redtiger 1,742 Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 This story is from San Antonio TX. An off duty police officer stopped a shooting spree before it got out of hand. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html Strange how the national media didnt cover the story. This link talks about an FBI report that says from year to year more people are killed with hammers than rifles(yes that includes evil murderous assault rifles). http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futbolking 766 Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) This story is from San Antonio TX. An off duty police officer stopped a shooting spree before it got out of hand. http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/media-quiet-about-san-antonio-theater-shooting-2524596.html Strange how the national media didnt cover the story. This link talks about an FBI report that says from year to year more people are killed with hammers than rifles(yes that includes evil murderous assault rifles). http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles "evil murderous assault rifles"... as opposed to nice and friendly assault rifles? Why does there have to be 2 polar opposite views....How about this....let people keep their guns...(Oh yeah, nobody's taking them away)...AND quit selling assault rifles.... Why on earth would anybody need an assault rifle? If anybody wants to have an assault rifle of their own, please list the reasons you feel you need one, I would really, honestly like to know. I need it explained to me why it is necessary for the average citizen to own an assault rifle....because I really don't get it. No, I'm not an anti-gun person, have a few myself... Just don't know why anybody would want an assault rifle...please explain. Also, I didn't see anywhere in the article that the gunman that was killed was carrying an assault rifle... My guess would be, if he had an assault rifle, there may have been more fatalaties, so I don't see your point. The gunman was shot by a TRAINED Policewoman...that should be noted as well. Edited January 5, 2013 by futbolking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulldogs52 484 Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 The reason he wasn't talked about is because there wasn't enough there for them rack in the money..... It's a fuck up world when they can show and talk about little children getting murdered and not when someone is a HERO... Because this guy was about to wreck havoc! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,742 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) Im not on the hardcore pro firearms side(I lean that way), just saying that assault rifles arent killing people by the hundreds like some people want to make it seem, and the problem they present isint as widespread as some would make it out to be. The arguement of the anti gun folks is absurd and I believe that this shows how rediculious it is. There are alot of reasons why the average citizen would want to own such a weapon; 1) They are fun to target shoot with(I just shot my cousins AR-15 .22 over the weekend and it was a blast!). 2) we as citizens have an obligation to protect the liberty and freedom of this country from threats, both foreign and domestic. 3) legal ownership of assault rifles poses no legitimate threat to the citizens of this country so the government has no business restricting them. 4) where does it end? My brother owns a semi automatic 30.06, if someone attacks a public place with one of those does it suddenly become a threat to our public safety that should be banned? The 2nd article has nothing to do with assault rifles(my bad for not clarifying). It simply has to do with a 2 things 1) a bad guy with a gun was stopped by a good guy with a gun and 2) to bring up the question of why didnt the media cover this story? which as Bulldogs52 said is one of heroics. We just need to be mindful of what the media choses to or not to show us. She was a offduty police officer and you are right, I should have noted that earlier. I firmly believe thbat the national media doesent give one $#!t about the events in New Town, its just a great way to boost ratings and push an anti firearm agenda. and no, there are no nice friendly assault rifles. They are inanimate objects. Some people push the view that when people see these weapons or hold them that suddenly they have a desire for murder and destruction. Its just a gun. Nothing more, nothing less Edited January 5, 2013 by redtiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeye 32 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Let's be clear about the definition of assault weapons. It varies from state to state and most of the difference's have nothing to do with the increasing the lethality of the system. The one common factor would be extended magazines.<O:p</O:p Under the some of the current proposals my handgun would be labeled as an assault weapon as well as one of my deer rifles. A shotgun that I have been looking at(Mosseberg 590A1) would be banned because it looks "tactical". <O:p</O:pThe so called "assault weapons" are simply semi-automatic weapons capable of handling extended magazines. Black guns have a stigma attached to them that is asinine and politically motivated. As I have stated before, there can be no “compromise” because there is no compromise. Law abiding gun owners simply lose without gaining anything. It also opens the door for more to be taken.<O:p</O:p On the subject of “no one is trying take your guns away”. They sure are and surely will if allowed to. There have been many proposal’s put forth in differing areas that run the full spectrum of gun control and most stop the availability of the weapons. Some do not grandfather the weapon so current owners would have to forfeit the weapon. That is an attempt to take away the right of law abiding citizens to own them.<O:p</O:p Edited January 7, 2013 by Popeye Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parsons 178 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-mulls-broader-gun-control-washington-post-154313906--finance.html WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House is weighing a far broader approach to curbing U.S. gun violence than just reinstating a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. A working group led by Vice President Joseph Biden is seriously considering measures that would require universal background checks for gun buyers and track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, the newspaper said. The measures would also strengthen mental health checks and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the Post said. The approach is backed by law enforcement leaders, it said. President Barack Obama assigned Biden the job of designing the strategy after the massacre at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school last month that killed 20 children and six adults. To sell such changes, the White House is developing strategies to work around the National Rifle Association (NRA), the powerful gun lobby. They include rallying support from Wal-Mart Stores Inc and other gun retailers for measures that would benefit their businesses, the Post said. NEW YORK MAYOR The White House has been in contact with advisers to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate who could emerge as a surrogate for the administration's agenda, the paper said. The Post cited several people involved in the administration's talks on gun control for its story. They included Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum. The White House had no immediate comment on the Post story. A White House spokesman told the newspaper that Biden's group was in the middle of its review and had not decided on its final recommendations. The NRA has successfully lobbied federal lawmakers to stop major new gun restrictions since a 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. The ban also prohibited ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds. When asked if Congress will entertain new gun regulation, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that lawmakers needed to see Biden's recommendations. "There will be plenty of time to take a look at their recommendations once they come forward," he said. McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said that for the next three months Washington's debates would center on federal spending and the rising debt. Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, an NRA member, said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" that the reported proposals were "way in extreme" and would not pass. In a statement, New York Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand urged Biden to include in his proposals measures to prevent trafficking in illegal guns and to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill to get firearms. (Reporting by Ian Simpson and Roberta Rampton. Editing by Sandra Maler) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 INteresting observation. Why is it that the media constantly refers to the horrible incidents as "Shootings," instead of massacres or some other adjective? By changing the language, they change the argument. I am a shooter, I have participated in shootings. I shoot my gun, on a personal firing range, when I finish, I have just completed a shooting. I know that this sounds petty, but in the long run it is part of the argument! A huge part of the argument, that is largely being ignored. Why is it that when a homicidal maniac decides to kill innocent people that he too is referred to as a "shooter?" Why not a KILLER? Why are the actions of these barbarians not referred to as Massacres, killings, etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBlueAlum 12 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 I know that this sounds petty Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucfan64 309 Report Share Posted January 7, 2013 Yep. But in all honesty, changing the verbage, changes the argument and it diverts from the real problem at hand. Killing is a people problem not an inanimate object problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redtiger 1,742 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) It sounds like the steps they are discussing are positive and make more sense than a weapons ban. bucfan64 is right. Its a small point but it makes a huge difference. The stigma attached to black tactical weapons is rediculious and shows a general ignorance of firearms, which imo is the root of this issue. Compare these massacres to the september September 11th attacks. The bad guys used planes to murder innocent people; did we ban airplanes or restrict their use? No, we made it harder for the bad guys to get control of planes. Why cant we take a similar approach in this situation? Edited January 8, 2013 by redtiger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.