Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

a reply to: seagull

Here's a story you might be interested in, this part of the narrative is new to me.
www.nydailynews.com...

As it turns out, this high school actually had an armed security guard on staff. He had a gun, he was at the school, and he still couldn't respond fast enough to save anyone or even confront the shooter.

We have three options here. More guns, equal guns, or less guns. More guns isn't going to work, because as we just saw the entire concept of armed security failed. Keeping the number of guns the same hasn't worked. The only option left to try on the gun front is fewer guns simply by the process of elimination. Every other strategy that could possibly have been used to leave guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has been tried, and it has failed.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: Aazadan

You mean they never occur with legally acquired automatic weapons. Plenty of auto AK's and SKS's in the hands of criminals.

And how many of the illegally acquired ones are used in mass shootings? What percentage? How about school shootings specifically? How about petty crime like robbing stores?

I would imagine that considering homicides by rifle in general are about 3 percent of all gun homicides, and legally owned fully automatic weapons are a fraction of a fraction of all legally owned weapons, I'd imagine around zero.

According to the FBI's own UCR data, in 2014 there were 8,124 homicides with firearms. 248 were done with a rifle. It doesn't break it down further into rifle type, much less full auto.

2014 Weapon Homicides

Owners of actual fully automatic weapons have to jump through many, many hoops and spend a bunch of money just to own one. The barrier to entry is high and they have a lot to lose if they misuse one.

Illegally acquired is hard to track, but Google "Fully Automatic Seizures" and you'll see it's not isolated.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
Owners of actual fully automatic weapons have to jump through many, many hoops and spend a bunch of money just to own one. The barrier to entry is high and they have a lot to lose if they misuse one.

You're making my point for me. The amount of crime committed with fully automatic weapons is miniscule. There's exceptions here and there, but all in all it wouldn't be a stretch to say that we've accomplished effective gun control in that area. As a consequence very few people have these weapons, but that cuts both ways and they've been priced out of the criminals hands as well.

Why would it be such a bad thing to do that to other classifications of weapons?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Wardaddy454

I didn't say you make a colony out of ruins. It can easily be done when you "mass murder whole countries". So, which country that we've "mass murdered" has become a colony, or puppet state, if you prefer?

Puppet states are the desired outcome. If they refuse to submit, then they become Libyas, destabilized regions of infighting between minor groups vying for power.

We are currently doing the same thing in Iraq and Syria. Google Mosul ruins, Iraq.

Millions of tons of rubble, rotting corpses, sown with unexploded ordnance and mines.

Medieval.

image search result

And you don't place any blame at the feet of ISIS?

Oh I know, the US created ISIS.

Well, most of us didn't ask the president to dismiss them as the JV squad. Nor did we ask for Libya, or Syria.

a reply to: Aazadan

FOPA in 1986 was an unnecessary infringement on the 2A. There is no evidence to suggest that those "machine guns" were ever used in a crime. It was a power grab by Congress and the ATF.

There were approximately 175,000 licensed full auto firearms in the U.S at that time, with any new ones illegal for civilians to own.

There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 million "assault rifles" in the U.S. the logistics of a useful ban are staggering.

I say just treat all rights in the Bill of Rights like fully automatic weapons.

To go to church, avoid a search, remain silent, you have to pay a $200 tax stamp each time, keep records of it, and get approval from a local chief law enforcement officer.

a reply to: Painterz

That's great if you like being a subject of your government I like
being a citizen of mine. Its much bigger than banning guns.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Wardaddy454

Oh I know, the US created ISIS.

Good to see you figuring things out for yourself.

well if you decide on your own to get rid of your own guns or weapons try to not do it like this idiot who basically committed at least 2 crimes when he uploaded his video . in the video he destroys his ar-15 in the state of new york,how could this be a crime you ask? he chops the barrel off but does not destroy the receiver,which in turn makes his rifle into a short barrel rifled which is a felony under the ATF rules that govern such things with a 10k fine and a good deal of jail time ,i am unsure as to the legality of his pistol grip on his rifle in the state of NY which has very restrictive laws

gunfreezone.net...

Scott-Dani Pappalardo tried to give us a shovel full of Moral Superiority and ended up breaking Federal Firearm Laws by creating a Short Barrel Rifle without the proper NFA Tax Stamp. I cued the video to the important part bypassing almost four minutes of Virtue Signaling and self-aggrandizing bullsh**:

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: waynos

Sorry, but I'm going to politely disagree with you.

No one is forced to have a firearm. If my fellow Americans, or some of them, don't feel the need to have them, fine, I'm OK with that. If I misbehave with my firearms, which ever one, there are already a sufficiency of laws on the books to cover, I'm guessing, every eventuality.

I have absolutely no need, nor will I ever, nor have a reason to justify my owning firearms. You don't like it? I'm OK with that, too. You see, I mind my own business.

To be fair, I would think peer pressure has a lot to do with that. I think, with so many guns in circulation and with them being so freely available, I may well feel I would need one if I was living over there, but I wouldn’t be happy about it. Here I don’t feel the need. You personally renouncing guns wouldn’t change anything, even if you wanted to. It’s the collective will that just looks so damned wrong footed when these killings are happening so frequently, and nobody wants to do a damn thing about it. The suggestion that more guns would help is simply insane. The evidence already proves that where there are fewer guns there are massively fewer deaths. The level of outrage that we see for relatively trivial matters by comparison just looks silly. If this amount of children, or people generally, were dying from another cause, let’s say faulty central heating, or food poisoning, for example, it would be regarded as a national scandal. Because it’s guns, “hey, lets not go there”. I think this is the most baffling aspect to any non American.

Lastly, don’t you think a moderator of a discussion board shouldn’t be hinting that someone mind their own business on a topic? Very poor that. Since when were US members limited on voicing an opinion on a subject?

What it all boils down to is that if you guys think thousands of deaths, including kids, are acceptable, and some have openly stated that it is, then That is up to you. But it also makes you look like complete hypocrites when getting on your collective high horses about any other subject with a lesser impact. That much is my opinion, and I am entitled to state it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: seagull

1 person kills people with a gun and all gun owners are labeled and they want guns banned.

Yet when a person kills someone when they are drunk nothing.
When an illegal immigrant kills someone nothing.

Evidently not the case.

1: No gun owners are being labelled. It has been pointed out that sometimes in these incidents the guns may be stolen. It’s the sheer numbers of guns you have in circulation making them so easy to misuse for those who shouldn’t have accesss that is the problem. If someone goes postal on my street, they cannot simply pick up their gun, or steal one and go on a rampage. Mental illness or instability can strike ANYONE at any time, this is the prime reason, IMO, why the “reasonable careful owner” argument is invalid.

2: That would be murder or manslaughter, if they haven’t got access to a gun, the drunk can’t shoot anyone and would be easier to overpower in the first place.

3: is that why Trump made such strenuous efforts to ban Muslims entering the country after a tiny fraction of deaths compared to the gun incidents you see all the time? Thousands can die from gunshot wounds every year and guns aren’t a problem, but a foreigner kills one person and all hell breaks loose, and you don’t see this as ridiculous? Muslims banned through the fear that a terrorist MAY come into the country and cause an incident, compared to the incidents that regular Americans carrying guns cause every day. The sheer hypocrisy is astounding.

The paucity of the argument in favour of gun ownership is illuminated brightly by the examples being put forward.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Yeah, gun deaths in America in 2018 are acceptable because Britain was bad in past centuries and crime still exists here. And you think that is actually an argument?

Nice try attempting to boost UK death figures by including high present day stats from foreign countries that were empire territories in the past.

We taught you oppression and violence? So you’re not an independent civilised country of thinking people who make their own choices?

Again, the paucity if what you have to say shows the lack of real validation there is. We know nothings going to change, but you guys really don’t like a debate where uncomfortable truths are aired do you.

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: PaddyInf

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: PaddyInf

because the USA has 5 times (roughly) more people then the UK and the UK is an island

You seem to have a problem understanding statistics...
I don't profess to having a solution to the problem, but until you acknowledge there is an issue then you will never have a solution either, and people will keep dying.

You seem to have a problem yourself. Let's call it reality.
This is from www.theguardian.com...
"Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show ...Police record 10% rise in crime in England and Wales, with 18% increase in violent crime and significant rise in murder rate. Police-recorded crime has risen by 10% across England and Wales – the largest annual rise for a decade – according to the Office for National Statistics.

The latest crime figures for the 12 months to March also show an 18% rise in violent crime, including a 20% surge in gun and knife crime. The official figures also show a 26% rise to 723 in the homicide rate, which includes the 96 cases of manslaughter at Hillsborough in 1989.

More alarmingly, the statisticians say the rise in crime is accelerating, with a 3% increase recorded in the year to March 2015, followed by an 8% rise in the following year, and now a 10% increase in the 12 months to this March."

"The home secretary, Amber Rudd, at Southwark police station in London this month. There has been a 20% surge in gun and knife crime."

OK, let’s just accept your figures without reservation here. And still gun deaths in the UK are less than 1 per 100,000 but almost 5 per 100,000 in the US.

HELLO MCFLY

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Xcathdra

Why should anyone care what a guy from Hollywood thinks..right?, I'm just making a point about the hatred of Hollywood peeps, and how their opinions are sh#t..IF they are left leaning.

I don't believe there is a chance in hell of controlling the gun issue at this point anyway, so I'm not making to the point for any reason other than to point out hypocrisy(not from you per se.)

The purpose of the image is what he said. He is absolutely correct in terms of what the founding fathers had in mind when the 2nd amendment was adopted. The first automatic gun came into existence 70+ years before our Constitution was adopted. The argument made by some regarding it referring only to muskets or only for hunting or sport are woefully ignorant on the topic.

Guns do not kill people. The person pulling the trigger does.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: seagull

Here's a story you might be interested in, this part of the narrative is new to me.
www.nydailynews.com...

As it turns out, this high school actually had an armed security guard on staff. He had a gun, he was at the school, and he still couldn't respond fast enough to save anyone or even confront the shooter.

We have three options here. More guns, equal guns, or less guns. More guns isn't going to work, because as we just saw the entire concept of armed security failed. Keeping the number of guns the same hasn't worked. The only option left to try on the gun front is fewer guns simply by the process of elimination. Every other strategy that could possibly have been used to leave guns in the hands of law abiding citizens has been tried, and it has failed.

and there was a teacher present and located in the hallway where this wingnut started his actions. The teacher also worked armed security as a side job. Had he been allowed to have his gun with him the killer could have been stopped. Instead he was murdered protecting students with his body.

As for the armed officer on campus it proves the point I make in these types of threads. Law Enforcement cannot protect the individual. When a crime occurs the first person present is usually the criminal. The next person present are the soon to be victims. The last to show up is law enforcement.

That means a person has a choice -
Stand your ground until law enforcement arrives or be a wiling victim.

originally posted by: waynos
Evidently not the case.

1: No gun owners are being labelled. It has been pointed out that sometimes in these incidents the guns may be stolen. It’s the sheer numbers of guns you have in circulation making them so easy to misuse for those who shouldn’t have accesss that is the problem. If someone goes postal on my street, they cannot simply pick up their gun, or steal one and go on a rampage. Mental illness or instability can strike ANYONE at any time, this is the prime reason, IMO, why the “reasonable careful owner” argument is invalid.

You would be incorrect and all one needs to do is read / watch the news. Gun owners become vilified and then attacked if they refuse to support a ban on firearms.

As for mental illness I already addressed that many pages back. The key word in legislation dealing with mental illness is "adjudicated". An arbitrary list, just like the arbitrary no fly list, that operates outside the judicial system is a bad idea and frankly unconstitutional since it denies people due process.

originally posted by: waynos
2: That would be murder or manslaughter, if they haven’t got access to a gun, the drunk can’t shoot anyone and would be easier to overpower in the first place.

Guess what - A car is a 2k lb missile and people can be charged with assault by using a car in that fashion. As for a drunk being easier o overpower the number of DWI pursuits coupled with the death toll of drunk driving accidents says otherwise.

originally posted by: waynos
3: is that why Trump made such strenuous efforts to ban Muslims entering the country after a tiny fraction of deaths compared to the gun incidents you see all the time? Thousands can die from gunshot wounds every year and guns aren’t a problem, but a foreigner kills one person and all hell breaks loose, and you don’t see this as ridiculous? Muslims banned through the fear that a terrorist MAY come into the country and cause an incident, compared to the incidents that regular Americans carrying guns cause every day. The sheer hypocrisy is astounding.

The paucity of the argument in favour of gun ownership is illuminated brightly by the examples being put forward.

He did not ban Muslims. If you think that is what he did maybe you should call up the Supreme Court and let them know they got it wrong in their rulings on that EO.

Cigarettes kill more people each year in the US than guns / drunk driving and assaults combined. I dont see anyone going after them. That is especially perplexing since those companies target kids to create life long smokers.

If a cop shoots an unarmed man it is the cops fault.
If a wingnut shoots 17 students its the guns fault.

As for your foreigner comparison you need to be specific. The issues with that scenario is in those cases the "foreigner" in question has already violated the law by being here illegally. The left needs to stop with their selective we will enforce some laws while we ignore others. Even if they are here legally they are still prohibited from possessing a firearm.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Thank you for your response and not just telling me to mind my own business. I know we aren’t changing anything here, just talking about it.

Re your response to the first point. Yes, I can see that this does happen, sorry, I was responding only in response to this particular thread, not generally.

Regarding points 2 and 3. Are you proposing that because you can’t ban cars or smoking (the fact that this is not true and there are many car and smoking bans in force, but let’s go with it) then that is a reason not to try and curb gun deaths? Seriously? You are saying “we can’t fix everything, so let’s fix nothing” because that is the logical extension of that position. Nothing is taboo, anything goes, screw everyone. I disagree.

If a cop shoots an unarmed man, it’s only his fault if the unarmed man was clearly unarmed and making it clear, you are inventing scenarios to justify gun ownership again. This is just a circular argument that avoids acknowledging any actual issues. If a wingnut goes on the rampage, he can only shoot tens of people if he has access to a gun. Not the guns fault, the fault is that of a society that thinks guns are acceptable.

Also, it’s not “my” foreigner situation you’re referring to. You, or others, introduced that element to the thread in order to deflect and avoid having to discuss why access to guns makes it easy for loonies to shoot people. I just found Trumps travel ban ironic, given the real numbers involved, considering his utter avoidance of a much greater problem.

a reply to: Xcathdra

It also means that if we remove guns there would be a lot fewer victims.

originally posted by: Violater1
Enough is enough! Public massacres and school shootings must stop!

The Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon...

The MSM is a huge part of this problem that needs to be dealt with...

Some critics lambasted mainstream media for underplaying Meli's story, exposing a bias against reporting on how guns can play a part in saving innocent lives. Newsbusters.org, dedicated to "exposing and combating liberal media bias," posted a story proclaiming, "Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll." And it's true that Meli's story was absent from liberal discussions on MSNBC.

Clackamas Town Center shooting: Story of armed shopper fuels national debate

A Google News search on Nick Meli's full name in quotes at 11:00 a.m. ET returned no other story. Earlier this week, a group of Democratic Party politicians in Oregon co-sponsored "a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons." It appears that the legislation would, if enacted, have banned Meli from carrying his Glock (disclosed in the video coverage, but not the text). Mall shoppers who survived that day, their families, and the public should be asking the dimwitted dozen how much worse the death toll might have been on December 11 if Meli had instead been unarmed -- if they only knew the story the press won't tell.

Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: Violater1
Enough is enough! Public massacres and school shootings must stop!

The Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon...

The MSM is a huge part of this problem that needs to be dealt with...

Some critics lambasted mainstream media for underplaying Meli's story, exposing a bias against reporting on how guns can play a part in saving innocent lives. Newsbusters.org, dedicated to "exposing and combating liberal media bias," posted a story proclaiming, "Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll." And it's true that Meli's story was absent from liberal discussions on MSNBC.

Clackamas Town Center shooting: Story of armed shopper fuels national debate

A Google News search on Nick Meli's full name in quotes at 11:00 a.m. ET returned no other story. Earlier this week, a group of Democratic Party politicians in Oregon co-sponsored "a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles classified as assault weapons." It appears that the legislation would, if enacted, have banned Meli from carrying his Glock (disclosed in the video coverage, but not the text). Mall shoppers who survived that day, their families, and the public should be asking the dimwitted dozen how much worse the death toll might have been on December 11 if Meli had instead been unarmed -- if they only knew the story the press won't tell.

Virtually Unreported: CCW Holder Likely Prevented Larger Clackamas Mall Death Toll

That was 2013? How many schoolkids slaughtered since then? Oh, I get it...blame the media for reporting the bloodbaths.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

I posted facts, you posted an opinion.

Facts > opinions.

End of story...