Gun Control

[parsons 178]

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. It starts with "assault rifles" then it will move to all semi-automatic weapons (including hand guns), next it will be lever action rifles and pretty soon you will be allowed a pocket .

 

Your attitude is just f'ing wrong and part of what I perceive is wrong with our political system. You are a "slippery slopester" who refuses to consider the obvious and refuses to compromise.

[futbolking 766]

You dont mean that. Sorry I couldnt help myself.

 

I gladly accept anyone elses opnions and as ive said before this website is a site where we can all be open.

 

Parsons, it just seems like capacity is what everyone wants to talk about and while that may reduce the impact of these attacks it will not stop them(im sure you know that). I feel that while this is on everyones mind we need to focus our efforts on trying to address the real issues; mental illness, a general lack of understanding of what a firearm really is and what it really means to kill something. We also need to address selfishness in this country, its always "me me me" and I think that is the evil behind these events.

 

IF stricter firearms regulations were put into place weapons and magazines already owned by citizens would most likley be "grandfathered in", which means the weapons and high capacity magazines already owned would not be seized and thus still avaliable.

 

 

For a further look into the relation between mass shootings and gun control take a look at the Cumbria shootings in Britain in 2010. The shooter killed 11 people and shot 12 more using a double barrell shotgun and a .22 rifle. He didnt have a "assault rifle" or a semi suto pistol. In fact his victims had to cower in fear as he shot at them because due to British gun control laws they were unable to defend themselves.

 

Also look at Columbine. Only 1 weapon using high capacity magazines was used.

 

Like I said, not directed at anybody. Most people I have talked to about this issue seem to have valid points (not just on here, but out in public)...this is a very heated issue right now. It just seems that there are some people who are totally unwilling to see my viewpoint, or as you joked at....want to tell me what I "should" believe... Some people are so extreme on this issue, they don't see any middle ground or compromise.

 

One thing that I know is for sure.....change is needed....it's not going to get any better if nothing is done, or just by sitting and arguing about who is right or who is wrong.

 

Ask our federal government about that...they know all about it.

 

I appreciate your viewpoint and your humor.

[sixcat 2,919]

Maybe we should outlaw crack, pedophiles, and drunk driving.......wait we did that too. I'm almost certain when and if we outlaw assault rifles bad people will obey these laws. I to have children 19 and 21 and I worry EVERY time they get in their cars.Not for fear of the misused assault rifle but the misused auto. IM not in the military and I don't race cars but I have assault rifles and cars that go over 100 MPH (bet you do to) and I don't abuse either one. But people do and have always broke the law. we cannot wave a magic wand and make all assault rifles go away, they will be available for people who don't care about the law. Just like drugs.

 

Based on your logic, maybe we should just go to a marshal law society and remove restrictions on drugs, cars, or any other restriction imaginable.

 

Like I said in the beginning, reasonable solutions. You sir, are not reasonable!

[labrat 17]

For me, there is no debate. I have the means to protect my family and will not surrender that ability to anyone. Please, think things over, make choices to your satisfaction, and live or die with those choices. Many have and many will. Do not, however, expect me to abide by your choices.

[redtiger 1,740]

I believe it is a slippery slope, and while I feel that lowering magazine capacities wont fix the issue I would be willing to go along with it. Although I dont like it and in all honesty it worries me a great deal because I know in my heart for the extreme gun control people it wont be enough and they will continue to push for further restriction.

 

I do think it should be harder to get a assault rifle. Now someone can buy a assault rifle as their 1st firearm. That throws up a red flag for me.

[cwood78 161]

NRA just "shot themselves in the foot".........USA is at the bottom of list of countries reguarding gun control...the RIGHT TO BARE ARMS.... do not think our forfathers ment for it to be like this.............

[sixcat 2,919]

For me, there is no debate. I have the means to protect my family and will not surrender that ability to anyone. Please, think things over, make choices to your satisfaction, and live or die with those choices. Many have and many will. Do not, however, expect me to abide by your choices.

 

How do you know what my choices are? I too, protect my family with a gun. I just simply believe it doesn't have to be nor does it need to be an arsenal fitting an invasion of Iraq!

 

Again, REASONABLE!

[cwood78 161]

i was in norton wal mart yesterday......the gun section....well lets say, was packed with potential buyers.. i"d bet the farm most, if not all of them already had more guns than they needed.....

[parsons 178]

I believe it is a slippery slope.......

 

I get so sick of hearing that phrase and seeing politicians on both the left and the right taking that position. Sometimes in order to achieve a better society we have to compromise a little.

[land_rider 30]

Yes futbolking is right NOBODY needs assault rifles.........NOBODY. Come to think of it NOBODY needs a automobile that will do 100+ MPH right off the lot ether........NOBODY. We buy these things because we WANT them. And i'm willing to bet my next paycheck (which will be quite nice by the way) that the misused auto kills more than the misused assault rifle. We should post speed limits, wait we already did that. Damn law breakers.

 

Couldn't have said it any better!

[frontierman95 10]

Couldn't have said it any better!

 

The point is that in all the amendments dealing with rights (the first 10, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, etc.) dealing with rights is that you can't have your cake and eat it too sometimes. If you want freedom of speech, then you have to have freedom of speech. If you want freedom of religion, then you have to have freedom of religion. If you don't want quartering of troops, then you don't want quartering of troops. It really is as simple as what it sounds. The point is that when you let the government senor your rights it becomes a generational thing. My generation will not be allowed to own "assault weapons". My children's generation will not be allowed to own guns that hold more than 1 round. My grandchildren will not be allowed to own any guns. Study the history of slavery....the first Africans in this country (Jamestown era) were not slaves. Once the population outnumbered whites then rights started getting stripped until they entered involuntary servitude.

 

Jefferson said "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms". This guy in CT used illegal guns. He shot his mom in the face and stole her guns. I am in agreement with the confusion over the .223 being a high power round.

[parsons 178]

Once the population outnumbered whites then rights started getting stripped until they entered involuntary servitude..

 

Who wrote your history books?

[frontierman95 10]

Who wrote your history books?

 

The same as everyone else's. (See Anthony Johnson).

[labrat 17]

How do you know what my choices are? I too, protect my family with a gun. I just simply believe it doesn't have to be nor does it need to be an arsenal fitting an invasion of Iraq!

 

Again, REASONABLE!

 

I don't know your choices. Don't need to. Don't want to. Situational defense is a complex issue, deserving of much thought and planning. I choose to go about in a balanced manner, neither an emotionally driven chicken little nor an ultra paranoid unable to exist in reality. I want you to freely make your choices, live a long life, and be successful. I only ask that others afford me the same consideration. I think that is reasonable. Merry Christmas to you and yours. Have safe and joyful New Year. Of course, these wishes go out to everyone associated with this wonderful site, which I enjoy year round.

[redtiger 1,740]

I get so sick of hearing that phrase and seeing politicians on both the left and the right taking that position. Sometimes in order to achieve a better society we have to compromise a little.

 

Im willing to compromise, make no mistake im not a "I want a rocket launcher" crowd. Make it harder to get assault rifles and high capacity pistol magazines. I have no problem with that. Make someone wait 18 months-2 years after buying their 1st firearm before they are allowed to purchase these items. Thats fine with me. Thats compromise.

 

But anyone who thinks that will solve the issue of evil people murdering innocent people is wrong. Read a report detailing the shootings at Columbine and you will notice something, the 2 shooters stopped several times to reload(making magazine capacity irrelevant) . What did the people inside the school do? Cower in fear, waiting for someone to save them. And the police who were supposed to show up and protect them waited outside, I assume waiting to make sure it was safe to before entering(not saying the police acted wrongly, just that it isint an effective strategy).

 

Its a fact that in the past 5 years gun ownership has gone up and gun violence has gone down, so I see no need to restrict guns. I simply dont see the coorelation between assault weapons/high capacity magazines and gun violence. and for the record I do not own an assault rifle.

 

I will predict what will happen when we make it hard for these murderous individuals to get their firearms into schools to commit these acts. They will begin attacking school buses with pipe bombs and molotov cocktails(this is insensitive but if murder is your goal then this is the way to go, lots of people in a small space). What are we gonna do then? Ban gasoline and glass bottles, black powder and steel pipe?

 

from my point of view all of this is irrelevant and doesent present a real solution to preventing or atleast stemming these attacks.

 

Parsons, what is your suggestion to prevent school shootings?

Edited December 22, 2012 by redtiger

[trumpet1988 289]

Im willing to compromise, make no mistake im not a "I want a rocket launcher" crowd. Make it harder to get assault rifles and high capacity pistol magazines. I have no problem with that. Make someone wait 18 months-2 years after buying their 1st firearm before they are allowed to purchase these items. Thats fine with me. Thats compromise.

 

But anyone who thinks that will solve the issue of evil people murdering innocent people is wrong. Read a report detailing the shootings at Columbine and you will notice something, the 2 shooters stopped several times to reload(making magazine capacity irrelevant) . What did the people inside the school do? Cower in fear, waiting for someone to save them. And the police who were supposed to show up and protect them waited outside, I assume waiting to make sure it was safe to before entering(not saying the police acted wrongly, just that it isint an effective strategy).

 

Its a fact that in the past 5 years gun ownership has gone up and gun violence has gone down, so I see no need to restrict guns. I simply dont see the coorelation between assault weapons/high capacity magazines and gun violence. and for the record I do not own an assault rifle.

 

I will predict what will happen when we make it hard for these murderous individuals to get their firearms into schools to commit these acts. They will begin attacking school buses with pipe bombs and molotov cocktails(this is insensitive but if murder is your goal then this is the way to go, lots of people in a small space). What are we gonna do then? Ban gasoline and glass bottles, black powder and steel pipe?

 

from my point of view all of this is irrelevant and doesent present a real solution to preventing or atleast stemming these attacks.

 

Parsons, what is your suggestion to prevent school shootings?

I personally could not have said it better.

[old_school_blue 247]

Your attitude is just f'ing wrong and part of what I perceive is wrong with our political system. You are a "slippery slopester" who refuses to consider the obvious and refuses to compromise.

 

How is my attitutde got anything to do with the politcal system? And wrong? That is my opinion and I am entitled to it. I have considered the obvious, have you? There are, always have been, and will always be, EVIL people in this world. Reducing the amount of ammunition in my magazine or the number or type of firearms that I possess will not change that. I do not consider myself a "slopester", only a realist. I do not possess an arsenal of weapons or a rocket launcher. I do own an AR-15. That weapon is used as predator gun (coyote, bobcat, feral hog.) I am a father. And the thought that this could happen once breaks my heart. The thoughts of it happening again scares the hell out of me.

 

If the sale of this type of weapon is banned, it will not guarantee that this weapon will not be used for evil again. There of thousands of these weapons out there. And forget about trying to seize these weapons back. A great portion of people that own these weapons are Law Enforcement. These guys aren't going to turn in their weapons. And they will be charged will collecting others' legally owned weapons? Don't think so.

 

 

I do think that every firearm in this country should be registered. I do agree with criminal background checks and any precaution we can take to keep weapons away from the mentally impaired or the downright evil. I also feel that we should take every step necessay in making our schools safer. That would start AT THE SCHOOLS and not in the sporting goods department.

 

And refusal to compromise? I choose not to compromise with my freedom and the rights that I am guaranteed in this country. I also choose not to compromise with the safety of my family. You should be more aware of what you "compromise."

[redtiger 1,740]

Well put old school blue.

Edited December 24, 2012 by redtiger

[ISOaPBR 15]

Im willing to compromise, make no mistake im not a "I want a rocket launcher" crowd. Make it harder to get assault rifles and high capacity pistol magazines. I have no problem with that. Make someone wait 18 months-2 years after buying their 1st firearm before they are allowed to purchase these items. Thats fine with me. Thats compromise.

 

But anyone who thinks that will solve the issue of evil people murdering innocent people is wrong. Read a report detailing the shootings at Columbine and you will notice something, the 2 shooters stopped several times to reload(making magazine capacity irrelevant) . What did the people inside the school do? Cower in fear, waiting for someone to save them. And the police who were supposed to show up and protect them waited outside, I assume waiting to make sure it was safe to before entering(not saying the police acted wrongly, just that it isint an effective strategy).

 

Its a fact that in the past 5 years gun ownership has gone up and gun violence has gone down, so I see no need to restrict guns. I simply dont see the coorelation between assault weapons/high capacity magazines and gun violence. and for the record I do not own an assault rifle.

 

I will predict what will happen when we make it hard for these murderous individuals to get their firearms into schools to commit these acts. They will begin attacking school buses with pipe bombs and molotov cocktails(this is insensitive but if murder is your goal then this is the way to go, lots of people in a small space). What are we gonna do then? Ban gasoline and glass bottles, black powder and steel pipe?

 

from my point of view all of this is irrelevant and doesent present a real solution to preventing or atleast stemming these attacks.

 

Parsons, what is your suggestion to prevent school shootings?

 

 

I agree.

There are 300 million firearms in the US. They're not going away. There are highly intelligent, psychopathic, homicidal/suicidal people in the US. They aren't going away either (thank the ACLU in part for that).

The magazine argument is ridiculous in that a shooter will carry as much ammo as he wants, whether in 30-round mags or many more 10-round mags.

Gun-free zones are ridiculous. They are unarmed target zones.

Gun confiscation or buy-backs are ridiculous. Even if the left could magically make everything with a firing pin disappear, there will still be psychopaths who will do harm to others and themselves by simply hitting the Internet for 'How to make a IED/car bomb/etc.

In Carroll County every school has a resource officer. Most are sheriff's deputies, at least one is a retired state trooper. Most have their cruisers parked in front of the school. They carry sidearms.

There is your deterrent.

Somebody can still force their way into a school and start shooting, but the deaths and injuries will be diminished, if not prevented, by having an armed police officer on-site to begin with.

The mainstream media's screed has been about all the mass shootings. None have talked about the potential mass shootings stopped by either an armed officer or a person with a concealed carry permit on site.

I'd suggest you go to anncoulter.com and read her latest column for numerous examples on this.

Me? I'm taking my CC course next week.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

I agree.

There are 300 million firearms in the US. They're not going away. There are highly intelligent, psychopathic, homicidal/suicidal people in the US. They aren't going away either (thank the ACLU in part for that).

The magazine argument is ridiculous in that a shooter will carry as much ammo as he wants, whether in 30-round mags or many more 10-round mags.

Gun-free zones are ridiculous. They are unarmed target zones.

Gun confiscation or buy-backs are ridiculous. Even if the left could magically make everything with a firing pin disappear, there will still be psychopaths who will do harm to others and themselves by simply hitting the Internet for 'How to make a IED/car bomb/etc.

In Carroll County every school has a resource officer. Most are sheriff's deputies, at least one is a retired state trooper. Most have their cruisers parked in front of the school. They carry sidearms.

There is your deterrent.

Somebody can still force their way into a school and start shooting, but the deaths and injuries will be diminished, if not prevented, by having an armed police officer on-site to begin with.

The mainstream media's screed has been about all the mass shootings. None have talked about the potential mass shootings stopped by either an armed officer or a person with a concealed carry permit on site.

I'd suggest you go to anncoulter.com and read her latest column for numerous examples on this.

Me? I'm taking my CC course next week.

 

There was an armed officer on duty inside Columbine.

[Popeye 32]

The officer at Columbine was assigned but not on the grounds at the time. He returned and did engage one of the shooters but was outside the building.

[redtiger 1,740]

How do almost all of these shootings end? one way or another the shooter is shot and killed. I honestly think its that simple.

 

A deeper question is why do these individuals target schools(I know in many cases they are students)? I think its because in the school there is no one to stop them. No one has a firearm so for 10 minutes they are the master of their world, they are in control. And thats not crazy, we all desire to be in control of our lives. The question is, how does that need and want get twisted into murder to gain power? Thats what we need to address

[BigBlueAlum 12]

The officer at Columbine was assigned but not on the grounds at the time. He returned and did engage one of the shooters but was outside the building.

 

You are right, I was mistaken. I thought he was actually on duty inside the school. However, that would still be a scenario that would likely be unavoidable.

 

While I don't think having an armed officer in each school is a bad idea, I'm not sure it would be effective in deterring people that already intend to kill many people, usually including themselves. Much more would need to be done in order to make schools safe. An officer in each school would only be a starting point.

[parsons 178]

I agree.

The magazine argument is ridiculous in that a shooter will carry as much ammo as he wants, whether in 30-round mags or many more 10-round mags.

 

Tell that to the 6 people killed and 14 who were wounded in Tucson. Jared Loughner used a Glock 19 with a 33 round magazine and was not wrestled to the ground until he had emptied the magazine and was trying to reload. Ask any of the witnesses to that shooting if a smaller capacity magazine would have made a difference. Had he been using 10 round magazines Loughner would have had to reload 3 times to fire the same amount of rounds.

Edited December 26, 2012 by parsons

[parsons 178]

How is my attitutde got anything to do with the politcal system? And wrong?

 

It starts with "assault rifles" then it will move to all semi-automatic weapons (including hand guns), next it will be lever action rifles and pretty soon you will be allowed a pocket knife only.

 

My issue with your attitude is that it is a good example of the slippery slope fallacy which I find our representatives in government adopting more and more often these days. It basically leaves us being governed by two extremes who refuse to find a reasonable and logical middle ground.