Not One More !

a reply to: voyger2

In my opinion, yourself and many others that agree with you are just flat out wrong minded. We don't live in a Kumbaya land of Rainbows and the human race never will.

Trying to talk sense with you and you ilk is just a exercise in futility. You want to control everything others do in your quest for power. Fortunately, people with firearms scare you enough to stop you on that quest...just by being there. Not even being used, sitting in a gun safe or closet, they scare the bejeebus out of you so you will never act on your plans.

But there are also those out there that think like you who will use weapons, and propaganda in the vain attempt to gain control over others and take away law-abiding citizens rights. If the elections don't stop those tyrants, then the guns eventually will. But it hasn't gotten to that point in over a hundred years and probably never will.

But I have two questions? Why are you in favor of someone putting their boot on the neck of a law abiding citizen? Why are you insisting upon slavery to the State?

originally posted by: MOMof3
Will you guarantee me that my son will not be killed by a diagnosed mentally ill person with a gun bought at a store or show?

That is up to the state in which you live to prevent mentally ill persons from obtaining weapons.

I would bet that our forefathers made sure their citizens were not terrorized for long by such people. There was mental illness then too and in the wild west.

Mental institutionalizations began in the 1770s and treatments included minimally effective drugs, bleeding, shackles, and plunge baths. Which do you suggest?

You, as a all or nothing gun owner of guns have no right to expect all citizens to constantly be war mode in our communities.

Since you obviously ignored my post where I stated that the mentally ill should not own weapons I will take this as a failed instance where you opt to appeal to emotion instead of exercising reading comprehension.

a reply to: TDawgRex

I'm not scared of guns or people with guns ... You are. I don't have a gun and I don't need it.

You just missed elysiumfire reply. Please check on that one, theres no rainbow state there. Guns have place and time to use.

If the time to fight against tyranny come there will not be any government guns to stop people. look around (Ukrainians revolution fresh example, history haves more...and some of them didn't need to fire a single bullet).

Slavery to the state ? please explain. boot on the neck of a law abiding citizen? please explain.

a reply to: sourcecontroller
I agree but the first step to solving a problem is admitting there is one and far too many here are in complete denial

The op has in his opening article a point of outrage about another mass death by firearms in the USA, yet fails to take into account several things.

What the op did not mention, was the three men who were stabbed to death before this worthless person went on a shooting rampage. And funny how there are not tears of sadness or outrage for other senseless murders and shootings in other countries. Nor is there any mention how the state that this happened in has on the books, some of the toughest and strictest gun control laws on the books.

There is no outrage for the people who die in other countries, no outrage and tears of distress for the other 27 countries with a highest murder by fire arm rate in the world? www.theguardian.com...
What of the outrage for the Puerto Rico, which is the number one place on the planet, with a 94.8% rate of all homicides are committed by firearms, where is the crying for a country like that, or Sierra Leone or Saint Kitts and Nevis, or any number of Latin and South American countries which also have a high homicide rate?

But if you want a bit more to think about then here are some numbers, from 2011:
The total number of people murdered: 12664. And the break down is as follows:
Firearms: 8583
Knives: 1587
Blunt objects: 496
Personal weapons (Firsts, feet, body): 728
Poison: 5
Explosives: 12
Fire: 75
Narcotics: 29
Drowning: 85
Asphyxiation: 89
Other weapons not stated: 853

a reply to: voyger2

I saw EF's reply and thought to myself that while well-intended, the thinking is way off. Just as I believe that you way of thinking is off.

On the other hand, as you can see, I am in agreement with many others here who are responsible law abiding people. I particularly agree with ND.

Any one who is even remotely suggesting trying to take away my rights is irritating to say the least. That's like taking away the rights of women and blacks to vote, just because some one doesn't like them. Pure adulterated stupidity.

I've never understood why so many people from other countries seem to take offense at our Constitution & Bill of Rights.

a reply to: elysiumfire

You're right. No gun owner is going to accept what you've written. Why? Its because you're all but assigning guilt to them for crimes they have never and will never commit. Why should 100 million people willingly give up the rights that they and their ancestors have enjoyed since the founding of the country when they're guilty of absolutely nothing? Because a relative few idiots, thugs and lunatics act out? No, I don't think that's something that's ever going to be accepted. Very few law-abiding citizens would agree to a restriction of their own rights based on the misbehavior of others, regardless of the issue.

There's also the practical matter of confiscating tens of millions of illegal weapons already in the hands of violent criminals in this country. Good luck with that.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not sure that there's any reason to do much of anything in terms of 'gun control' specifically. The violent crime rates and homicide rates in the United States have been consistently dropping for 20 years and are about half what they were in the early 90s. Further, the biggest problem areas in the United States in regards to gun-related violence also tend to have the strictest gun laws. Given that, I think the best course of action is to leave the gun laws alone and see where the current trend takes us 10-20 years from now. If the trend continues, we could realistically have homicide rates only somewhat higher than much of western Europe without trampling on anyone's rights. Maybe you get there faster with stricter laws, but again, there's certainly strong evidence from several major gun-restricting jurisdictions that maybe you don't.

If a change in the law needs to be made, it needs to be more 'people control' than anything. Specifically, we need to put a few more checks in place to prevent the dangerously mentally ill from purchasing or owning firearms. Technically, its already illegal for someone adjudicated mentally ill to do so, but mental illness has been a very common theme in all these cases. Clearly, more needs to be done, though again, we have to be careful of going too far.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
Personal weapons (Firsts, feet, body): 728

Its worth making note of the fact that this particular number is roughly twice as high as the number of homicides committed in the United States each year by perpetrators using ANY kind of rifle, including those super-scary 'assault rifles.' Quite the contrast given the media hype and hysteria, is it not?

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: NavyDoc

I am not aware of any 700 round per minute 30-30's or 45's

There are plenty of full auto sub guns that are chambered for .45.... 30-30 I doubt it, not a very good round for that...

But what you are missing, what guns do Americans own that fire 700 RPM? You do know the number of full auto guns in America has been fixed, back when the laws went into effect currently owned full auto guns were allowed to be registered and kept, no new full auto guns are allowed into the US civilian gun market PERIOD. That means currently there is a very very small number of full-auto guns in America, the vast majority held in the collections of wealthy gun collectors, not banging around the streets of LA and Chicago. If they have full-auto guns, they were purchased from international gun smugglers, not american gun shops.

The lie about Cartel using American guns is total crap too. Where are these guns stores selling full auto weapons? If you are a cartel, with connections and resources to buy from arms dealers, why would you spend $20,000 on a full-auto AR in the US, wait months for paperwork, then smuggle them into Mexico when you could buy them for $300 ea or less from an arms dealer? You wouldn't. It's lies. You are lied to, constantly, and you believe those lies instead of investigating for yourself.

None of these mass shootings were done with full-auto weapons, why are you even discussing them? Because you can't logically argue that facts so you pull up nonsense like this.

originally posted by: voyger2
a reply to: TDawgRex

I'm not scared of guns or people with guns ... You are. I don't have a gun and I don't need it.

You just missed elysiumfire reply. Please check on that one, theres no rainbow state there. Guns have place and time to use.

If the time to fight against tyranny come there will not be any government guns to stop people. look around (Ukrainians revolution fresh example, history haves more...and some of them didn't need to fire a single bullet).

Slavery to the state ? please explain. boot on the neck of a law abiding citizen? please explain.

If you aren't scared of regular people owning guns, why do you want to stop them from doing so? That's absurd to deny your fear. We make it illegal to drive drunk because we are scared of drunk drivers killing us. You want to ban guns because you are scared of EVERYONE.

Stop hiding your cowardice behind a banner that seeks to remove my freedom.

AugustusMasonicus:

Not unless you can absolutely promise me that no one, repeat, no one, will ever attempt to harm me or my family or deprive us of our rights, freedoms and possessions.

I wish I could make that promise to you, but I can't. Even if I could, I still would not be able to get past that wall of fear and paranoia you have placed between us.

You are no different from me, except I live in a country where the vast majority of the population do not own a gun, and do not suffer the same level of fear and paranoia that you do. I live in a country where we don't suffer anywhere near the same amount of gun rampages or gun crime as you do in yours.

We have had gun rampages, and we do have a small level of gun crime, but I can still confidently walk down any street in the town where I live, any time of the day and night, unarmed, and carry no fear or paranoia that I may become a victim of a crime. Why can I do this and you feel you can't? I live in the UK, and I am often told (by Americans) that my country is more crime ridden and violent than America...it isn't, it's just a myth, and it is irrelevant to the gun control debate.

In fact, your appeal to me, shows a level of mental disquiet and unease that is simply the other side of the statement that guns are not the problem, but that mental issues are, mental issues such as fear and paranoia. So scared are you of a crime potentially occurring to you that nothing less than carrying a gun can make you feel beguiled of that fear; but it doesn't beguile you of the fear, you retain it, even when carrying a gun.

You, and millions of other Americans like you are infected with this same neurosis, and it is one of the impediments to finding and allowing a means and a way to solve the gun problem. You're like an addict who believes they cannot be cured of their addiction, and thus the means and method to it are not even allowed on the table to discuss.

You say you don't want your rights or your freedoms taken from you, but I assume that you would be quite happy to have the rights of those you deem mentally unstable taken away from them? The problem with that line of thinking is that, a) it is hypocritical and double-standard, and b) you don't know if someone is unstable until they take their arsenal out onto the street!

The gun owners who went on murderous rampages had guns for a long time before they committed their street atrocity. Up until their mental instability just snapped and off they went to 'off' as many innocents they could, they were deemed as a 'responsible' gun owner.

How many more 'responsible' gun owners have to break down mentally and rampage before the admission is made that a gun problem exists, and that it needs radical solutions to solve it? How many more have to die before an admittance is made that truthfully perceives that all gun owners (without exception) are the problem, and compound it with their fear and paranoia neurosis? The gun is not the solution to your fear, it is simply a symbol of it! While you keep the gun...you keep the fear!

originally posted by: elysiumfire
You are no different from me, except I live in a country where the vast majority of the population do not own a gun, and do not suffer the same level of fear and paranoia that you do. I live in a country where we don't suffer anywhere near the same amount of gun rampages or gun crime as you do in yours.

Do you live in a country where there is no crime, no murder? No chance of a tyrannical government ever, under any circumstances, impinging on your rights? Unless you can answer 'no' to all of these then you are postulating a false dichotomy. And you can call me paranoid for thinking these things are possible just as I can call you a fully passivated drone who thinks utopia is a reality.

You say you don't want your rights or your freedoms taken from you, but I assume that you would be quite happy to have the rights of those you deem mentally unstable taken away from them? The problem with that line of thinking is that, a) it is hypocritical and double-standard, and b) you don't know if someone is unstable until they take their arsenal out onto the street!

Effective mental health issue detection is an essential aspect in treatment and those who exhibit this behavior have already been precluded by lawful statutes prohibiting gun ownership. This is not a permanent revocation of rights but based on the assumption that their condition is treatable.

How many more 'responsible' gun owners have to break down mentally and rampage before the admission is made that a gun problem exists, and that it needs radical solutions to solve it? How many more have to die before an admittance is made that truthfully perceives that all gun owners (without exception) are the problem, and compound it with their fear and paranoia neurosis? The gun is not the solution to your fear, it is simply a symbol of it! While you keep the gun...you keep the fear!

There are always those who lie to obtain a weapon, like Rodgers did, but he also stabbed people to death and used his vehicle as a weapon of murder. Your fixation on the method of death is bizarre and does not address the true issue, that this was a very sick man.

And frankly, his sickness and horrible actions should not be manipulated by people like you looking to further a personal agenda.

a reply to: TSZodiac

WHOA KEMOSABE! Ive played violent video games for years and you dont see me going out and murdering innocent people. Now there is a very very small percentage of morond who do but its not a major issue. You would outlaw virtual guns instead of real guns correct? A game will no t make you go out and kill someone. YOU have to make that decision. They might a been mentally disturbed but put the blame where it belongs in their hands and theirs alone.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Weve seen your views for pages now and what I have not ascertained is whether you think there is a gun violence problem in your country,and if there is what to do about it.

a reply to: elysiumfire

And yet you live in a country where some violent crime is higher than in the US and your overall murder rate is actually higher since you banned gun ownership, so it is really evidence that gun bans do not make people safer.

a reply to: khnum

Ah, "gun violence" the paradigm used by people who want to ban gun ownership by law abiding citizens but cannot recognize the fact that gun bans do not reduce murder, rape, or violent crime one iota. Australian violent crime is up--murders, rape, robbery, etc since your worthless and feel good gun bans that only the law abiding complied with. Those bans did not help the problem one iota and any person with a brain knows why--criminals don't give a crap about bans and bans only disarm people that you don't have to worry about in the first place.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Ok Ill ask you is there a problem or isn't there and if there is what do you do about it my suggestion was to go after unregistered guns.

originally posted by: khnum
Weve seen your views for pages now and what I have not ascertained is whether you think there is a gun violence problem in your country,and if there is what to do about it.

I think there is a problem with criminals who have guns. I also think I live in a state that is only one step removed from the draconian laws you have in your country and in Europe and that my rights are being impinged.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So to stop criminals getting guns in their current numbers what do you do expand the BATF and FBI charters in the illegal gun department,wait we cant do that because the government is the potential énemy'...this is the sort of logic popping up here

a reply to: khnum

The problem has to do with people, not inanimate objects. We need to punish violent criminal severely, not release them so we have more room to jail pot heads. We need to stop this wasteful war on drugs that just enrich the cartels. We need to institutionalize and treat our insane instead of letting them go to victimize people. We need to let law abiding citizens to defend themselves. We need to stop supporting we lace queens who create generations of fatherless children. We need to make criminals be truely accountable for their actions. We need to close our borders to lawbreakers.

Disarming the law abiding will not work. We cannot even stop heroin from coming across our borders.

And you dodged my point. YOUR violent crime has increased since your gun bans so, obviously, your leftist solution did not work. How do you explain that?