The Right of the People to Own Weapons Cant be Expunged From The Debate.

a reply to: elysiumfire

"The government isn't coming for me today, so relax,chill out and shoot some trees"

??? Are you daft?

Why are you spamming this thread?

And you're not even from/in America??

Bro in this country we have elements in the alphabet agencies that are actively at war with the public...they plan and execute these heinous crimes then offer to save the day...it's a ploy as old as time.

All our public officials are mere fall guys, including trump. Big money interests/billionaire networks run this country. The media is a mouthpiece for these interests and all they seek to do is sow division and discord.

Don't tell me "you know their schedule and its all good" cause you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about. We've been at war, since 9/11 if not before.

We are supposed to disarm, because terrorists aided and abetted by elements in our own agencies , are carrying out attacks. Not happening ever. If you can't see what it is I'm sorry, but you don't even live here so maybe save the uninformed opinions .

a reply to: Logarock

First of all, lets get something straight shall we?

Its in your constitution that your rights are not to be infringed, and they have been, thats pretty clear to anyone reading the document.

However, its important to understand that the reason that those rights have been infringed, is that no one wants to actually be responsible for those who cannot be responsible for themselves. Look at the state of mental health in your country, shall we? Countless examples of mass shootings, have been enacted by people who were suffering from one or another mental incapacity, either life long, or building over time as a result of unmanaged trauma. Yes, there are outliers. Anomalous results do not invalidate general rules, so lets forget that for a moment.

Adequate and fit for purpose mental healthcare, without either stigma associated with it, or prohibitive, to the user costs, simply does not exist in America. Why? Because it is more expensive than any amount of mass shootings ever have been. What does it cost to bury a body? I will tell you... a damned sight less than it costs to do right by the mentally ill. Now, we do not know nearly enough about this recent shooter, to know whether he fell into that category at all. But what we do know is that most of the people who have performed mass shootings in the recent history of America, were not in possession of their faculties at the time they pulled the trigger.

Not a single one of those people, should have been free to walk around in normal society, at the time they pulled the trigger, and the only reason they were, is that America refuses to accept its responsibilities toward the mentally ill. Mental illness is no ones fault, but failure to deal with it, regardless of cost, is the fault of the government. Its the governments job to look after those who cannot look after themselves, and especially to ensure that they pose no threat to themselves or others. The only appropriate way to make that happen, is to sink ungodly amounts of money into mental healthcare facilities, institutionalisation of the seriously dangerous, and CONSTANT AND UNYIELDING monitoring of the conditions of those who do NOT currently pose a threat to others, with the dual intention of ensuring that there remains no threat from that person (that their condition is not evolving to another stage) AND to ensure that the individual afflicted receives the best care available to science, for whatever condition they have.

If this is done, you will wind up in a country where you can have all the guns you want, practically anywhere you want, because the only people insane enough to misuse them in a mass shooting, are in a softly padded room, being treated by nice, friendly, smart staff, who understand their conditions well enough to treat them successfully.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Logarock
Ask twenty thousand people at that venue if they would like to have had 'some guns' while they were all cowering and huddling.

The threat isn't from guns, or the lone nut , its the law makers that have reduced us to cowering huddled victims, hiding from one guy.

I'm very thankful they DIDN'T have any guns on their persons. Think about what you are saying. Most people would be carrying a pistol around and this guy shot up the place from the window of the 36th floor of a hotel. Pistols have an effective range of 25 meters. Explain to me what good those people being armed would have done. If anything, it could have potentially made the situation 1000 times worse if people started firing wildly back at what they perceive was the threat. Now instead of one shooter, you have a panicky crowd cross-firing at each other, too.

But again, being armed in this situation would have done dick. They'd have as much use with a real gun during that mass shooting as they would with a wood carving of a gun.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thats true enough. Unless any one of them happened to be Jerry Miculek, then I do not see how a crowd full of armed people could have done a damned thing, other than endanger one another. Plus, anyone carrying a gun at a concert, while they ought to be drinking and getting merry while enjoying the music, is asking for drunken trouble with their firearm in close proximity.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I know. It's clear that some of these gun defenders don't even think about their rhetoric before saying it anymore. It's just checking off a list of slogans and sayings with them, even if they don't apply in any rhyme or reason to the discussion at hand. The NRA has trained them well.

If you are not from/in America or you do not realize we are in a very real war with elements of the CIA/FBI/NSA you are not qualified/competent enough to even know what you are commenting on.

Keep pushing this fairytale of "lone wolf shooters with no help from anyone goes on a rampage now let's disarm the public" it's never gonna happen.

A single shot from a long rifle could have neutralized a guy shooting from the 32nd floor. How about hotel security? How long was dude shooting for? An hour? Are you freaking kidding me?

Go to a hotel in Vegas and break a window see how fast you get police at your door. Why even break the window at all? All the windows open a little bit and that would be all you need at that height and distance.

But please by all means, continue on about how we need to ban guns like it's not completely obvious the CIA/FBI etc are the ones doing this in the first place.

a reply to: TrueBrit

It's not that people don't want to be. We used to be responsible for the mentally ill, and then it came out that the government doesn't do a bang up job of that. Then people began to worry about the rights of the mentally ill, so now they have the right to be mentally ill which means no one can make them do what they don't want to do unless they are clearly a danger to others.

Some people would very much like to acknowledge our responsibility toward the mentally ill, but until we can override that segment of society that sees treatment, even hospitalized treatment as an infringement on their rights, it's not going to happen.

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: Logarock

This isn't about guns its about security and surveillance,billions of dollars worth so get your OSI Systems and Rapiscan shares now before the rush.

Rapiscan is a subsidiary of OSI.

SuicideKing33:

Bro in this country we have elements in the alphabet agencies that are actively at war with the public...

Sources please as evidence of the truth of this statement. Where, when, and who? Otherwise, you are suffering from paranoid delusions, and if you are a gun owner, I would find it particularly disturbing.

Why are you spamming this thread?

I have a stance. A belief that is counter to, and challenges the thinking of, gun owners in America. When their thinking is challenged it becomes clearly evident that the mindset of gun owners is the real cause of the gun problem. They are actually hurting their country and their fellow compatriots with their thinking, so it needs to be debated against.

And you're not even from/in America?

Utterly irrelevant.

...maybe save the uninformed opinions.

You've just demolished your own paranoid point of view. Show where and how I am uninformed that isn't simply another slant of your own paranoia?

a reply to: elysiumfire

You know ... we are constantly being told these days that our current government is just one step away from falling down a fascist hole under the direct command of orange Hitler.

If we allow them to disarm us, and you are correct about orange Hitler, what do we do about it? Die in mass numbers?

a reply to: Agit8dChop

If someone had a spine and had a proper gun debate 20yrs ago this might have never happened!

If someone in the crowd had returned fire that would have bought precious time for more people to escape the kill box. That would have reduced casualties, not "proper gun debate, 20yrs ago".

In fact its Lawmakers that infringed on the right to bear arms '20yrs ago' that made this more awful.

a reply to: ketsuko

The only reason that hospitalised treatment was frowned upon, is because the circumstances the institutionalised found themselves in, was one of absolute squalour, total desolation, in Dickensian, low cost, high profit places, where the only people who benefited from them at all, were those who owned the institutions.

Banish that, force the people paying the bill to accept that their place is not to eat kobe beef at the expense of those living in their care, but to devote themselves to the care of the sick, rather than the lining of their own pockets!

originally posted by: SuicideKing33
If you are not from/in America or you do not realize we are in a very real war with elements of the CIA/FBI/NSA you are not qualified/competent enough to even know what you are commenting on.

Keep pushing this fairytale of "lone wolf shooters with no help from anyone goes on a rampage now let's disarm the public" it's never gonna happen.

A single shot from a long rifle could have neutralized a guy shooting from the 32nd floor. How about hotel security? How long was dude shooting for? An hour? Are you freaking kidding me?

Go to a hotel in Vegas and break a window see how fast you get police at your door. Why even break the window at all? All the windows open a little bit and that would be all you need at that height and distance.

But please by all means, continue on about how we need to ban guns like it's not completely obvious the CIA/FBI etc are the ones doing this in the first place.

Okay I will...
More like conditioning over a lifetime by society (especially media, entertainment in Film, TV, Video games), produces a fertile breeding ground for extremophiles, unrepresentative of the public at large, to lose control and go on mass murder sprees. Then the MSM uses that to promote more control measures to strip people of their inalienable rights of liberty, freedom of speech and movement and most importantly, self defense.

So like, I am agreeing with you but from a different perspective.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Most people would be carrying a pistol around and this guy shot up the place from the window of the 36th floor of a hotel

Thirty second floor. I would carry a slinged rifle, the one self defense firearm that can deal with even that.

Either or, rocking the front of the building might cause a casualty, but like warfare (which that was) the intent isn't to harm more innocent civilians, its to make the shooter duck more instead of shooting more while people are running for the exits. Hopefully, I draw his attention and involve him in an exchange that also gives people more time to escape the kill box.

Standard military doctrine, called 'covering fire'.

Over all in the end result, more people get away and fewer are injured or killed.

Your counter argument to that (and I agree somewhat) would be to have security armed with rifles hanging around, but thats police state. I trust the ordinary joe more, the veteran, the law abiding citizen, than some bored, undertrained, security wannabe. Ordinary people are everywhere, cops typically are 'responders' , arriving later.

More security cops cost more money, average citizens 'sprinkled' with arms don't.

Save the "More guns is more trouble" emotional retort for the hand wringers, this event was more tragic and emotionally hellish for everyone precisely because less guns are openly carried by ordinary law abiding citizens. The mass murderers know this and take full advantage.

So do those that would remove guns from 'public' hands. if you have any doubts who those are, turn on any news channel for days afterwards.

a reply to: Krakatoa

So, in closing, a "well regulated militia" means an orderly group of citizens,

these lone wolves seem to be missing the orderly part, as well as the group part of the whole thing though don't they??
as well as just who should be considered an enemy combatant???

but in today's world "arms" would also mean the missiles, the nukes, the whole arsenal that we have to make war, not just those little guns you are so worried about. so I would say that our government has, for a very long time been regulating your access to arms. after all those arm dealers that get arrested aren't selling hunting rifles are they? no, they are selling the good stuff! the real weapons of today's war! missles, chemical weapons, stuff like that.
unless you are all for you neighbor going to the nearest gun store and being able to buy a biological weapon, you are for some regulation, some infringement on your right to bear arms! the disagreement has more to do on just how far those regulations should go. and to me, those that think that those regulations should be so extensive that they include hunting rifles and handguns are as loony, and probably as few, as those who think that all arms should be open to public sale.
most are somewhere in the middle ground, really considering the range of it, rather close together on the spectrum.

I find it outrageous that anybody would want to take away the rights of psychopaths, terrorists, and homicidal maniacs.

How dare they? Their rights must be protected!!

a reply to: intrptr

This is VERY (like I can't emphasize this word enough) poor reasoning. First off, who would take a rifle into a concert? That is just asking for trouble. Plus, it would be pain to carry it around all day with you. Adding alcohol and illegal drugs (of which there are plenty at concerts) to the mix only makes it worse too. Second off, even if you DID take a rifle into venue (again very absurd to do something like this), do you think it would have been a good idea to fire at the side of a hotel building to get the person to duck? What happens if you bullets go through the wall and hit an innocent bystander? Are you willing to accept responsibility and go to jail for involuntary manslaughter because of your shooting?

As an ex-military person speaking, you have a Hollywood idea of returning fire. Even the police didn't return fire on this guy. In the military, when you return fire you are doing it as a unit. You lay down what is called suppressing fire so that a squad mate can advance on an enemy position. This is done with an automatic weapon by the way (fat chance of getting that into the venue). But even if you could lay down adequate suppressing fire, you don't have any unit cohesion with your fellow concertgoers to even make that tactic worthwhile. Trying a coordinated raid tactic with a bunch of random concertgoers who happened to be armed with firearms would be the equivalent of a live action PUG (pickup group) playing Call of Duty. In other words a NIGHTMARE.

I mean damn, just because you have a gun in your hands doesn't mean you are adequately trained or prepared to take on a hostile shooter who is in front of you, let alone someone raining sniper fire down on the ground. The police took an hour to locate this guy, and the only reason that happened was because the perp shot a security guard through the hotel door when he was trying to clear rooms. Also, speaking of sniper fire, since you are hung up on military tactics, what does the Art of War say about someone who has an elevated position on their attacker?

Lastly, if you had a rifle and returned fire, I would pray the police would arrest you too for further endangering the crowd or the people in the hotel cowering in their rooms.

So do those that would remove guns from 'public' hands. if you have any doubts who those are, turn on any news channel for days afterwards.

I have doubts you know what you are talking about.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Most of the hospitals shut down were state-run. So you are saying the government was profiteering?

originally posted by: angeldoll
I find it outrageous that anybody would want to take away the rights of psychopaths, terrorists, and homicidal maniacs.

How dare they? Their rights must be protected!!

In most other contexts, those people are also the mentally ill. And there are people who see it as an infringement of their rights to hospitalize them until and unless they pose a direct danger, and, of course, they may not pose that direct danger until they suddenly murder someone or a bunch of someones.

Don't you know the mentally ill have rights too?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is VERY (like I can't emphasize this word enough) poor reasoning. First off, who would take a rifle into a concert?

You are one of the hand wringers, conditioned by decades of anti gun propaganda, deflecting from the person that committed this heinous crime to the inanimate object.

If someone uses a vehicle to run down and mass murder a bunch of people do we focus on the car, the truck, the manufacturer?

Try not to defect to evil things, anymore.