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

originally posted by: waynos
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.

If you are going to take the time to discuss / debate then people should take the time to give a response

originally posted by: waynos
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.

Fair point.

originally posted by: waynos
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.

Actually I was pointing out the hypocrisy in mindset. When a person dies from smoking or dies behind the wheel of a car while driving drunk I dont see anyone calling for bans on cigarettes or cars. The mindset is the individual who decided to smoke or drive drunk are the ones responsible for their own actions. In the case of shootings they throw personal accountability out the window and go for the gun argument. All mass shootings and the details of those shootings clearly shows many laws were broken to reach the end result. Trying to pass new laws is ineffective and a waste of time since laws are already on the books.

For some reason the left's position always seems to be it is someone elses fault. In this case in Florida the blame has been placed on -
* - His messed up childhood
* - His foster parents
* - His school discipline problems
* - Guns
* - The NRA
* - Republicans
* - lawful gun owners

The problem is you dont see the left identifying the cause - the shooter himself.

originally posted by: waynos
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.

As a law enforcement officer I have seen it first hand so no, I am not making it up. Take the Michael Brown case from Ferguson Mo. That officer shot and killed an unarmed suspect however the media left out Brown's actions that led up to it, which justified the shoot. People start rioting because the cop killed someone and all cops are racist evil people. The left wing media is especially good at demonizing law enforcement by failing to report relevant facts for context.

This case in Florida is the opposite. Listening to the news the theme is "its not the shooters fault but the guns fault". They then go on a crusade to restrict / ban guns. As I pointed out above the media is doing their typical blame everyone but the shooter strategy all the while pushing for gun control.

originally posted by: waynos
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.

Yeah the question to the left is if killing people are so wrong then why do you ignore federal immigration law and protect people who violated the law by coming here illegally.

The left seems to think if we ban guns these things wont happen. Considering people die every year from illegal immigrants by guns / drunk driving one would think, using the lefts logic, an easy way to stop it would be to enforce immigration laws.

Instead, and again, its someone elses fault.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xcathdra

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

If you look at overall crime stats involving guns the US is near the top of the list for murder. If you remove Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC and New Orleans the US drops to the bottom of that list.

Ironically 4 cities with some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Gun control in only certain areas doesn't work, anyone can go outside the border and get a weapon cheaply. It's only when you make guns expensive to purchase everywhere that gun control can work.

Also, those cities might have crime problems but mass shooting problems have been a nationwide issue. Parkland had armed security on the school grounds and it still didn't do any good.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xcathdra

Gun control in only certain areas doesn't work, anyone can go outside the border and get a weapon cheaply. It's only when you make guns expensive to purchase everywhere that gun control can work.

Also, those cities might have crime problems but mass shooting problems have been a nationwide issue. Parkland had armed security on the school grounds and it still didn't do any good.

Expense would then be a barrier for the poor. So, in your idea, only those that can afford the cost of this right are able to exercise it? So, if I rob enough people with a bat or knife, then I can get enough to buy a gun to rob and kill.
Not smart, easily could increase violent crime too.

Perhaps we should take that same approach with other right then?
Free speech, nope, only if you can afford the license and permit for that speech.
Freedom off assembly, nope, sorry, you need to purchase the right amount of credits to assemble and talk with a group of people.

That approach is wrong on so many levels.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Gun control in only certain areas doesn't work, anyone can go outside the border and get a weapon cheaply.

Uhm, not legally (long rifles are an exception and state law in both states - state you are buying the rifle in and the state you reside in - must be followed (last I checked anyway)). A person who goes to another state to buy a firearm has to use a dealer with an FFL in that state. That dealer would then be required by law to ship the firearm back to the state the person resides in, sending it to another dealer in that state who has an FFL. The person could then pick up their purchase from them. Private sales of a firearm, without using an FFL, can only occur in the state you live in and the person selling / buying the firearm must also reside inside the same state. Certain info / forms must be filled out to document the sale (state laws vary / Federal laws apply).

As for pricing I have to agree with Krakatoa. Not only would that create the issues he/she pointed out it would further degrade our legal system into the have's and the have nots. Those who can afford a gun verse those who cant. At what point does that situation(have verse have nots) spiral into the argument that poor people should not have guns and the people who can afford them decide those who cant are a danger to society?

If this is not done correctly, and as I said already, this doesnt become a slippery slope argument. It becomes a dangerous icy cliff argument. It is not the fall that kills you but the sudden stop at the bottom.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Regulation leading to higher pricing is what has kept full auto's from being used in crimes. The concept clearly works. But it won't stop mass shootings until it's applied to all guns, until that happens it will only stop crimes from being committed with specific weapons.

Satire:

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Xcathdra

Regulation leading to higher pricing is what has kept full auto's from being used in crimes. The concept clearly works. But it won't stop mass shootings until it's applied to all guns, until that happens it will only stop crimes from being committed with specific weapons.

And by doing that across the board, you now create a scenario where only the rich can afford to exercise a right. That, my friend, leaves the poor to be unable to protect themselves. I'm sure you don't want that now do you? In addition, it results in an infringement upon those poor citizens 2nd amendment right. That would be unconstitutional.

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.

Correct, but no person is ever truly "unarmed" fists & feet are also weapons (albeit *typically* not lethal) and teeth can cause tremendous damage to soft tissue.

The "actual issue" is that your fear/rights can't infringe upon my rights. I have the RKBA. You don't have the "right" not to be afraid of an inanimate object. You *do* have the right to not be murdered, but this isn't the government's responsibility to uphold/enforce. Your safety is YOUR sole responsibility.

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.

It isn't just "wingnuts" who go on rampages, however. Attempting to reduce mass-shootings in such a simplistic way is a mistake. It isn't the guns fault, and it isn't "society" fault. It is *exclusively* the fault of the shooter and/or any person who willfully aids them in their unlawful conspiracy (such as straw man weapon purchases)

Nothing to do with guns. Nothing to do with me or my guns, specifically. I won't give them up just so a segment of the population can pretend to be safer. When in reality, your chances of dying in a shooting (or being murdered by any weapon) are far, far less than the chances of death via automobile MVA

Left-wingnuts need to take a step back, and stop assuming their inner-city problems are the same problems we country folks face. They aren't. Two completely different worlds. They may not need an AR-15 (although they don't call it the urban jungle for nothing), but in the country we absolutely do.

As a retired LEO, I will tell each and everyone of you this: no LEOs will ever be reliably nearby when your life is on the line. Nor were we intended to be. LE investigates crimes and ensures the perpetrators are punished. Active shooting training (and some drug enforcement activities) are starting to focus on the "interdiction" steps (ie: stopping an attack vs. responding to an attack)

Sadly, given the large areas and the relatively small ratio of LEOs:citizens it is foolish to expect any arm of the government to arrive in time to say your life.

Frankly, a large majority of us would patently refuse to disarm for any reason.

The only real solution in any of this is arming teachers. Or as one Sheriff in Florida is doing: training teachers and making them sworn reserve deputies. No law is ever absolute. We can either TRY arming teachers (and seeing if it makes a difference) or we can do nothing. But jumping to any sort of gun ban is simply out of the question.

a reply to: Aazadan


Wrong.

There were no gun laws prior to 1934. A child could legally bring a machine gun to school. So explain why this only became a major issue ~50 years AFTER our first gun law of any type?

a reply to: ipsedixit


We can live with them. We have no choice.

You don't infringe on God-given unalienable rights simply because less than 0.001% of people misuse that right. Will we ban free speech or voting next? Because those rights have killed far more people than any ""assault weapon"" could ever dream of.

Freedom isn't free. And if you can't accept that, perhaps you should find another *safer* country to live in? Where they don't have VERY EXPENSIVE Constitutional rights enshrined into the fabric of their society.

Anyone who believes they can accomplish little more than expanding background checks is sadly mistaken. There are simply too many people in this country who (like me) aren't falling for the tear-jerking emotional "ban all guns" spiel. Logic and common sense will always overrule emotional overreactions and frankly hysteria.

a reply to: Krakatoa

You can't protect your home with methods other than a gun?

Ask yourself:

How many mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones".

If you answered "damn near every one" then you are correct.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Ask yourself:

How many mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones".

If you answered "damn near every one" then you are correct.

Parkland had an armed security guard on the premises.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: Krakatoa

You can't protect your home with methods other than a gun?

That is not the point I made, now is it? You are deflecting. The point is your idea would constitute an infringement upon those poor peoples 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. The reason for exercising their 2ndamendment protections is IRRELEVANT.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Ask yourself:

How many mass shootings have occurred in "gun free zones".

If you answered "damn near every one" then you are correct.

Parkland had an armed security guard on the premises.

Was that school a "gun free zone", yes or no? It is a simple question.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Was that school a "gun free zone", yes or no? It is a simple question.

I'm not sure. But they had armed guards on scene.

Why do you want to arm the teachers? What if a teacher snaps, how will the students protect themselves? Shouldn't we arm the students instead? 30 good guys with a gun per room?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Was that school a "gun free zone", yes or no? It is a simple question.

I'm not sure. But they had armed guards on scene.

Why do you want to arm the teachers? What if a teacher snaps, how will the students protect themselves? Shouldn't we arm the students instead? 30 good guys with a gun per room?

First, having an armed guard on duty is irrelevant to the question. If it was posted as a gun free zone, then it qualifies to on that list mentioned earlier.

Second, who said I wanted to arm teachers? Or students? All I asked was if the school was listed as a gun free zone.

You are assuming too much, and not answering the question.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
First, having an armed guard on duty is irrelevant to the question. If it was posted as a gun free zone, then it qualifies to on that list mentioned earlier.

Second, who said I wanted to arm teachers? Or students? All I asked was if the school was listed as a gun free zone.

You are assuming too much, and not answering the question.

Like I said, I don't know if it was a gun free zone or not, but it was public knowledge that they had armed guards.

If you want to remove gun free status (assuming it had it) you're obviously wanting more people to carry. That sounds to me a lot like arming teachers.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Krakatoa
First, having an armed guard on duty is irrelevant to the question. If it was posted as a gun free zone, then it qualifies to on that list mentioned earlier.

Second, who said I wanted to arm teachers? Or students? All I asked was if the school was listed as a gun free zone.

You are assuming too much, and not answering the question.

Like I said, I don't know if it was a gun free zone or not, but it was public knowledge that they had armed guards.

If you want to remove gun free status (assuming it had it) you're obviously wanting more people to carry. That sounds to me a lot like arming teachers.

Yet again you are assuming what I mean. Please stop.