NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'

Just keep in mind that two people armed with handguns could have probably killed the same amount of people in San Bernardino. They didn't really need long rifles to commit this carnage. Also keep in mind that any CCW people in the conference room (if it was within the law to carry a gun) most likely wouldn't have had "assault rifles" on them at the time, they would have had hand guns.

One bullet is all it takes to put someone down, just make sure your aim is good.

Most people with knowledge and experience with firearms will tell you that in the relatively close quarters of that conference room a pump action shotgun would have been a much more effective weapon and would have killed and injured more people than so-called assault rifles.

a reply to: neo96

Yeah cool, lets just shut down all gun manufacturers while we're at it -- you know there will still be mass shootings right?

3D printers can print guns from home made schematics and people have been pressing their own bullets since the dawn of time. You can ban all guns, but you can't stop people from making their own -- and it's easier than ever to do so, no serial numbers -- no manufacturers, no ballistics that can be traced -- but sure, lets just give up our guns so criminals can print their own and have absolute power over their victims.

Sound logic... not. It's antiquated, this might have worked back in the 50's, but still even, people make their own weapons regularly. Anybody with a machine shop can make a homemade untraceable ak-47. Terrorists have been making their own bombs from house hold cleaning chemicals for years now, what makes you think they won't print guns?

Everyone asks the wrong questions; it isn't about gun control. It doesn't matter where they got it, if they made it, if it can be traced, if they passed checks, the only thing that matters is this -- WHY.

WHY are they mass shooting people? What is wrong with their standard of living, what is driving people to be so angry that they have to murder people to make their point? What it DRIVING people to conduct these acts of violence.

Because if you don't solve the WHY, it doesn't matter what laws you make, it's still going to happen. Even in countries that have long since banned guns, there is still gun violence, more over -- there is Sword and Knife violence, bomb violence, automobile violence, bare handed murders, and so on.

What stops someone from walking around and touching people with ricin? You could kill 500 people a day and nobody would know it was you.

The answer is NEVER to BAN things, it's always to solve for WHY. Eliminate the cause and you eliminate the effect. Weapons aren't the cause, nor are they the effect, they are just the means to the effect to follow from the cause.

Taking guns away from people who haven't broken the law isn't going to take guns away from the people who are actively breaking the law with them. All you do is make more targets and put the criminals at less risk.

You see this is verifiable. Look at how many "Gun Free Zones" fall victim to gun violence -- it's like advertising that you have no defenses against gun crime, which no doubt attracts gun crime. Common sense really.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Gun nut - The armed forces and police would never take our guns, they'd be on our side...

Anti Gun nut - Then why do you need guns...

Gun nut - I need guns because the government want to take my guns...

Anti gun nut - Wait... What?



^^^^^^^^^
That's why you all sound like raving lunatics.

The problem is right there in bold. You are not required to demonstrate a need to exercise a Constitutional right. If someone WANTS a gun, for any reason, it is their right to keep and bear it.

Nearly all the mass shootings to date have been in gun-free zones. Schools, theaters, what have you. The current death toll could have been greatly reduced if all gun-free zones were abolished and all states were required to honor CCW permits, as well as stand your ground laws. If they did this, the potential mass shooter never knows if their next target will have 100 hapless victims, or one or two or more CCW holders waiting to return fire.

Gun control does not make people safer. It makes people more vulnerable by turning whole crowds of people into victims.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: neo96

So now Imma a 'terrorist' for merely owning a 'assault' weapon! Never mind I, and millions of other Americans haven't done anything. Why no Imma a terrorist!

Well aren't you gun totting conservatives all for insurrection of the U.S government when it turns on it's own citizen's?...


...What I don't understand is why you use the word terrorism with such a negative connotation in regards to American gun owners? For every man's terrorist is somebody else's freedom fighter. You should show your support to them in a less degrading fashion instead of sensationalizing an out of context paragraph. Your just perpetuating the mainstream partisan divide even further.Something that I thought many people like yourself refuse to be apart of.

You just labeled firearm owners / people advocating for 2nd amendment rights as "Gun toting conservatives all for insurrection", then criticized them for "perpetuating the mainstream partisan divide". Ironic that you would use partisan rhetoric and assumption to denounce others for using partisan rhetoric and assumption. Hypocrisy at is most obvious.

I know plenty of firearms owners who understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment (resistance to tyranny) that are not conservative (myself included).

originally posted by: peskyhumans

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Gun nut - The armed forces and police would never take our guns, they'd be on our side...

Anti Gun nut - Then why do you need guns...

Gun nut - I need guns because the government want to take my guns...

Anti gun nut - Wait... What?



^^^^^^^^^
That's why you all sound like raving lunatics.

The problem is right there in bold. You are not required to demonstrate a need to exercise a Constitutional right. If someone WANTS a gun, for any reason, it is their right to keep and bear it.

Nearly all the mass shootings to date have been in gun-free zones. Schools, theaters, what have you. The current death toll could have been greatly reduced if all gun-free zones were abolished and all states were required to honor CCW permits, as well as stand your ground laws. If they did this, the potential mass shooter never knows if their next target will have 100 hapless victims, or one or two or more CCW holders waiting to return fire.

Gun control does not make people safer. It makes people more vulnerable by turning whole crowds of people into victims.

Spot on.

To reiterate the point, I'm going to use a different example.

"BEWARE OF DOG" or "PROTECTED BY ADT SECURITY" Signs. Places with this kind of signage suffer from dramatically less crime than places without this signage, because nobody wants to break into a house with a dog that could kill you -- nobody wants to break into the one house on the block with a security system.

Now lets looks at the other kind of signage;

"GUN FREE ZONE"

The polar opposite, you're advertising to criminals that this is a SAFE place to conduct crime, and as such -- you've done the opposite of creating safety, you've now put everybody in the gun free zone at INCREASED risk of being a target. Anybody with a gun is going to see a Gun Free Zone as a place where they can go nuts. This is exactly why most of the gun violence takes place in these zones.

Empirically proven. If you disagree, it's not a matter of opinion, you're just flat out wrong.

Oh, and last time I checked, terrorists had no problems getting their hands on illegal contraband and weapons, so taking it away from law abiding citizens just makes it easier for a terrorist to cause terror and mayhem.

originally posted by: SonOfThor

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: neo96

So now Imma a 'terrorist' for merely owning a 'assault' weapon! Never mind I, and millions of other Americans haven't done anything. Why no Imma a terrorist!

Well aren't you gun totting conservatives all for insurrection of the U.S government when it turns on it's own citizen's?...


...What I don't understand is why you use the word terrorism with such a negative connotation in regards to American gun owners? For every man's terrorist is somebody else's freedom fighter. You should show your support to them in a less degrading fashion instead of sensationalizing an out of context paragraph. Your just perpetuating the mainstream partisan divide even further.Something that I thought many people like yourself refuse to be apart of.

I know plenty of firearms owners who understand the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment (resistance to tyranny) that are not conservative (myself included).

Myself included as well. The difference between responsible gun owners and those that think stripping the 2nd is the right course of action is solely one of Education. We have it, they don't.

a reply to: neo96

Good catch Neo... and of course bumped. How far the
Old Grey Lady has fallen- and apparently landed on her head.

I counter propose that for the good of their fellow citizens,
the Zionist Media stops trying to start a domestic bloodbath
over our endowed human right to self-protection... by
suggesting we turn in our arms. Time to quit or spit boys.

Oh wait... Zionists don't have fellow citizens, only the goy.
It's an old line isn't it? All the way from Egypt to Australia:
"C'mon do it for the kids." Don't know about you, but I'm
going to keep them for the sake of the kids.

Is it accurate after Oz got the ban home invasions went up 300%??

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I find your avatar interesting considering the views that you have. I still remember watching the video where that unarmed French cop gets blown away by a fully automatic AK-47. In the US shootings with fully automatic weapons are extremely rare , in Europe they are the standard.

Firstly, my avatar tends to change frequently, so for future readers: you are referring to the avatar that contains a picture of an eye, a depiction of an anti-war symbol that has been slightly altered to look like the Eiffel tower and the text "Je suis Charlie". This one:



I believe it is quite clear what it's message is:

1. the eye simply represents me.
   
2. the peace symbol represents my opinion that all people should live together in peace. The modification to make it look a bit like the Eiffel tower was done by a Parisian on the same day the recent shootings took place. Seems to me that it gives a clear message: peace, even if the weak of mind shoot at you.
   
3. Je suis Charlie - that a bit of pun. It is, of course, the well known motto of those that are in favour of free speech and want to defend that right without violence. The pen is a far mightier weapon than guns, at least that's what we believe. But - Charles was also the first name of that world famous iconoclast Charles Fort of which I am a big fan. So, as a fortean, I am proud in more than one way to say "Je suis Charlie"
   

Now, what exactly is puzzling you about that avatar?

The UK had all its guns taken. A few kicks and screams but we knew it was for the better. The police didn't attack us, the government didn't attack us and we lead normal lives. Why do people cling onto 200 year old quotes as though they are still relevant today. You genuinely think the government will start a "state" as soon as you give up guns. This is what me and many others struggle to comprehend. Where does this fear originate from other than history lessons when you were teenagers.

Yes knife crime will go up. Stupid comment.
Yes criminals will have guns. Incredibly stupid comment.
The government will take over the public if we forfeit our rights to defend ourselves. FOOKING STUPID COMMENT.

Can't believe I actually typed in another guns are needed thread, as though life isn't worth living without the opportunity to harm other lives.

Rant over.

a reply to: SRPrime
You seem very reasonable, but you must admit that even you can be susceptible to depression and mental disorders. Education is all well and good but has little relevance when the "switch flips" and you misinterpret certain situations.

Isn't this what all mass shootings originate from, a mental breakdown?

Would it not be better to get rid of automatic guns then as less damage would/should be caused when this person breaks down.

Remember we are all 1 knock on the head away or 1 toke away from being the people we demonise.

originally posted by: peskyhumans

Nearly all the mass shootings to date have been in gun-free zones. Schools, theaters, what have you. The current death toll could have been greatly reduced if all gun-free zones were abolished and all states were required to honor CCW permits, as well as stand your ground laws. If they did this, the potential mass shooter never knows if their next target will have 100 hapless victims, or one or two or more CCW holders waiting to return fire.

Gun control does not make people safer. It makes people more vulnerable by turning whole crowds of people into victims.

I wonder if we did away with all GUN FREE ZONES and made every inch of America to honer CCW what kind of result that would bring? It is not like the bad guys care either way. Cities like Chicago New York etc where guns are basically banned still have the highest gun victims in the nation, so I'm not sure what people think will happen if a teacher could carry a gun legally, or a law abiding citizen could walk down any street armed. I would bet a good number do it already illegally. Even if the right was there and no one did it anyways, the bad guy would think twice still not knowing if someone is in the group that could take him out.

The Brady bill went into effect in 1993 and 1993 and 1994 were two of the highest gun incidences on record, and it wasn't until that bill expired that the rates dropped a good deal as we see today, so it is hard to say the Brady Bill years were any good for anyone but the bad guys. Below is a good picture of what is going on in America. Today even with our lower rates we have more gang violence and a lot more suicide/murders that I truly think the president is deflecting the governments failures in these two areas to just blame it on guns alone. So maybe these two areas is where we need to focus on more and just come to the conclusion that gun control is not good and has never been good.

You gotta love how radical Muslims are only a small, tiny part of the larger peaceful group, but gun owners.... They're all nuts.

a reply to: peskyhumans

Do you not believe the frequency of shootings would dramatically increase if everyone had guns in these safe zones. Schools and theatres would be blood baths.gun free zones are safe. You know that 99.99% of people can't shoot you if you don't agree.

Yes mass shootings might decrease and the number of deaths limited cos people react before too much damage is done, but the frequency of deaths WILL far outweigh the deaths in mass shootings. Mass shootings will become irrelevant statistically if the government implemented your position

a reply to: TheBulk

They are though. I have no problem with hunting to provide for the family (not for pleasure) and a bit of fun at the shooting range but the very thought of guns no longer being accessible has brought out the "nuts" in many responses so far.

a reply to: rossacus

The frequency of shootings would not increase if everyone was allowed to CCW. This is because guns do not kill people, people kill people. Law abiding citizens are law abiding citizens irregardless of whether or not they are permitted to CCW. You don't turn into a bloodthirsty killer the moment you pick up a gun.

What would happen if all gun-free zones were abolished, CCW was honored everywhere, and stand your ground was everywhere, is that there would be no safe place for a mass shooter to carry out his crime. Every group of people would potentially have an armed citizen ready to legally defend themselves.

People are starting to wake up and realize this right now. Look at whats happening in Ohio for example - they are allowing teachers to CCW to work. This is how you protect a school district!
www.foxnews.com...

“The single most important factor in active killer death toll is time,” he said in a statement to Foxnews.com. “The longer killers have their way in so-called ‘no-guns’ zones, the more people die. The sooner they are stopped, the fewer people die. It is really that simple.

The police can't be everywhere all the time. Nation-wide CCW and stand your ground is the best answer to the terrorism of mass shootings. The most humane thing we can do as a society of human beings right now, is to abolish all gun-free zones and arm law-abiding citizens.

a reply to: rossacus

Speaking for myself, I don't believe that at all. There are quite a few states where significant percentages of the adult population have concealed carry permits and the laws allow them to carry in the majority of public places. If that type of scenario were going to play out, with CCW permit holders being a major problem, I think we'd have certainly already seen it.

'Peskyhumans' has the right of it: law-abiding citizens have a very strong tendency to remain law-abiding citizens whether they have a concealed carry permit or not.

a reply to: rossacus

Why do people cling onto 200 year old quotes as though they are still relevant today. You genuinely think the government will start a "state" as soon as you give up guns. This is what me and many others struggle to comprehend. Where does this fear originate from other than history lessons when you were teenagers.

We "cling" to these quotes because we understand history. Things created by man all eventually end. That means at some point the gov't you believe will protect you will at some point be gone. Either by act of man or act of fate our institutions are not eternal. So when they do end who will look after the people then? The people will have to take care of themselves and that does mean having to learn to actually shot and kill. and before your feathers ruffle the main reason to kill will be to eat, but have no doubt that people would be on that list to kill because like those people we learned about in history we would have to protect what is ours. Modern civilization has weakened humanity. Killing is part of nature, animals do it for food and to protect their own. Despite some high minded thinking from people today, we humans are animals. No better no worse than any other. When things get rough who do you think the gov't will be more interested in protecting, we the people or their position?

NYT should give up being a so called news paper for the good of us all. They sold out long time ago and no longer care about the truth.

a reply to: rossacus

So its not ok to buy a gun because I like to shoot it?

I also hunt to put good meat on the table, what my family cant eat goes to a local food bank for distribution to those less fortunate.

I also prefer to have the ability to defend my home and my family from any intruders... since cops are at best minutes away when seconds count.

Living in Europe I respect the decisions of Europeans to put all their faith in the govt to care for them from cradle to the grave... I have not seen anything out of the govt except a string of broken promises, so please forgive me if I prefer to not wager my life on them following through on a promise.

But I cant wait to return to the USA where I am allowed to defend myself in my own home.