Yep great non biased article.... I suppose if the .22 caliber bullet came from a different gun it would not cause as much damage. ARs must make it way worse because they are black and scarey.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Csafisher said:


> Yep great non biased article.... I suppose if the .22 caliber bullet came from a different gun it would not cause as much damage. ARs must make it way worse because they are black and scarey.


. Youâ€™ve got to consider the source here: to somebody used to pistol wounds, yes, itâ€™s a new world. Itâ€™s pretty obvious that theyâ€™ve never seen what a REAL high powered hunting bullet can do, however.

Itâ€™s simply cultural differences: urban ER doctors donâ€™t have the same perspective as ******** like us, and itâ€™s to be expected that they fall for the black-rifle-bad hype theyâ€™re exposed to every day.. if an ER is your only exposure to guns and what they can do, thatâ€™s probably the impression you get.

That guy wouldnt know the difference between a .22lr and a .223 to save his life: military rifle, thus must be amazingly destructive. Thatâ€™s what the military does, after all.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

charlie23 said:


> An interesting perspective about AR15...
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/


Below is from this article....I wonder how many of this Doctor's friends that own AR's have killed others with their AR's ??? How many have committed a mass killing with their AR's ?

The good Doctor want's to take AR's "out of the hands of civilians"...well 99.99999% of those civilians haven't killed anyone with an AR !!!!

*I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport, and fervently defend their right to own them.* But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, to a movie theater, or to a concert and to know that they are safe. Can the answer really be to subject our school children to active shooter drillsâ€"to learn to hide under desks, turn off the lights, lock the door and be silentâ€"*instead of addressing the root cause of the problem and passing legislation to take AR-15-style weapons out of the hands of civilians?*


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

This video is worth the watch. Its shows 99% of every anti gun person ive ever met. They want to ban something they know nothing about. Watch it and try not to shake your head.


----------



## Trouthunter (Dec 18, 1998)

If he thinks that .223 round is bad he should see what my .22-250 can do. Oh wait, it's not an AR-15 and only bullets coming out of one of the evil black rifles do horrible damage to internal organs. 

TH


----------



## hunterjck (Sep 30, 2010)

BAMF32 said:


> Or.....The problem is also the parents of these kids.


Or the lack of parents.
America's entitlements enable the "welfare queens" to hatch broods of kids with absentee dads. Those kids who have no responsible role models grow up under their own set of rules which does not contain respect for others, the rule of law, common decency, the things it takes to form a good citizen.
America should remove the incentive, start a public work program similar to the CCC, permit corporal punishment in schools, homes, prisons, jails. Make lawlessness hurt.


----------



## Sidecutter (May 21, 2004)

Skifffer said:


> First off, I don't blame Trump it's much bigger issue than one person but there is a clear difference between him and Obama on this topic. Obama tried to implement some very reasonable gun control policy and it was rejected. Increase in background checks and not allowing individuals on the no-fly list to buy guns, I mean this is common sense stuff but the NRA benefactors won't have it. Whereas Trump won't even discuss any real strategy to reduce gun violence, only "thoughts and prayers".


IF you remember,Obammmmna had both houses and did not do anything!


----------



## USNHM-DV (Jan 6, 2014)

charlie23 said:


> An interesting perspective about AR15...
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...land-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/


Guess he hasn't treated any 12ga/00 wounds. I would much rather be treating the wounds he was dealing with.


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

The handgun wounds he is treating....shooters must be using some cheap FMJ rounds.

He should see what some of the newest self defense rounds can do to a body.

Definitely not a linear entry/exit path with an easy repair.


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

This just in....we must ban all knives and nurses too!!!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/woman-fatally-stabbed-hunting-knife-public-library-53332864

http://abcnews.go.com/US/nurse-suspected-killing-60-children/story?id=48206847


----------



## Bruce J (Jun 27, 2004)

The doctor in the Atlantic article is describing tissue damage from an AR-15 to that from a 9mm handgun. Heâ€™s not comparing it to a traditional rifle round used in hunting because thatâ€™s not what sends most victims (or hardly any victims) to the ER. He didnâ€™t comment whether the gun was â€œblack and scaryâ€ - thatâ€™s just the hype typically thrown into these arguments. His only professional observation is that the damage from the AR is considerably worse, which he attributes to muzzle velocity.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

172 school districts in Texas allow teachers and staff to carry, with a CHL. Many of the schools post a sign telling a potential shooter that they will be met with deadly force. 
The number of mass shootings at these particular schools. ZERO. 
It's called deterrence, and it's a concept that has worked for 1000 years. At least.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Bruce J said:


> The doctor in the Atlantic article is describing tissue damage from an AR-15 to that from a 9mm handgun. Heâ€™s not comparing it to a traditional rifle round used in hunting because thatâ€™s not what sends most victims (or hardly any victims) to the ER. He didnâ€™t comment whether the gun was â€œblack and scaryâ€ - thatâ€™s just the hype typically thrown into these arguments. His only professional observation is that the damage from the AR is considerably worse, which he attributes to muzzle velocity.


Thank you, captain obvious.

The issue is his insertion of his own two cents into the argument, not his clinical observation.


----------



## jomo888 (Aug 4, 2005)

*Why*



donf said:


> 172 school districts in Texas allow teachers and staff to carry, with a CHL. Many of the schools post a sign telling a potential shooter that they will be met with deadly force.
> The number of mass shootings at these particular schools. ZERO.
> It's called deterrence, and it's a concept that has worked for 1000 years. At least.


This is just good common sense....how long will it take before the rest of the nation follow our 172 school districts policies for shooting deterrence...


----------



## 98aggie77566 (Jul 7, 2009)

The honest truth.....

The majority of Americans do not want a gun in their kiddos school....until their is a gun in the school.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

And these are the same people that have no problem with having 15 police officers, with guns, in the schools. But let one football coach, a CHL holder , volunteer to carry, and it creates a " toxic environment ". 
The school district president , in a rural county here in Texas, stated that law enforcement was 25 minutes away, and we " take care " of school security ourselves.


----------



## Duckchasr (Apr 27, 2011)

WOOWEE This is what we are up against.:flag:


----------

