Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sadolph

gun control bs.

Recommended Posts

Dude, no wonder you post the way you do, you married a redhead!

 

Good choice if you can hang on. Looks like you done a good job so far.

 

Uhm?.....that's our daughter...... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll.... great jeans... I mean genes.:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll.... great jeans... I mean genes.:blink:

 

To dispel any further confusion, The Nurse.

 

 

RoadTrip2011part2115.jpg

 

 

 

And trust me, Pal, I know that I married and procreated waaaaaaaaay the fuk out of my caste..... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

That's a nice Sig - what did you think of the optics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

 

 

Weasley, I noticed you didn't mention a thing about personal responsibility.

 

Murdering someone, as you say "in cold blood", is not a direct outcome of the availability of a gun. It is the product of a mind that has not been properly guided.

 

It's not the gun, it's the bullet.

With all due respect Footlong, its neither the gun or bullet. They are inanimate, its the guy holding the gun/firearm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

outlaw pointed sticks and sharp tongues. They kill more often than guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a nice Sig - what did you think of the optics?

 

Ain't our Sig, belonged to some real nice good olde boys in S/Carolina. When they found out where we were from, they got even nicer and let us have carte blanche with it.

 

As far as the scope goes, it was one of the miltary scopes that had those nasty Bible passages on it that people were whining about a couple of years ago. I don't have enough experience yet to know good glass from bad glass, but I had absolutely zero problem splitting clays in half at a hundred yards. Clays that were laying flat. Frickin thing was stupid accurate..... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B-n-Law had his Ruger 17 out on Saturday. Double bullseye at 50 yards and only got two bulls ears at 100 yards in five round clusters.

 

Love that gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

013.jpg

 

Is that really the hottest chick you can get?......

 

Yeah, well ever since I bought this farking gun anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

013.jpg

 

Is that really the hottest chick you can get?......

 

Yeah, well ever since I bought this farking gun anyway.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

013.jpg

 

Is that really the hottest chick you can get?......

 

Yeah, well ever since I bought this farking gun anyway.

+1

 

 

 

You two don't like guns, ergo, no one in Oztralia can enjoy guns.

 

Gotcha.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was commenting on cause not effect.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

013.jpg

 

Is that really the hottest chick you can get?......

 

Yeah, well ever since I bought this farking gun anyway.

+1

 

 

 

You two don't like guns, ergo, no one in Oztralia can enjoy guns.

 

Gotcha.....

 

The linkage in their minds is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

 

Beg to differ. Care to elaborate?

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

But here's some convoluted logic: guns are trouble and US guns fuel the trouble in NA and even Mexico, but let's proliferate guns anyway in our stressed-out society.

Because the killing problem is the people, not the convenience and distance you find in our ready firearms.

 

Cue the discussion of automobile danger, a red herring if there ever was one.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was commenting on cause not effect.

 

Sorry Honey, but every time I pull the trigger, my uli self enlargerates......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Sure, that's what Chicago, DC, and NYC do. At least, with regard to those who feel like participating.

 

But let us assume we had a consensus that, at least to start with, all civilian owned handguns must be turned in, excepting flintlock or caplock single-shot replicas, as well as any centerfire rifle or shotgun other than a pump or bolt action or which can fire more than 3 rounds before reloading, and any rimfire rifle that can discharge more than 7 rounds without reloading. So what's the plan? How does the government round them up? Keep in mind that we're not the UK, nor Canada, where people are better at complying with what they're told to do by their government.

 

Please be specific and propose only those measures & procedures you believe will work, not mere theoretical, Utopian, "in a perfect world" type dreams. Think "enforcement". What's the plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

013.jpg

 

Is that really the hottest chick you can get?......

 

Yeah, well ever since I bought this farking gun anyway.

+1

 

 

 

You two don't like guns, ergo, no one in Oztralia can enjoy guns.

 

Gotcha.....

Never said I didn't like guns, just saying i prefer some control. That and it was a funny post, cause some of you lot sound like swan70 with his corvette.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You two don't like guns, ergo, no one in Oztralia can enjoy guns.

 

Gotcha.....

Never said I didn't like guns, just saying i prefer some control. That and it was a funny post, cause some of you lot sound like swan70 with his corvette.

 

 

Dude, trust me, we HAVE controls. In fact I've passed more than a dozen Federal background checks just in the past 10 months. I couldn't be any more fuking 'cuntrolled' if I tried....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

 

Rick, you just answered a question with a question.

I was asking about your pretzel logic analogy, please. Focus.

 

If gun freedom works in Switzerland, fine with me. Do we live there? Do the Aussies?

Maybe the problem is our cowboy genes and our chest-beating, our entitled way of seeing things.

Was there another gun incident in a school today? Does this seem to be working to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

You two don't like guns, ergo, no one in Oztralia can enjoy guns.

 

Gotcha.....

Never said I didn't like guns, just saying i prefer some control. That and it was a funny post, cause some of you lot sound like swan70 with his corvette.

 

 

Dude, trust me, we HAVE controls. In fact I've passed more than a dozen Federal background checks just in the past 10 months. I couldn't be any more fuking 'cuntrolled' if I tried....

I don't think background checks are a bad thing. Also limiting what you can purchase. No one here should need a hand gun here, just the cops to shoot those using guns to commit crime.

 

My folks have a hundred acres, and need a rifle occasionally. Filled out the forms etc. and bought the appropriate firearm for their needs, a single shot .22 which is all they need. I used my dads rifle the other day to kill a fox that was killing there chickens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

 

Rick, you just answered a question with a question.

I was asking about your pretzel logic analogy, please. Focus.

 

If gun freedom works in Switzerland, fine with me. Do we live there? Do the Aussies?

Maybe the problem is our cowboy genes and our chest-beating, entitled way of seeing things.

 

 

So, have you actually viewed the video posted earlier regarding the Swiss approach to crime control? When you refer to "gun freedom" in Switzerland, that kinda tells me you haven't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

 

Rick, you just answered a question with a question.

I was asking about your pretzel logic analogy, please. Focus.

 

If gun freedom works in Switzerland, fine with me. Do we live there? Do the Aussies?

Maybe the problem is our cowboy genes and our chest-beating, entitled way of seeing things.

 

 

So, have you actually viewed the video posted earlier regarding the Swiss approach to crime control? When you refer to "gun freedom" in Switzerland, that kinda tells me you haven't.

 

 

He must have missed the part where they say that your name is not Rick..... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

 

Your incompetence in international issues is showing Oldgoatroper.

 

Switzerland exists between some of the most war-prone nations in history. Italy, Germany, Austria and France. Their domestic policy, for centuries, has been to fortify themselves as much as possible in order to be able to withstand an onslaught should some other country try to take over or use them as a highway into another country. The countryside is filled with hidden bunkers, tunnels, etc for the population to make themselves safe in, to mount a resistance/defense and to effectively make the country into a mountain-bound fortress. The government mandate for people to own a rifle is simply another part of this plan for defense and those guns are mostly locked up and not used.

 

Some reading for you before you shoot your mouth off again: http://en.wikipedia....t_(Switzerland)

 

Edit: More reading about their compulsory gun ownership: http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland

The guns & ammo that are issued are frequently checked to ensure that they have not been used in an unauthorized way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

 

Your incompetence in international issues is showing Oldgoatroper.

 

Switzerland exists between some of the most war-prone nations in history. Italy, Germany, Austria and France. Their domestic policy, for centuries, has been to fortify themselves as much as possible in order to be able to withstand an onslaught should some other country try to take over or use them as a highway into another country. The countryside is filled with hidden bunkers, tunnels, etc for the population to make themselves safe in, to mount a resistance/defense and to effectively make the country into a mountain-bound fortress. The government mandate for people to own a rifle is simply another part of this plan for defense and those guns are mostly locked up and not used.

 

Some reading for you before you shoot your mouth off again: http://en.wikipedia....t_(Switzerland)

 

Edit: More reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

The guns&ammo that are issued are frequently checked to ensure that they have not been used in an unauthorized way.

 

Of course, I know this. And you can get off your phuquing high horse and be civil about this.

 

 

Why would it matter what the primary reason for the mandate of arms is? The effect on the crime rate still remains dramatic.

 

Are you saying the crime rate is amongst the lowest on the planet for completely unrelated reasons?

 

Or are you saying that gun crime rates have nothing to do with availability of guns but rather it has to do with people's sense of personal responsibility? (i.e. "The guns&ammo that are issued are frequently checked to ensure that they have not been used in an unauthorized way.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you high? Of course it's a direct outcome of the availability of a gun.

 

 

OK, this is important. When my pop was a kid (1940's, and there was a war on) he and his buds could get on a school bus with a rifle, turn it in to the gym teacher, shoot during gym class, and take the bus home with it. And no one got hurt.

 

I'm not about to advocate that kids go back to packing rifles for gym class, not with the inbred lack of personal responsibility from which we in the current age suffer in this country. My question is - if availability is the issue, why were there no school shootings (or not on any scale that I can determine) and why do we have them now, when it's a whole lot more difficult to purchase a firearm than it was in the earlier half of the 20th century?

 

How did my elders keep from shooting each other up over parking spaces and where the neighbor's dog takes a crap, back when I was half your age and people could buy a handgun or a rifle out of the back of a magazine? More important, how is it that the Swiss REQUIRE that every man of age keep a fully-automatic weapon and a store of ammunition in the home, and they don't have public murders left and right? May be - just may be - their culture doesn't permit the sort of shit we do here. They actually rear their children into adults.

I remember taking my .22 Marlin Bolt rifle to 7th grade show-n-tell. No one died, the school didn't go into lock down, no one freaked out. Surprisingly, gun technology hasn't changed hardly a fraction in 40 years - you could buy the exact same AR-15s with 30 round mags, automatic handguns, etc back then.

 

What changed??? It's people who changed - not the guns. Guns were dangerous and plentiful back then. They were MUCH easier to get - you could walk into any Ace hardware store and buy any gun you wanted. People are the one's who've changed in the past 30-40 years.... People are the problem, not the tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you high? Of course it's a direct outcome of the availability of a gun.

 

 

OK, this is important. When my pop was a kid (1940's, and there was a war on) he and his buds could get on a school bus with a rifle, turn it in to the gym teacher, shoot during gym class, and take the bus home with it. And no one got hurt.

 

I'm not about to advocate that kids go back to packing rifles for gym class, not with the inbred lack of personal responsibility from which we in the current age suffer in this country. My question is - if availability is the issue, why were there no school shootings (or not on any scale that I can determine) and why do we have them now, when it's a whole lot more difficult to purchase a firearm than it was in the earlier half of the 20th century?

 

How did my elders keep from shooting each other up over parking spaces and where the neighbor's dog takes a crap, back when I was half your age and people could buy a handgun or a rifle out of the back of a magazine? More important, how is it that the Swiss REQUIRE that every man of age keep a fully-automatic weapon and a store of ammunition in the home, and they don't have public murders left and right? May be - just may be - their culture doesn't permit the sort of shit we do here. They actually rear their children into adults.

I remember taking my .22 Marlin Bolt rifle to 7th grade show-n-tell. No one died, the school didn't go into lock down, no one freaked out. Surprisingly, gun technology hasn't changed hardly a fraction in 40 years - you could buy the exact same AR-15s with 30 round mags, automatic handguns, etc back then.

 

What changed??? It's people who changed - not the guns. Guns were dangerous and plentiful back then. They were MUCH easier to get - you could walk into any Ace hardware store and buy any gun you wanted. People are the one's who've changed in the past 30-40 years.... People are the problem, not the tool.

 

 

So, so, so what you're saying, Jeff....is that...maybe,just maybe...we need.....stricter....people control laws?... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

 

Your incompetence in international issues is showing Oldgoatroper.

 

Switzerland exists between some of the most war-prone nations in history. Italy, Germany, Austria and France. Their domestic policy, for centuries, has been to fortify themselves as much as possible in order to be able to withstand an onslaught should some other country try to take over or use them as a highway into another country. The countryside is filled with hidden bunkers, tunnels, etc for the population to make themselves safe in, to mount a resistance/defense and to effectively make the country into a mountain-bound fortress. The government mandate for people to own a rifle is simply another part of this plan for defense and those guns are mostly locked up and not used.

 

BTW - Wesley you douche.... it sounds EXACTLY like what the 2nd Am was written for.

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

Doesn't sound like the Swiss are scared of citizens owning and keeping guns. Why should we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you high? Of course it's a direct outcome of the availability of a gun.

 

 

OK, this is important. When my pop was a kid (1940's, and there was a war on) he and his buds could get on a school bus with a rifle, turn it in to the gym teacher, shoot during gym class, and take the bus home with it. And no one got hurt.

 

I'm not about to advocate that kids go back to packing rifles for gym class, not with the inbred lack of personal responsibility from which we in the current age suffer in this country. My question is - if availability is the issue, why were there no school shootings (or not on any scale that I can determine) and why do we have them now, when it's a whole lot more difficult to purchase a firearm than it was in the earlier half of the 20th century?

 

How did my elders keep from shooting each other up over parking spaces and where the neighbor's dog takes a crap, back when I was half your age and people could buy a handgun or a rifle out of the back of a magazine? More important, how is it that the Swiss REQUIRE that every man of age keep a fully-automatic weapon and a store of ammunition in the home, and they don't have public murders left and right? May be - just may be - their culture doesn't permit the sort of shit we do here. They actually rear their children into adults.

I remember taking my .22 Marlin Bolt rifle to 7th grade show-n-tell. No one died, the school didn't go into lock down, no one freaked out. Surprisingly, gun technology hasn't changed hardly a fraction in 40 years - you could buy the exact same AR-15s with 30 round mags, automatic handguns, etc back then.

 

What changed??? It's people who changed - not the guns. Guns were dangerous and plentiful back then. They were MUCH easier to get - you could walk into any Ace hardware store and buy any gun you wanted. People are the one's who've changed in the past 30-40 years.... People are the problem, not the tool.

 

 

So, so, so what you're saying, Jeff....is that...maybe,just maybe...we need.....stricter....kid control laws?... :lol:

 

It all went to hell in a handbasket when they outlawed corporal punishment in schools, time to get biblical with the little monsters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No shit, Timo. Bring back auto shop, wood shop, metal shop, print shop, electronics shop, ceramics classes, home ec, et al to high schools again, and I garan-f'ng-tee-u that not only will the crime rate drop, but that the little pussified 'psyche counselors' will go out of business......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

 

Your incompetence in international issues is showing Oldgoatroper.

 

Switzerland exists between some of the most war-prone nations in history. Italy, Germany, Austria and France. Their domestic policy, for centuries, has been to fortify themselves as much as possible in order to be able to withstand an onslaught should some other country try to take over or use them as a highway into another country. The countryside is filled with hidden bunkers, tunnels, etc for the population to make themselves safe in, to mount a resistance/defense and to effectively make the country into a mountain-bound fortress. The government mandate for people to own a rifle is simply another part of this plan for defense and those guns are mostly locked up and not used.

 

Some reading for you before you shoot your mouth off again: http://en.wikipedia....t_(Switzerland)

 

Edit: More reading about their compulsory gun ownership: http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland

The guns & ammo that are issued are frequently checked to ensure that they have not been used in an unauthorized way.

 

Jeffs right, you really are a Douchebag.

Shut the fuck up and go back to the kids table, the adults are talking here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No shit, Timo. Bring back auto shop, wood shop, metal shop, print shop, electronics shop, ceramics classes, home ec, et al to high schools again, and I garan-f'ng-tee-u that not only will the crime rate drop, but that the little pussified 'psyche counselors' will go out of business......

Not taking the piss. Do you not have them at high schools anymore?

 

We had all that plus several acres of agricultural land at my high school, it even is a registered cattle stud. Just read they have just opened a fully functioning espresso cafe in the home ec lab, to train up budding baristas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No shit, Timo. Bring back auto shop, wood shop, metal shop, print shop, electronics shop, ceramics classes, home ec, et al to high schools again, and I garan-f'ng-tee-u that not only will the crime rate drop, but that the little pussified 'psyche counselors' will go out of business......

Not taking the piss. Do you not have them at high schools anymore?

 

We had all that plus several acres of agricultural land at my high school, it even is a registered cattle stud. Just read they have just opened a fully functioning espresso cafe in the home ec lab, to train up budding baristas.

 

Not sure, Dreads----but all I know is back in the 70's & 80's we had all of that stuff available, very cheaply....and life was frickin good. Today? Computer classes and tofu sucking seems to be all that's left. It's f'd up here (at least in Kali), and I still can't quite figure out why....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread? Meet Legs..... :lol:

 

I've got only one member on ignore (gaytor) and at least most members don't quote him so it sorta works.

 

Unfortunately thats not gonna work with this nucklehead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread? Meet Legs..... :lol:

 

I've got only one member on ignore (gaytor) and at least most members don't quote him so it sorta works.

 

Unfortunately thats not gonna work with this nucklehead.

 

 

Unfortunately, I have his number, have spoken to him on the phone several times and actually like him. But now I'm afraid that I'm just gonna have to send The Nursetta over to his place to straighten his ass out and kick him in the f'ng pussy..... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Mr. McCabe, you're right. 'Cuz suddenly I'm smelling pretzels, dipped in logic.....

The Aussie logic is quite straightforward. Guns are trouble, ergo limit guns.

 

Would you care to explain how your logic applies to Switzerland?

 

Your incompetence in international issues is showing Oldgoatroper.

 

Switzerland exists between some of the most war-prone nations in history. Italy, Germany, Austria and France. Their domestic policy, for centuries, has been to fortify themselves as much as possible in order to be able to withstand an onslaught should some other country try to take over or use them as a highway into another country. The countryside is filled with hidden bunkers, tunnels, etc for the population to make themselves safe in, to mount a resistance/defense and to effectively make the country into a mountain-bound fortress. The government mandate for people to own a rifle is simply another part of this plan for defense and those guns are mostly locked up and not used.

 

Some reading for you before you shoot your mouth off again: http://en.wikipedia....t_(Switzerland)

 

Edit: More reading: http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland

The guns&ammo that are issued are frequently checked to ensure that they have not been used in an unauthorized way.

 

Of course, I know this. And you can get off your phuquing high horse and be civil about this.

 

 

Why would it matter what the primary reason for the mandate of arms is? The effect on the crime rate still remains dramatic.

 

Are you saying the crime rate is amongst the lowest on the planet for completely unrelated reasons?

 

Or are you saying that gun crime rates have nothing to do with availability of guns but rather it has to do with people's sense of personal responsibility? (i.e. "The guns&ammo that are issued are frequently checked to ensure that they have not been used in an unauthorized way.")

 

I was just stating the facts about Switzerland that you clearly weren't aware of when you made your post earlier if you needed explanation about how his argument applied to switzerland.

 

This is all a moot point anyways, since I highly doubt that any of you have had relatives or friends or acquaintances wasted or injured by an errant bullet. I have had both.

 

I'm sure that if it was your children being shot in Ohio today you would get on the side of controlling DEADLY WEAPONS quicker than a callgirl onto a senator. Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. By taking the guns out of that equation then people will be less able to kill people. As I keep saying... it's simple math.

 

Congratulations, your inability to put others lives before your own pigheaded selfishness is going to mean that someone, somewhere, in our great nation is going to die. I vote and push continually for gun regulation so my conscience is clean. The rest of you, who resist controlling the weapons that sick people use to kill others, have the blood of thousands on your hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread? Meet Legs..... :lol:

 

I've got only one member on ignore (gaytor) and at least most members don't quote him so it sorta works.

 

Unfortunately thats not gonna work with this nucklehead.

 

 

Unfortunately, I have his number, have spoken to him on the phone several times and actually like him. But now I'm afraid that I'm just gonna have to send The Nursetta over to his place to straighten his ass out and kick him in the f'ng pussy..... :lol:

 

Booth, I like you too. It just seems to be that we don't agree on this particular subject. Keep being safe and you'll contribute to the problem minimally.

 

I'm just glad to be on the opposite coast as the Nursetta :ph34r:

 

Hobot can lick my schweddy balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound like the Swiss are scared of citizens owning and keeping guns. Why should we?

 

The difference between us and the Swiss is that we have twice as many guns per capita and a correspondingly higher murder-by-firearm rate. Coincidence? I think not. Cut the numbers back in the us and I guarantee that our murder rate will go down.

 

Perhaps you've become numb to the horrors of killing after doing it nonstop, every day, for years. I'm not sure the guy who performs airstrikes from the safety of his office chair for a living is a particularly fair and balanced place to get opinions on gun control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Congratulations, your inability to put others lives before your own pigheaded selfishness is going to mean that someone, somewhere, in our great nation is going to die. I vote and push continually for gun regulation so my conscience is clean. The rest of you, who resist controlling the weapons that sick people use to kill others, have the blood of thousands on your hands.

Look here douche canoe - Its not my inability.... its simply my unwillingess. I value our individual liberties more than I value a single life. I happen to believe that if someone commits a crime - you punish that PERSON, not the tool he used to commit the crime. If you really valued life like you claim to - you would immediately ban motor vehicles RIGHT NOW. Think of the lives you'd save.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Booth, I like you too. It just seems to be that we don't agree on this particular subject. Keep being safe and you'll contribute to the problem minimally.

 

 

And how the fuck exactly, is he contributing to this "problem" AT ALL???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound like the Swiss are scared of citizens owning and keeping guns. Why should we?

 

The difference between us and the Swiss is that we have twice as many guns per capita and a correspondingly higher murder-by-firearm rate. Coincidence? I think not. Cut the numbers [of guns in the hands of criminals] back in the us and I guarantee that our murder rate will go down.

 

I added a bit of additional verbiage to make your sentence actually work. How does a gun make someone want to go out and commit murder? I've had several most of my life and I've never had the urge to want to shoot someone with one. How does taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens solve the crime problem?

 

Oh and BTW - I'm betting that your two close relatives or friends who got shot were NOT innocent bystanders just taking a stray bullet. Most people who get shot have probably put themselves in a dangerous situation. Something tells me they were probably involved in drugs, gangs, crime, theft or similar. The vast majority of people who take a bullet, if the truth be told, are somewhere related to or on the fringe of the seedy side of our society probably involved in something they shouldn't be doing. That you have two cases statistically says at least one of them was not terribly innocent themselves. I'm just sayin'.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't sound like the Swiss are scared of citizens owning and keeping guns. Why should we?

 

The difference between us and the Swiss is that we have twice as many guns per capita and a correspondingly higher murder-by-firearm rate. Coincidence? I think not. Cut the numbers [of guns in the hands of criminals] back in the us and I guarantee that our murder rate will go down.

 

I added a bit of additional verbiage to make your sentence actually work. How does a gun make someone want to go out and commit murder? I've had several most of my life and I've never had the urge to want to shoot someone with one. How does taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens solve the crime problem?

 

Oh and BTW - I'm betting that your two close relatives or friends who got shot were NOT innocent bystanders just taking a stray bullet. Most people who get shot have probably put themselves in a dangerous situation. Something tells me they were probably involved in drugs, gangs, crime, theft or similar. The vast majority of people who take a bullet, if the truth be told, are somewhere related to or on the fringe of the seedy side of our society probably involved in something they shouldn't be doing. That you have two cases statistically says at least one of them was not terribly innocent themselves. I'm just sayin'.....

So all those kids in school were criminals were they? I'm sure their parents will like to hear that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look here douche canoe - Its not my inability.... its simply my unwillingess. I value our individual liberties more than I value a single life. I happen to believe that if someone commits a crime - you punish that PERSON, not the tool he used to commit the crime. If you really valued life like you claim to - you would immediately ban motor vehicles RIGHT NOW. Think of the lives you'd save.

 

God you sound like a child here who just wants his candy and doesn't care about anyone else. "I want what I want and I don't care if someone else dies for me to have it". I would like to see you go on national television and tell the families of the victims of yesterdays shootings that you could have done something to maybe help their children still be alive or healthy today but that you were UNWILLING to give up your SELFISH desires in order to do that. I may be a douche-canoe but I'm nowhere near your level.

 

Your view on the matter is a reaction to a problem rather than a prevention of that problem. Punishing the kid who went postal at the high school yesterday AFTER THE FACT isn't going to bring the deceased kid back. Making sure he couldn't get a handgun in the first place is a far more effective and safe way of dealing with the matter.

 

 

And how the fuck exactly, is he contributing to this "problem" AT ALL???

 

By owning a whole lot of guns (or any single gun for that matter) he adds to the pool of guns that could potentially fall into incapable/dangerous hands. He's not going to go out and blast up his neighborhood starbucks but the mere existence of his weapons means that they could be used to, hypothetically, do just that.

 

Doesn't sound like the Swiss are scared of citizens owning and keeping guns. Why should we?

 

The difference between us and the Swiss is that we have twice as many guns per capita and a correspondingly higher murder-by-firearm rate. Coincidence? I think not. Cut the numbers [of guns in the hands of criminals] back in the us and I guarantee that our murder rate will go down.

 

I added a bit of additional verbiage to make your sentence actually work. How does a gun make someone want to go out and commit murder? I've had several most of my life and I've never had the urge to want to shoot someone with one. How does taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens solve the crime problem?

 

Oh and BTW - I'm betting that your two close relatives or friends who got shot were NOT innocent bystanders just taking a stray bullet. Most people who get shot have probably put themselves in a dangerous situation. Something tells me they were probably involved in drugs, gangs, crime, theft or similar. The vast majority of people who take a bullet, if the truth be told, are somewhere related to or on the fringe of the seedy side of our society probably involved in something they shouldn't be doing. That you have two cases statistically says at least one of them was not terribly innocent themselves. I'm just sayin'.....

 

Did I explicitly say that owning a gun makes someone go out and commit murder? Don't put words in my mouth Jeff.

 

I said that having more out there in the ether statistically increases the likelihood that they're going to be used to end someones life early. As I've said time and time again... it's simple math. If a gun has a .001% (made up number for argumentative purposes) chance of killing someone and you all of a sudden put a second one out there then suddenly .002% of guns have a chance of killing someone. When we're talking in terms of hundreds of millions (~270 if my mental math is correct) then decreasing the number of weapons that are POTENTIALLY available to be picked up by the wrong person mathematically decreases the likelihood that someone is going to die that doesn't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I was just stating the facts about Switzerland that you clearly weren't aware of when you made your post earlier if you needed explanation about how his argument applied to switzerland.

 

This is all a moot point anyways, since I highly doubt that any of you have had relatives or friends or acquaintances wasted or injured by an errant bullet. I have had both.

 

I'm sure that if it was your children being shot in Ohio today you would get on the side of controlling DEADLY WEAPONS quicker than a callgirl onto a senator. Guns don't kill people, people kill people with guns. By taking the guns out of that equation then people will be less able to kill people. As I keep saying... it's simple math.

 

Congratulations, your inability to put others lives before your own pigheaded selfishness is going to mean that someone, somewhere, in our great nation is going to die. I vote and push continually for gun regulation so my conscience is clean. The rest of you, who resist controlling the weapons that sick people use to kill others, have the blood of thousands on your hands.

judgment_day_terror.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that having more out there in the ether statistically increases the likelihood that they're going to be used to end someones life early. As I've said time and time again... it's simple math. If a gun has a .001% (made up number for argumentative purposes) chance of killing someone and you all of a sudden put a second one out there then suddenly .002% of guns have a chance of killing someone. When we're talking in terms of hundreds of millions (~270 if my mental math is correct) then decreasing the number of weapons that are POTENTIALLY available to be picked up by the wrong person mathematically decreases the likelihood that someone is going to die that doesn't have to.

 

Which explains all those school shootings over in the Confederation Helvetica.

 

So. If I own 7 guns rather than just one or two, the likeyhood that I'll go to work and shoot up the place is greater? Interesting concept even though I'm not on board with it.

 

Care to take a stab at my proposal posted last night? Give us the procedure to follow to confiscate all handguns and auto-loading rifles. No excuses, no deeply-held principles as to why. Just your realistic, workable plan to do this.

 

I'm not suggesting that this is possible or not possible. I'm saying, "let he who calls the battle lead the charge".

 

Lead us.

 

How do we do it? Be very specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

 

 

Weasley, I noticed you didn't mention a thing about personal responsibility.

 

Murdering someone, as you say "in cold blood", is not a direct outcome of the availability of a gun. It is the product of a mind that has not been properly guided.

 

It's not the gun, it's the bullet.

With all due respect Footlong, its neither the gun or bullet. They are inanimate, its the guy holding the gun/firearm.

 

2nd kid dead from a bullet wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many kids need to be murdered in cold blood before we realize that the proliferation and lack of control of guns in this country is a bad thing?

 

 

Weasley, I noticed you didn't mention a thing about personal responsibility.

 

Murdering someone, as you say "in cold blood", is not a direct outcome of the availability of a gun. It is the product of a mind that has not been properly guided.

 

It's not the gun, it's the bullet.

With all due respect Footlong, its neither the gun or bullet. They are inanimate, its the guy holding the gun/firearm.

 

2nd kid dead from a bullet wound.

and how did that bullet come to leave the barrel? that's right someone pulled the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By owning a whole lot of guns (or any single gun for that matter) he adds to the pool of guns that could potentially fall into incapable/dangerous hands. He's not going to go out and blast up his neighborhood starbucks but the mere existence of his weapons means that they could be used to, hypothetically, do just that.

 

 

 

And you could, hypothetically, drive a car through a crowd of people at a bus stop. Or kill a tree. Do we ban cars? Think of the trees alone that would be saved.

 

You're starting to talk "thought police"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2nd kid dead from a bullet wound.

and how did that bullet come to leave the barrel? that's right someone pulled the trigger.

 

Yes, that's how it works. Bullets kill people when fired from guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2nd kid dead from a bullet wound.

and how did that bullet come to leave the barrel? that's right someone pulled the trigger.

 

Yes, that's how it works. Bullets kill people when fired from guns.

 

In and of themselves? Or is an outside agent necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No shit, Timo. Bring back auto shop, wood shop, metal shop, print shop, electronics shop, ceramics classes, home ec, et al to high schools again, and I garan-f'ng-tee-u that not only will the crime rate drop, but that the little pussified 'psyche counselors' will go out of business......

Not taking the piss. Do you not have them at high schools anymore?

 

We had all that plus several acres of agricultural land at my high school, it even is a registered cattle stud. Just read they have just opened a fully functioning espresso cafe in the home ec lab, to train up budding baristas.

 

Not as much - now, the educational system is geared towards everyone goes to college - trades aren't considered a viable outcome of a High school education. Corporal punishment is indeed gone - the kids know that the schools and administrations are afraid of appearances, and use that to their great advantage. Not saying I want anyone to be hit, but, havin' a board broken across my butt certainly got my attention when I was a snotty kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

Congratulations, your inability to put others lives before your own pigheaded selfishness is going to mean that someone, somewhere, in our great nation is going to die. I vote and push continually for gun regulation so my conscience is clean. The rest of you, who resist controlling the weapons that sick people use to kill others, have the blood of thousands on your hands.

 

 

Weffie - we all agree on the desired outcome - nobody wants to see an innocent get hurt. Where we differ that I don't think that the numbers support that your approach works. Look at the places w/the toughest gun laws on the books: DC, Chicago, LA - they are the places w/some of the worst violence statistics. This argument is emotional, and not supported by fact.

 

I understand the emotional toll exacted by a needless loss. I don't at all intend for this comment to reduce the pain felt by the recent tragic deaths of kids in Ohio, but, how many kids died in auto accidents yesterday? How many kids found out that they were terminally ill? Deaths caused by an intentional act give us a "thing" to focus our anger upon. That "thing" shouldn't have happened - and if "someone" had done "something", our loved one would still be here. I get it - it's natural, and I don't blame anyone grieving for feeling that way. But - when do we stop enabling the REAL causes by addressing the easy-to-hate implement?

 

What it comes down to is how much freedom and individual responsibility are you proposing we remove from individuals in the "name of safety"? How long will it take us, in the name of safety, to move from outlawing instruments to arresting people who's socio-economic condition, genetic makeup, and speech fit within a demographic that indicates that they are likely to commit a crime? That sir, is the slippery slope that you are proposing we "safely" slide down.

 

What caused the kids who have taken guns to school to want to hurt someone? IMHO, THAT is the tougher, but only efficacious answer we should be seeking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that having more out there in the ether statistically increases the likelihood that they're going to be used to end someones life early. As I've said time and time again... it's simple math. If a gun has a .001% (made up number for argumentative purposes) chance of killing someone and you all of a sudden put a second one out there then suddenly .002% of guns have a chance of killing someone. When we're talking in terms of hundreds of millions (~270 if my mental math is correct) then decreasing the number of weapons that are POTENTIALLY available to be picked up by the wrong person mathematically decreases the likelihood that someone is going to die that doesn't have to.

 

Which explains all those school shootings over in the Confederation Helvetica.

 

So. If I own 7 guns rather than just one or two, the likeyhood that I'll go to work and shoot up the place is greater? Interesting concept even though I'm not on board with it.

 

Care to take a stab at my proposal posted last night? Give us the procedure to follow to confiscate all handguns and auto-loading rifles. No excuses, no deeply-held principles as to why. Just your realistic, workable plan to do this.

 

I'm not suggesting that this is possible or not possible. I'm saying, "let he who calls the battle lead the charge".

 

Lead us.

 

How do we do it? Be very specific.

 

 

Here's the rub... Say you get the idiots in Sacramento to pass such a law, what about Texas and the South?

 

The problem isn't with the guy with a bunch of guns, who is into it enough to secure them properly, it's the guy with one gun "for protection" who leaves it loaded in the dresser so his kid or a burgler can find it. You need to educate that guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that having more out there in the ether statistically increases the likelihood that they're going to be used to end someones life early. As I've said time and time again... it's simple math. If a gun has a .001% (made up number for argumentative purposes) chance of killing someone and you all of a sudden put a second one out there then suddenly .002% of guns have a chance of killing someone. When we're talking in terms of hundreds of millions (~270 if my mental math is correct) then decreasing the number of weapons that are POTENTIALLY available to be picked up by the wrong person mathematically decreases the likelihood that someone is going to die that doesn't have to.

 

Which explains all those school shootings over in the Confederation Helvetica.

 

So. If I own 7 guns rather than just one or two, the likeyhood that I'll go to work and shoot up the place is greater? Interesting concept even though I'm not on board with it.

 

Care to take a stab at my proposal posted last night? Give us the procedure to follow to confiscate all handguns and auto-loading rifles. No excuses, no deeply-held principles as to why. Just your realistic, workable plan to do this.

 

I'm not suggesting that this is possible or not possible. I'm saying, "let he who calls the battle lead the charge".

 

Lead us.

 

How do we do it? Be very specific.

 

 

Here's the rub... Say you get the idiots in Sacramento to pass such a law, what about Texas and the South?

 

The problem isn't with the guy with a bunch of guns, who is into it enough to secure them properly, it's the guy with one gun "for protection" who leaves it loaded in the dresser so his kid or a burgler can find it. You need to educate that guy.

 

 

Wes, try looking at it this way-----of the twenty firearms we have, only TWO of them was brought brand new-----the rest of them date somewhere 'tween 2001 and 1932 . So you know what that means? Yes, My Son, it means I, me, myself have single-handidly taken over custodial duties of eighteen firearms, from sixteen different former owners. Put your math hat on now and tell us what the statistics are that one of those eighteen old guns will be used in a crime, now that one person owns them, rather than sixteen people......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that having more out there in the ether statistically increases the likelihood that they're going to be used to end someones life early. As I've said time and time again... it's simple math. If a gun has a .001% (made up number for argumentative purposes) chance of killing someone and you all of a sudden put a second one out there then suddenly .002% of guns have a chance of killing someone. When we're talking in terms of hundreds of millions (~270 if my mental math is correct) then decreasing the number of weapons that are POTENTIALLY available to be picked up by the wrong person mathematically decreases the likelihood that someone is going to die that doesn't have to.

 

Which explains all those school shootings over in the Confederation Helvetica.

 

So. If I own 7 guns rather than just one or two, the likeyhood that I'll go to work and shoot up the place is greater? Interesting concept even though I'm not on board with it.

 

Care to take a stab at my proposal posted last night? Give us the procedure to follow to confiscate all handguns and auto-loading rifles. No excuses, no deeply-held principles as to why. Just your realistic, workable plan to do this.

 

I'm not suggesting that this is possible or not possible. I'm saying, "let he who calls the battle lead the charge".

 

Lead us.

 

How do we do it? Be very specific.

 

 

Here's the rub... Say you get the idiots in Sacramento to pass such a law, what about Texas and the South?

 

The problem isn't with the guy with a bunch of guns, who is into it enough to secure them properly, it's the guy with one gun "for protection" who leaves it loaded in the dresser so his kid or a burgler can find it. You need to educate that guy.

 

OT with regard to the quoted post (mine, this date, 06:02 EST).

 

I've respectfully asked two good individuals to specify a plan of their own respective choosings, to round up and collect all handguns and certain rifles in the US. I want to see the plan. Details. Assume that we have a national consensus or at least a 51%/49% "mandate" to proceed this way. Because it takes a lot more than words to effect change or progress (a term I use here for illustration only).

 

One guy works for a living, the other is a busy student, but if I don't see a well thought- out plan before reading much else from either, the credibility factor's going to go down a notch. As Ben Franklin said, a man with an idea is a crock, until thought converts to action. I put it to our friends to take the lead here. I understand and respect many of their concerns. But now what?

 

Certainly, other input toward a plan that will pass muster in the US is welcomed, though this question has nothing to do with what I advocate or don't advocate. My sentiments have been made clear so there's no sense challenging my premise for the sake of this exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that having more out there in the ether statistically increases the likelihood that they're going to be used to end someones life early. As I've said time and time again... it's simple math. If a gun has a .001% (made up number for argumentative purposes) chance of killing someone and you all of a sudden put a second one out there then suddenly .002% of guns have a chance of killing someone. When we're talking in terms of hundreds of millions (~270 if my mental math is correct) then decreasing the number of weapons that are POTENTIALLY available to be picked up by the wrong person mathematically decreases the likelihood that someone is going to die that doesn't have to.

 

Which explains all those school shootings over in the Confederation Helvetica.

 

So. If I own 7 guns rather than just one or two, the likeyhood that I'll go to work and shoot up the place is greater? Interesting concept even though I'm not on board with it.

 

Care to take a stab at my proposal posted last night? Give us the procedure to follow to confiscate all handguns and auto-loading rifles. No excuses, no deeply-held principles as to why. Just your realistic, workable plan to do this.

 

I'm not suggesting that this is possible or not possible. I'm saying, "let he who calls the battle lead the charge".

 

Lead us.

 

How do we do it? Be very specific.

 

 

Here's the rub... Say you get the idiots in Sacramento to pass such a law, what about Texas and the South?

 

The problem isn't with the guy with a bunch of guns, who is into it enough to secure them properly, it's the guy with one gun "for protection" who leaves it loaded in the dresser so his kid or a burgler can find it. You need to educate that guy.

 

 

Wes, try looking at it this way-----of the twenty firearms we have, only TWO of them was brought brand new-----the rest of them date somewhere 'tween 2001 and 1932 . So you know what that means? Yes, My Son, it means I, me, myself have single-handidly taken over custodial duties of eighteen firearms, from sixteen different former owners. Put your math hat on now and tell us what the statistics are that one of those eighteen old guns will be used in a crime, now that one person owns them, rather than sixteen people......

 

We don't live in Switzerland. And their way of thinking is not American. At all.

But if another teen shot up one of their school cafeterias yesterday I suppose that would be a wake-up call to sensible Swiss.

 

Left Hook, well said. In several areas. I admire your courage here, kid.

Boothy and JBSF, please go get an articulate gun nut with substance and reserve to address LH.

 

Because (except for Atoyot) your arguments all seem flimsy, evasive, reactive, off-topic, or engage name-calling. Please go get your A team.

 

And meanwhile, EM , put the revolver down next to your coffee cup and please type away about any pretzel-twisted logic in the admirable and effective Australian control of firearms.

Even a continent of criminal gene types can do it, but not the USA.

 

How to do it? Go for the hearts and minds first. And so we discuss it.

Thanks, all, for the discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't with the guy with a bunch of guns, who is into it enough to secure them properly, it's the guy with one gun "for protection" who leaves it loaded in the dresser so his kid or a burgler can find it. You need to educate that guy.

 

Forgot to add - absolutely correct in my book. It's hard for a kid to fart with dad's gun if it's locked away. There are secure ways of storing the things that still allow bedside access. Considering the cost to society of the alternatives, they're cheap.

 

For every right, there is a responsibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Here's the rub... Say you get the idiots in Sacramento to pass such a law, what about Texas and the South?

 

The problem isn't with the guy with a bunch of guns, who is into it enough to secure them properly, it's the guy with one gun "for protection" who leaves it loaded in the dresser so his kid or a burgler can find it. You need to educate that guy.

 

 

Wes, try looking at it this way-----of the twenty firearms we have, only TWO of them was brought brand new-----the rest of them date somewhere 'tween 2001 and 1932 . So you know what that means? Yes, My Son, it means I, me, myself have single-handidly taken over custodial duties of eighteen firearms, from sixteen different former owners. Put your math hat on now and tell us what the statistics are that one of those eighteen old guns will be used in a crime, now that one person owns them, rather than sixteen people......

 

We don't live in Switzerland. And their way of thinking is not American. At all.

But if another teen shot up one of their school cafeterias yesterday I suppose that would be a wake-up call to sensible Swiss.

 

Left Hook, well said. in several areas. I admire your courage here, kid.

Boothy and JBSF, please go get an articulate gun nut with substance and reserve to address LH.

 

Because (except for Atoyot) your arguments all seem flimsy, evasive, reactive, off-topic, or engage name-calling. Please go get your A team.

 

And meanwhile, EM , put the revolver down next to your coffee cup and please type away about any pretzel-twisted logic in the admirable and effective Australian control of firearms.

Even a continent of criminal gene types can do it, but not the USA.

 

 

I thought the mushroom season up there didn't start 'til April?..... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and BTW - I'm betting that your two close relatives or friends who got shot were NOT innocent bystanders just taking a stray bullet. Most people who get shot have probably put themselves in a dangerous situation. Something tells me they were probably involved in drugs, gangs, crime, theft or similar. The vast majority of people who take a bullet, if the truth be told, are somewhere related to or on the fringe of the seedy side of our society probably involved in something they shouldn't be doing. That you have two cases statistically says at least one of them was not terribly innocent themselves. I'm just sayin'.....

So all those kids in school were criminals were they? I'm sure their parents will like to hear that.

 

 

Johnny, did you notice how Jeff said "most"? And that he didn't say "all"? He also said "vast majority" and not "everyone".

 

So, how did your mind twist that into "all those kids in school...". The number of people shot in a school is miniscule compared to the total number in the U.S. and easily fall outside of "most" or "the vast majority".

 

So, no... Jeff was not saying that "all those kids in school were criminals". You can rest easy on that count.

 

Its a shame that the effort has to be made to spell this out to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No shit, Timo. Bring back auto shop, wood shop, metal shop, print shop, electronics shop, ceramics classes, home ec, et al to high schools again, and I garan-f'ng-tee-u that not only will the crime rate drop, but that the little pussified 'psyche counselors' will go out of business......

 

Obviously the local public K-12 school my kids attend is behind the curve on this shit.....Jr is a freshman this year, got to pick one elective chose 'Culinary'...... probably because one of the "pearls of wisdom" I'd passed on to him at some time or other was "Shit son, if you can do a good job of cooking everything you hunt or catch you'll never go hungry and always have plenty of friends"....he fired up some awesome panko coated sheepshead with home made tartare sauce a week or so back.

 

Already signed up for next year's elective 'Welding'.....hope this is not connected to the fact he picks up his learner's permit in a month :o

 

BTW ya see half the juniors and seniors from that school tooling around or showing up in the local grocery store parking lot on winter weekends in trucks with deer hanging out of the back, obviously in possession of long guns.....number of kids from that school either injured or killed in firearms accidents in the last ten years.... ZERO!!....number of kids from that school killed in auto accidents in the last decade.... 5 (that I know of)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem isn't with the guy with a bunch of guns, who is into it enough to secure them properly, it's the guy with one gun "for protection" who leaves it loaded in the dresser so his kid or a burgler can find it. You need to educate that guy.

 

Forgot to add - absolutely correct in my book. It's hard for a kid to fart with dad's gun if it's locked away. There are secure ways of storing the things that still allow bedside access. Considering the cost to society of the alternatives, they're cheap.

 

For every right, there is a responsibility.

 

 

 

It goes back once again to parenting. I was raised around firearms, they were everywhere in my house growing up. I've been shooting since I was probably seven years old. I was taught how to safely operate, and more importantly treat firearms from a young age.

 

 

I fall under the category of "out of my cold dead hands" when it comes to disarming the citizenry. As many people that own firearms in the US, I don't see it happening despite a very vocal minority. For those who feel its a some great tragedy that a kid walk into a school and pops a couple of his, (its always a male, sorry ladies), classmates, how about you put some societal pressure to do a better job raising a balanced child, then try and do something through legislation that will cause more harm than good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the "cold dead hands" school for shot guns. Assault rifles not so much.

 

What's an assault rifle?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strictly a media term.

 

 

I've heard they're usually described as being black in color. F'ng racists.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio shootings the latest in deadly month for nation's schools

This month alone, at least four shootings of students have occurred in schools across the country, including Monday's deadly attack outside Cleveland, Ohio.

 

By LISA HOFFMAN

 

Scripps Howard News Service

 

Experts say the spate of shootings may be coincidental and not indicative of a troubling trend. They note that, overall, crime and violence in America's schools have been declining in recent years. And murders are particularly uncommon.

 

A teenager opened fire as students ate breakfast in the cafeteria at his suburban Cleveland high school Monday, killing one student and wounding four others before he was chased from the building by a teacher. The suspect, whose name was not released because he is a juvenile, was arrested near his car a half-mile away, authorities said.

 

A student who saw the attack up close said it appeared the gunman targeted a group of students sitting together. One teacher was said to have dragged a wounded student into his classroom for protection.

 

FBI officials would not comment on a motive for the shooting, which sent students screaming through the halls at the start of the school day at 1,100-student Chardon High, in the town of 5,100 people 30 miles from Cleveland. Fifteen-year-old Danny Komertz, who witnessed the shooting, said the gunman was known as an outcast who apparently had been bullied. But other students disputed that.

 

"Even though he was quiet, he still had friends," said Tyler Lillash, 16. "He was not bullied."

 

Two of the students, both male, are in critical condition, another is in serious condition and a 17-year-old girl is in stable condition, officials said.

 

The slain student, Daniel Parmertor, was an aspiring computer repairman who was waiting in the cafeteria for the bus for his daily 15-minute ride to a vocational school.

 

Homicide in a school setting "is a rare event,"said Jennifer Truman, a Bureau of Justice Statistics statistician and co-author of a new federal report on school violence.

 

The study counted 17 homicides of school-age youths at U.S. schools from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010, which was "the same as the year before," Truman said. The annual report, released last week, is a joint effort by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Center for Education Statistics.

 

Even so, the February shootings, along with confiscations of high-powered weapons in other school hallways this year, are noteworthy.

 

According to news accounts, the following shootings occurred this month:

 

On Feb. 10 in Walpole, N.H., a 14-year-old boy shot himself in the face in a crowded elementary-school cafeteria. The teen, who police said was upset by a "relationship issue," survived.

 

On Feb. 20, two teens wielding guns shot at a group of kids at a Murfreesboro, Tenn., school. A 14-year-old student was shot twice in the leg. The shootings allegedly stemmed from a dispute between two groups, police said.

 

On Wednesday, a .45-caliber handgun that a 9-year-old boy in Bremerton had stashed in his backpack accidentally discharged, critically wounding an 8-year-old girl in their elementary-school classroom. Police said the boy found the gun at his mother's house and brought it to school because he wanted to run away from home.

 

Those were not the only incidents involving guns in the nation's schools in the first two months of the year.

 

In Las Vegas, authorities confiscated a 9-mm handgun from a 16-year-old student at a high school Jan. 30, and on Feb. 2, authorities stumbled upon a loaded .32-caliber handgun when they searched a teenage student at another high school who was suspected of stealing property from a classmate.

 

In Harper Woods, Mich., near Detroit, a 16-year-old student was showing off the 9-mm handgun he had brought to his high school when it went off. No one was injured, but a campus search found two more guns.

 

In Mesa, Ariz., on Jan. 6, a 7-year-old boy on a school bus inadvertently discharged a handgun hidden in his backpack. The single shot missed the 30 elementary students aboard for the ride home. Authorities said the youngster got the weapon from a closet at home and had it with him all day at school.

 

Twelve days later, in the same city, a 12-year-old boy was caught with a semiautomatic handgun and a loaded magazine at his junior-high school. The seventh-grader said he got the weapon from his grandfather's house and brought it to school because he felt threatened there and suicidal, police said.

 

Sheriff's deputies took a 12-year-old boy into custody Monday after witnesses reported he pointed a loaded .25-caliber pistol at a classmate standing in the lunch line at a rural junior-high school in Warren, Texas. Tyler County Sheriff David Hennigan says the seventh-grader apparently objected to comments the student made about a female classmate.

 

Experts say a focus on making schools more secure, training to recognize the signs of a potentially violent student and heightening efforts to curb bullying have been the positive legacy of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado. Two students there killed 12 classmates and a teacher on April 20, 1999.

 

Even so, the Columbine tragedy continues to fascinate some troubled students.

 

"Copycat threats are a real serious problem," said Dewey Cornell, director of the Virginia Youth Violence Project and a University of Virginia professor of education and school psychology.

 

"We see them every springtime around the anniversary of Columbine. We have kids who make copycat threats not only in the United States but in Europe,"Cornell said. "The dilemma for schools is how do you tell the difference between someone who is being foolish and someone who intends to commit a serious act of violence?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That just reinforces my desire to see some stricter procreation controls implemented.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better home storage would not hurt. Literally.

 

Yup. Let's start a new organization to make this country a better place------Spermicide and Safes dot org....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohio shootings the latest in deadly month for nation's schools

This month alone, at least four shootings of students have occurred in schools across the country, including Monday's deadly attack outside Cleveland, Ohio.

 

By LISA HOFFMAN

 

Scripps Howard News Service

 

Experts say the spate of shootings may be coincidental and not indicative of a troubling trend. They note that, overall, crime and violence in America's schools have been declining in recent years. And murders are particularly uncommon...

The tool isn't the problem, it's the way the last couple of generations have been raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a lot of "because it hasn't affected me yet therefore it must not exist" in this thread. Grabbler (who I respect and like), atoyot, etc... the reason an accident hasn't touched your lives yet is that you're lucky and your number hasn't come up yet.

 

The point made by Jocal in his posting that news article is one I hope you all see.

 

A kid took a gun that his mother had just laying around, brought it to school and it accidentally discharged and killed a girl.

 

If that gun hadn't existed then a girl would be alive today.

 

In and of themselves? Or is an outside agent necessary?

 

Guns need people to shoot them

people need a gun to shoot someone else

 

therefore if you take that gun away you limit their ability to shoot someone else

 

FUCKIN GET IT NOW?!

 

Weffie - we all agree on the desired outcome - nobody wants to see an innocent get hurt. Where we differ that I don't think that the numbers support that your approach works. Look at the places w/the toughest gun laws on the books: DC, Chicago, LA - they are the places w/some of the worst violence statistics. This argument is emotional, and not supported by fact.

 

I understand the emotional toll exacted by a needless loss. I don't at all intend for this comment to reduce the pain felt by the recent tragic deaths of kids in Ohio, but, how many kids died in auto accidents yesterday? How many kids found out that they were terminally ill? Deaths caused by an intentional act give us a "thing" to focus our anger upon. That "thing" shouldn't have happened - and if "someone" had done "something", our loved one would still be here. I get it - it's natural, and I don't blame anyone grieving for feeling that way. But - when do we stop enabling the REAL causes by addressing the easy-to-hate implement?

 

What it comes down to is how much freedom and individual responsibility are you proposing we remove from individuals in the "name of safety"? How long will it take us, in the name of safety, to move from outlawing instruments to arresting people who's socio-economic condition, genetic makeup, and speech fit within a demographic that indicates that they are likely to commit a crime? That sir, is the slippery slope that you are proposing we "safely" slide down.

 

What caused the kids who have taken guns to school to want to hurt someone? IMHO, THAT is the tougher, but only efficacious answer we should be seeking.

 

Very well said, I enjoy having a voice of reason to discourse with.

 

Like I said earlier, this is a dangerous world. Things happen that are out of our control. Cancer, freak accidents, all very sad and tragic. If there's something we can do to limit the likelihood of something tragic happening then isn't it our duty, as fellow human beings who treasure life, to do everything in our power to mitigate that risk? We set speed limits, search for and punish drunk drivers severely, have developed chemotherapy, have instituted a police force whose main job is to regulate and enforce driving laws to make the roads safer. In reality how different is enforcing stricter gun laws from setting a speed limit? I don't want to take your right to own a weapon and protect yourself but I want to limit the excessiveness of it. Surely it's a persons right to be able to drive, but we limit how fast that they may legally do so. How is this different?

 

I agree that it's helpful to also fix the cause of the problem; mentally unstable children and it should be part of a two pronged approach to control. Help them understand safety and remove the avenues for causing hurt should that training fail (because face it, you won't be 100% successful with teaching safety).

 

I look forward to your response.

 

Wes, try looking at it this way-----of the twenty firearms we have, only TWO of them was brought brand new-----the rest of them date somewhere 'tween 2001 and 1932 . So you know what that means? Yes, My Son, it means I, me, myself have single-handidly taken over custodial duties of eighteen firearms, from sixteen different former owners. Put your math hat on now and tell us what the statistics are that one of those eighteen old guns will be used in a crime, now that one person owns them, rather than sixteen people......

 

I appreciate that you're a responsible owner and that you have indeed consolidated a number of threats into one safe. Very very responsible of you and statistically okay. Mathematically however it would be safer if they didn't exist though.

 

Would your life be as fulfilling if you were say have 10 firearms? Five? One for each member of your family? Would it help if you knew that the gun you gave up would NEVER be able to hurt someone ever?

 

Also, care to elaborate on the process by which you took custody of the guns? I'm not familiar with it and was wondering if there are any potential holes through which one could fall into the hands of someone who shouldn't have a gun. I'm curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes? You do realize, doncha, that I can only shoot ONE GUN AT A FUKING TIME?...... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wes? You do realize, doncha, that I can only shoot ONE GUN AT A FUKING TIME?...... :lol:

 

Exactly! So why 20? Even if everyone in your family (I think there's 3?) had one then there would be six times more guns in your family that they could actually shoot at any given time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you on the other side of Gun Control need to watch this movie. It's called Elephant and was directed by Gus Van Sant and is an incredibly graphic and honest look at the terror which makes up a school shooting. This is part 1 of 10 and the rest are in the sidebar there.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euVIBXwyT6g&feature=related

 

Better yet, riddle me this-----why is that my Mom, my sis, my brother and myself all went to the same schools in the South Bay beach area over here, beginning after WWII and ending in 1986, without ever ONCE hearing of a school shooting? And during an era where 'gun control' rules & regs were probably one tenth as stringent as they are today? Which, coincidentaly, was also during the Golden Days of California, where a responsible, caring parent could walk right into a Sears & Roebuck, a K-Mart, a JC Penny, a Coast Auto store or a Montgomery Ward with his kid, pick a firearm of his choice right off the shelf, pay the cashier and walk right back out to their car with it. Fuking amazing, si como no?

 

So what the hell do YOU think has happened to the last two generations of your contemporaries?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LH, I've given your views their due respect and I'm waiting on your plan. How do we make this happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<SNIP>

Very well said, I enjoy having a voice of reason to discourse with.

 

Like I said earlier, this is a dangerous world. Things happen that are out of our control. Cancer, freak accidents, all very sad and tragic. If there's something we can do to limit the likelihood of something tragic happening then isn't it our duty, as fellow human beings who treasure life, to do everything in our power to mitigate that risk? We set speed limits, search for and punish drunk drivers severely, have developed chemotherapy, have instituted a police force whose main job is to regulate and enforce driving laws to make the roads safer. In reality how different is enforcing stricter gun laws from setting a speed limit? I don't want to take your right to own a weapon and protect yourself but I want to limit the excessiveness of it. Surely it's a persons right to be able to drive, but we limit how fast that they may legally do so. How is this different?

 

I agree that it's helpful to also fix the cause of the problem; mentally unstable children and it should be part of a two pronged approach to control. Help them understand safety and remove the avenues for causing hurt should that training fail (because face it, you won't be 100% successful with teaching safety).

 

I look forward to your response.

 

 

Wes -

 

The simple answer is that as humans, we CAN'T eliminate all risk in life, and to think that we even should is problematic. What we *should* do, is to make ourselves aware of risk, and learn how to mitigate that risk. Using your traffic law analogy - we already have sufficient statutes to govern gun acquisition, ownership and use. My premise is that for someone who has decided to ignore existing laws, that new laws, and more restrictions aren't going to deter that individual from their chosen behavior - it may mean that the individual chooses a different implement, but, it won't deter them from the behavior.

 

Addressing your point that "we should do something" (paraphrased) - I agree, but, I want us to spend the limited resources we have doing something that will actually move us closer to the desired goal, and I'm not convinced that the approach of limiting access to the implement impacts the behavior or behavioral causes at all. Lookin' at something completely different - Cocaine and Marijuana are illegal in most of the country - how has that illegality impacted the behaviors that drive consumption?

 

 

Bringing it back home - how 'bout sailing? What is the good to society? Isn't sailing a selfish indulgence? It's risky - people drown, it costs money to rescue them, and then there's the environmental impact of those boats cruddin' up the shorelines when they're lost/abandoned. Who needs it? The answer is NOBODY, but - people enjoy the activity, and as such, at least according to what I understand of our inalienable rights, they should be permitted to engage in it. Now - should someone use their sailboat as a weapon - that behavior and the individual perpetrating that behavior indeed should be addressed - but, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that sailboats should be outlawed.

 

Your approach, taken to an absurd conclusion, ends w/all of us tube-fed sitting in a padded room going nowhere doing nothing but looking at a screen - and I daresay that most folks wouldn't want to live like that.

 

Wes - as I said earlier, I understand your position, and don't fault you for wanting to do something to improve the situation. I just don't think that continually increasing restrictions addresses the real problem, which is "WHY" someone does something, and how to provide an effective deterrent to undesirable behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites