Off Topic · OT Florida shooting (page 5)
HofstraBBall wrote:You dont have a narrative. Only school boy responses. Next comes the part where you promise to beat me up. Ill use smaller words next time.fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:who are you talking to? You sound very proud of yourself but I have no clue what you are saying. All you do here is say gun owners are stupid, the 2nd amendment is outdated and if you cant see that your stupid too.fishmike wrote:Nalod wrote:Small changes add up and for goodness sake its worth every life to try!! We are long past events changing peoples minds.this is all emotion. I get it. "Small changes add up." I mean ok... do they?
My family has been touched by a sensless murder by a man who had a gun that was supposed to have been removed by the sheriff due to a restraining order. He did not have license for it but they suppose to come and collect them. This bought this home to our family. I am enraged by these murders!
My son was in a movie theatre lobby and kid 10 feet from him was gunned down in a gang related argument. He was 16 at the time. My boy was a bit dramatized by the ordeal.
I can't imagine what this has done in urban communities with high "body counts".
I can't imagine any father of any child killed not losing his mind on those very recipients of NRA funds who vote for lax laws over the people. I suppose they stop because it makes them into the monster that took their child. The sick phuchs who have gone after the Sandy Hook parents are culpable. THis is the Alex Jones crowd and they are big Trump supporters.
Time to put people before party. The "Take a knee" bought attention to police violence. Trump loves the damage it does to NFL because of his failed USFL team. It also dilutes the message as being anti patriotic!
Here are some good stats for the last 30 years.
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/ne...
When it was bad 6 people per/100,000 were being killed in gun homicides. When it was better it was 4 people per/100,000Dont mistaken my tone for insensitivity. Its just when you consider the amount of firepower out there on the street do people really think partial bans or making it tougher to get specific weapon types is going to make any difference at all?
"But we gotta try!"
Maybe try something different? I dont know Nalod. I dont know what the solution is. You have two very different viewpoints and cultures in one country. States with tougher guns have fewer killings. Thats an easy one. The only plausible solution as currently presented is to separate those cultures as much as possible. Its works over large averages. Would it have prevented this? We both know it likely would not have. Connecticut has very tough laws. Sandy Hook happened there.
Here's a question. Guns have been around awhile. School shootings are pretty new. How did this come about? Free press and free speech are great, until all the bad people copy each other because everyone knows what they did, how they did it and how much pain they caused. I think these people who are able to hurt others this way are in great pain. I think they see others being happy while they suffer. I think they see the suffering of people on the internet who are at ground zero of these horrific events. I think they see that suffering and identify with it. THATS HOW I FEEL they say. I think those people who hurt others that way want those people to feel their own suffering. Our intense coverage of these events ensures they continue.
Our freedoms, every one of them comes with a cost. Free speech, free press.... there is always a cost. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is the Gov can not take away our freedoms (starting with no taxation w/o representation) because... we are armed.
Big cost to that one also.
Emotion? More like common sense. Btw. Why quote a study done in 2012? Great, we found out that white guys like to kill themselves and most homicides happen among African Americans. Thanks for the insight.
Here is the thing, people can go and find stats/facts and make any wrong idea sound good. You just did. Without using some simple logic to alnalyze what the real issue is. You are missing THE MOST IMPORTANT point! And it has nothing to do with HANDGUNS or homicide rates. Its has everyhting to do with ASSAULT RIFFLES!! We dont need them. But thats just simple common sense. But I guess you missed that point as you were busy quoting a 2012 study. Here is some more commons sense.. the second amendment was designed for people who lived in the middle of no where and did not trust the government to protect them. It was also written in a time that "Arms" reffered to pea shooter that needed to be filled with gun powder. Fact is, people are too stupid to remember this. Gun companies know this and continue to hide behind that pretense when arming every 19 year old , that has a couple of hundred bucks, with a riffle that is used in modern warfare.
I have an idea. I should be able to buy a nuclear weapon as it is my right to bear arms. I mean what do I do if my enemy on my block gets one before I do.Here is the problem.
The average citizen is stupid, forget easily and wont do any real work for any cause. They just like burgers.
Politicians need NRA's money so they will never sign a bill against any gun company.
Gun companies dont give a shit about 17 people dying. They probably like it as most gun stock prices and sales go up after a mass shooting.
Things never change, they just get worse. People just put their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. It wont.Your attitude is exactly why its difficult to change the culture and get legislation passed. You are exactly the type of person that people quote when say "lets see the liberal snowflakes come take my guns." You are literally fueling that with your single minded view point and how you express it.
Also your simple wrong. You think this could not have been accomplished with hand guns? Give me a break and wake up. Take away the AR-15 and this kid shows up with 3 pistols instead. One on each hip and a 3rd just in case.
What you wrote is a facebook rant.
Quoting a 2012 study....that would be you.
At least you understood my point that 2nd amendment is outdated. Now run with that.Your point is as most of your points. Spoken from a high moantain of arrogance. Problem is, that mountain is usualy just a pile of your own shit. (2012 study and saying that becuase a mass shooting can be perpetuated with a handgun we should allow even more powerful arms in the general public)
Let me break it down for you, since you did not understand. I guess you misse the part where I put it in CAPS and said that was the main point. But I dont think you did. As usual, you just choose to change the narrative and try to dismiss logic with an insult.
Point: AR-15 riffles should be ilegal. As they are weapons of modern warfare and should not be allowed to be purchase by the average citizen (As most are idiots). Fish- "Yeah but people have committed mass murders with handguns" Great! So because "People" can also commit mass murders with knives we should allow M60 GPMG's, M24E6's and any other high powered army weapon? What kind of logic is that? Do you put a limit to any weapon we should be allowed to purchase?
Things Fish has been wrong about:
Phil, Triangle,, Grant, Rose, Noah, D Smith, Frank, AR-15's......Unfortunately there are many like you out there, reason why things will never change. People that dont stop and think but blame every logical step someone else suggests.
meloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Im not advocating war. I simply said said guns are part of the constitution. You said so was slavery and that was changed.... after over a million casualties. So if you want to tie in one aspect you need to tie in the other. Slavery didnt stop with good ideas and logical thinking. It ended with 3% of the population dying and 600K plus soldiers.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:so you ready go to war to get rid of the guns? You willing to strap one on and fight to have them removed? You ready to fight that group of Americans who are fallible and need to recognized times changed? Drink that in.fishmike wrote:this is part of America. Its a gun toting nation. Its not just that the NRA is the strongest and best funded lobby in Wash. What people fail to understand is a massive part of this country's population believe in the 2nd ammendment and armed citizens. They put the right to bear arms as important an American value as free speech and the most basic right. I mean I could go into gun culture all day. City people dont understand it. Neither to most suburbanites. In the rest of the country its as important as the good lord Jesus. That is what you are up against.Also here it is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.The ONLY solution is mental health. No gun laws will prevent these shootings. The thought of "liberals coming after their guns" only strengthens the lobby. What happens after gun tragedies? Sales go up. Stock pile.
My suggestion is Canada or Europe. Different laws and different culture. Im not being snarky. Just suggesting some acceptance is in order before people look at what can and cant be changed.
Sucks. Social media fuels it. When these people hurt, and want to hurt others there is a platform. Everyone sees it. Now it can be used as a threat. Now angry teens have a voice. There are many hard questions ahead. Terrible tragedy and a big problem here. Or is it? Do we need to be safe or do we need to feel safe?
Slavery was constitutional as well, part of the same backbone, drink that in.
It's a document, it's not infallible. Times have changed, the world has changed, there's no shame in admitting the Constitution needs to change.No, I am not. War is not the only way to solve a problem. Even in America
But someone somewhere has to start the dialogue and I am looking for the Democrats to do that and be real leaders.Democrats be real leaders... to what end? Your missing the point. Not everyone feels and thinks like you do. I happen to be one that does, but many dont.
I don't think just because Slavery couldn't be ended without war automatically means the constitution cannot be changed without war. I am also not saying lots of people think like me, I am saying people who do think like me need to speak out and popularize a counter argument. That hasn't happened. Democrats lead to what end?? the NRA pushes their BS to what end? The whole country is paralyzed by this concept that people should be allowed to own guns because it's the constitution. Unless someone proposes a counter argument you can't even measure how much support is there for actual change.
And the constitution DOES NOT give carte blanche to people to own guns. It says the right to own cannon be infringed BECAUSE A well regulated militia is needed. Show me the well regulated militia? See how you conveniently bolded just one part of the sentence and left the context out?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.
+100 If you ask most of the idots that use the 2nd amendment to protect their right to own a AR-15', when the 2nd amendment was written, they will tell you it was written in the 90's.
Made a point earlier that when the forefathers wrote in the right to bear arms the typical "Arm" was a musket and flintlock pistol. We also had no one protecting the public. But most will lie to you and say it is not outdated.
HofstraBBall wrote:Ive shot about 10 diff handguns and 20 shotguns. Only held the AR, never fired it. I have a friend who is a collector and we shoot clays a few times a year. I fired the handguns at his club. Not my cup of tea but something to experience.fishmike wrote:JesseDark wrote:What is so maddening about this is OUR elected officials are running around with their heads in the sand. Banning certain assault rifles is what will eliminate the problem. Too many cowards in our congress.12 killed, 21 injured in the Columbine attack. No assault rifles. Shotgun and handguns.By the way there have been between 5-10 million AR-15 rifles sold in the US. What will banning sale of those do? What is your logistical approach to address that cache of weapons laying around?
BTW... AR-15 is EASIER to buy than a handgun.
Is this a problem? Thought AR-15 are not the problem?
Do you know what an AR-15 is? Have you ever shot one? Shot a handgun?
You seem focused on AR-15s. Sure... ban them. What is your proposal to address the 5-10 million currently in the US?
HofstraBBall wrote:priceless.meloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Im not advocating war. I simply said said guns are part of the constitution. You said so was slavery and that was changed.... after over a million casualties. So if you want to tie in one aspect you need to tie in the other. Slavery didnt stop with good ideas and logical thinking. It ended with 3% of the population dying and 600K plus soldiers.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:so you ready go to war to get rid of the guns? You willing to strap one on and fight to have them removed? You ready to fight that group of Americans who are fallible and need to recognized times changed? Drink that in.fishmike wrote:this is part of America. Its a gun toting nation. Its not just that the NRA is the strongest and best funded lobby in Wash. What people fail to understand is a massive part of this country's population believe in the 2nd ammendment and armed citizens. They put the right to bear arms as important an American value as free speech and the most basic right. I mean I could go into gun culture all day. City people dont understand it. Neither to most suburbanites. In the rest of the country its as important as the good lord Jesus. That is what you are up against.Also here it is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.The ONLY solution is mental health. No gun laws will prevent these shootings. The thought of "liberals coming after their guns" only strengthens the lobby. What happens after gun tragedies? Sales go up. Stock pile.
My suggestion is Canada or Europe. Different laws and different culture. Im not being snarky. Just suggesting some acceptance is in order before people look at what can and cant be changed.
Sucks. Social media fuels it. When these people hurt, and want to hurt others there is a platform. Everyone sees it. Now it can be used as a threat. Now angry teens have a voice. There are many hard questions ahead. Terrible tragedy and a big problem here. Or is it? Do we need to be safe or do we need to feel safe?
Slavery was constitutional as well, part of the same backbone, drink that in.
It's a document, it's not infallible. Times have changed, the world has changed, there's no shame in admitting the Constitution needs to change.No, I am not. War is not the only way to solve a problem. Even in America
But someone somewhere has to start the dialogue and I am looking for the Democrats to do that and be real leaders.Democrats be real leaders... to what end? Your missing the point. Not everyone feels and thinks like you do. I happen to be one that does, but many dont.
I don't think just because Slavery couldn't be ended without war automatically means the constitution cannot be changed without war. I am also not saying lots of people think like me, I am saying people who do think like me need to speak out and popularize a counter argument. That hasn't happened. Democrats lead to what end?? the NRA pushes their BS to what end? The whole country is paralyzed by this concept that people should be allowed to own guns because it's the constitution. Unless someone proposes a counter argument you can't even measure how much support is there for actual change.
And the constitution DOES NOT give carte blanche to people to own guns. It says the right to own cannon be infringed BECAUSE A well regulated militia is needed. Show me the well regulated militia? See how you conveniently bolded just one part of the sentence and left the context out?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.+100 If you ask most of the idots that use the 2nd amendment to protect their right to own a AR-15', when the 2nd amendment was written, they will tell you it was written in the 90's.
Made a point earlier that when the forefathers wrote in the right to bear arms the typical "Arm" was a musket and flintlock pistol. We also had no one protecting the public. But most will lie to you and say it is not outdated.
fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:priceless.meloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Im not advocating war. I simply said said guns are part of the constitution. You said so was slavery and that was changed.... after over a million casualties. So if you want to tie in one aspect you need to tie in the other. Slavery didnt stop with good ideas and logical thinking. It ended with 3% of the population dying and 600K plus soldiers.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:so you ready go to war to get rid of the guns? You willing to strap one on and fight to have them removed? You ready to fight that group of Americans who are fallible and need to recognized times changed? Drink that in.fishmike wrote:this is part of America. Its a gun toting nation. Its not just that the NRA is the strongest and best funded lobby in Wash. What people fail to understand is a massive part of this country's population believe in the 2nd ammendment and armed citizens. They put the right to bear arms as important an American value as free speech and the most basic right. I mean I could go into gun culture all day. City people dont understand it. Neither to most suburbanites. In the rest of the country its as important as the good lord Jesus. That is what you are up against.Also here it is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.The ONLY solution is mental health. No gun laws will prevent these shootings. The thought of "liberals coming after their guns" only strengthens the lobby. What happens after gun tragedies? Sales go up. Stock pile.
My suggestion is Canada or Europe. Different laws and different culture. Im not being snarky. Just suggesting some acceptance is in order before people look at what can and cant be changed.
Sucks. Social media fuels it. When these people hurt, and want to hurt others there is a platform. Everyone sees it. Now it can be used as a threat. Now angry teens have a voice. There are many hard questions ahead. Terrible tragedy and a big problem here. Or is it? Do we need to be safe or do we need to feel safe?
Slavery was constitutional as well, part of the same backbone, drink that in.
It's a document, it's not infallible. Times have changed, the world has changed, there's no shame in admitting the Constitution needs to change.No, I am not. War is not the only way to solve a problem. Even in America
But someone somewhere has to start the dialogue and I am looking for the Democrats to do that and be real leaders.Democrats be real leaders... to what end? Your missing the point. Not everyone feels and thinks like you do. I happen to be one that does, but many dont.
I don't think just because Slavery couldn't be ended without war automatically means the constitution cannot be changed without war. I am also not saying lots of people think like me, I am saying people who do think like me need to speak out and popularize a counter argument. That hasn't happened. Democrats lead to what end?? the NRA pushes their BS to what end? The whole country is paralyzed by this concept that people should be allowed to own guns because it's the constitution. Unless someone proposes a counter argument you can't even measure how much support is there for actual change.
And the constitution DOES NOT give carte blanche to people to own guns. It says the right to own cannon be infringed BECAUSE A well regulated militia is needed. Show me the well regulated militia? See how you conveniently bolded just one part of the sentence and left the context out?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.+100 If you ask most of the idots that use the 2nd amendment to protect their right to own a AR-15', when the 2nd amendment was written, they will tell you it was written in the 90's.
Made a point earlier that when the forefathers wrote in the right to bear arms the typical "Arm" was a musket and flintlock pistol. We also had no one protecting the public. But most will lie to you and say it is not outdated.
Bazooka is also a firearm.
Constitution is a measuring tool for the laws to be written not the law by itself.
So new law can be written to address the details of what weapons can be carried and be owed.
The problem is not with constitution or law but about the consensus in the society on need to change the acting law.
As the culture in US as well conditions on the ground are different so this laws have to be defined on State level not federal level.
And most of the laws for that matter.
fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:You dont have a narrative. Only school boy responses. Next comes the part where you promise to beat me up. Ill use smaller words next time.fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:who are you talking to? You sound very proud of yourself but I have no clue what you are saying. All you do here is say gun owners are stupid, the 2nd amendment is outdated and if you cant see that your stupid too.fishmike wrote:Nalod wrote:Small changes add up and for goodness sake its worth every life to try!! We are long past events changing peoples minds.this is all emotion. I get it. "Small changes add up." I mean ok... do they?
My family has been touched by a sensless murder by a man who had a gun that was supposed to have been removed by the sheriff due to a restraining order. He did not have license for it but they suppose to come and collect them. This bought this home to our family. I am enraged by these murders!
My son was in a movie theatre lobby and kid 10 feet from him was gunned down in a gang related argument. He was 16 at the time. My boy was a bit dramatized by the ordeal.
I can't imagine what this has done in urban communities with high "body counts".
I can't imagine any father of any child killed not losing his mind on those very recipients of NRA funds who vote for lax laws over the people. I suppose they stop because it makes them into the monster that took their child. The sick phuchs who have gone after the Sandy Hook parents are culpable. THis is the Alex Jones crowd and they are big Trump supporters.
Time to put people before party. The "Take a knee" bought attention to police violence. Trump loves the damage it does to NFL because of his failed USFL team. It also dilutes the message as being anti patriotic!
Here are some good stats for the last 30 years.
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/ne...
When it was bad 6 people per/100,000 were being killed in gun homicides. When it was better it was 4 people per/100,000Dont mistaken my tone for insensitivity. Its just when you consider the amount of firepower out there on the street do people really think partial bans or making it tougher to get specific weapon types is going to make any difference at all?
"But we gotta try!"
Maybe try something different? I dont know Nalod. I dont know what the solution is. You have two very different viewpoints and cultures in one country. States with tougher guns have fewer killings. Thats an easy one. The only plausible solution as currently presented is to separate those cultures as much as possible. Its works over large averages. Would it have prevented this? We both know it likely would not have. Connecticut has very tough laws. Sandy Hook happened there.
Here's a question. Guns have been around awhile. School shootings are pretty new. How did this come about? Free press and free speech are great, until all the bad people copy each other because everyone knows what they did, how they did it and how much pain they caused. I think these people who are able to hurt others this way are in great pain. I think they see others being happy while they suffer. I think they see the suffering of people on the internet who are at ground zero of these horrific events. I think they see that suffering and identify with it. THATS HOW I FEEL they say. I think those people who hurt others that way want those people to feel their own suffering. Our intense coverage of these events ensures they continue.
Our freedoms, every one of them comes with a cost. Free speech, free press.... there is always a cost. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is the Gov can not take away our freedoms (starting with no taxation w/o representation) because... we are armed.
Big cost to that one also.
Emotion? More like common sense. Btw. Why quote a study done in 2012? Great, we found out that white guys like to kill themselves and most homicides happen among African Americans. Thanks for the insight.
Here is the thing, people can go and find stats/facts and make any wrong idea sound good. You just did. Without using some simple logic to alnalyze what the real issue is. You are missing THE MOST IMPORTANT point! And it has nothing to do with HANDGUNS or homicide rates. Its has everyhting to do with ASSAULT RIFFLES!! We dont need them. But thats just simple common sense. But I guess you missed that point as you were busy quoting a 2012 study. Here is some more commons sense.. the second amendment was designed for people who lived in the middle of no where and did not trust the government to protect them. It was also written in a time that "Arms" reffered to pea shooter that needed to be filled with gun powder. Fact is, people are too stupid to remember this. Gun companies know this and continue to hide behind that pretense when arming every 19 year old , that has a couple of hundred bucks, with a riffle that is used in modern warfare.
I have an idea. I should be able to buy a nuclear weapon as it is my right to bear arms. I mean what do I do if my enemy on my block gets one before I do.Here is the problem.
The average citizen is stupid, forget easily and wont do any real work for any cause. They just like burgers.
Politicians need NRA's money so they will never sign a bill against any gun company.
Gun companies dont give a shit about 17 people dying. They probably like it as most gun stock prices and sales go up after a mass shooting.
Things never change, they just get worse. People just put their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. It wont.Your attitude is exactly why its difficult to change the culture and get legislation passed. You are exactly the type of person that people quote when say "lets see the liberal snowflakes come take my guns." You are literally fueling that with your single minded view point and how you express it.
Also your simple wrong. You think this could not have been accomplished with hand guns? Give me a break and wake up. Take away the AR-15 and this kid shows up with 3 pistols instead. One on each hip and a 3rd just in case.
What you wrote is a facebook rant.
Quoting a 2012 study....that would be you.
At least you understood my point that 2nd amendment is outdated. Now run with that.Your point is as most of your points. Spoken from a high moantain of arrogance. Problem is, that mountain is usualy just a pile of your own shit. (2012 study and saying that becuase a mass shooting can be perpetuated with a handgun we should allow even more powerful arms in the general public)
Let me break it down for you, since you did not understand. I guess you misse the part where I put it in CAPS and said that was the main point. But I dont think you did. As usual, you just choose to change the narrative and try to dismiss logic with an insult.
Point: AR-15 riffles should be ilegal. As they are weapons of modern warfare and should not be allowed to be purchase by the average citizen (As most are idiots). Fish- "Yeah but people have committed mass murders with handguns" Great! So because "People" can also commit mass murders with knives we should allow M60 GPMG's, M24E6's and any other high powered army weapon? What kind of logic is that? Do you put a limit to any weapon we should be allowed to purchase?
Things Fish has been wrong about:
Phil, Triangle,, Grant, Rose, Noah, D Smith, Frank, AR-15's......Unfortunately there are many like you out there, reason why things will never change. People that dont stop and think but blame every logical step someone else suggests.
Would never beat anyone up that I can just have fun proving wrong. Your still avoiding my ONLY point. AR-15's have no place in the public hands. You want to own a handgun? Sure. Make the process tougher and punish those shops that take short cuts. You want to shoot handguns. Sure.
The point you seem to be missing is that an AR-15, in the hands of the insane, can do a lot more damage in a shorter amount of time, than one with a handgun. Is it possible to kill many people with a whole bucnh of hand guns. Sure. But why make it easier for them by allowing these things in the hands of the public? And its just starting. Your claim is 5 to 10 million. The last srudy was in 2010 so No one knows.
BTW. I have shot an AR-15 and a M&P15. Have a marine friend in Tampa and we go hunting in December and January and he takes me shooting. We do not need to have these available to the masses. Specially with a bump trigger that can make them full automatic for $100 bucks.
fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:priceless.meloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Im not advocating war. I simply said said guns are part of the constitution. You said so was slavery and that was changed.... after over a million casualties. So if you want to tie in one aspect you need to tie in the other. Slavery didnt stop with good ideas and logical thinking. It ended with 3% of the population dying and 600K plus soldiers.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:so you ready go to war to get rid of the guns? You willing to strap one on and fight to have them removed? You ready to fight that group of Americans who are fallible and need to recognized times changed? Drink that in.fishmike wrote:this is part of America. Its a gun toting nation. Its not just that the NRA is the strongest and best funded lobby in Wash. What people fail to understand is a massive part of this country's population believe in the 2nd ammendment and armed citizens. They put the right to bear arms as important an American value as free speech and the most basic right. I mean I could go into gun culture all day. City people dont understand it. Neither to most suburbanites. In the rest of the country its as important as the good lord Jesus. That is what you are up against.Also here it is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.The ONLY solution is mental health. No gun laws will prevent these shootings. The thought of "liberals coming after their guns" only strengthens the lobby. What happens after gun tragedies? Sales go up. Stock pile.
My suggestion is Canada or Europe. Different laws and different culture. Im not being snarky. Just suggesting some acceptance is in order before people look at what can and cant be changed.
Sucks. Social media fuels it. When these people hurt, and want to hurt others there is a platform. Everyone sees it. Now it can be used as a threat. Now angry teens have a voice. There are many hard questions ahead. Terrible tragedy and a big problem here. Or is it? Do we need to be safe or do we need to feel safe?
Slavery was constitutional as well, part of the same backbone, drink that in.
It's a document, it's not infallible. Times have changed, the world has changed, there's no shame in admitting the Constitution needs to change.No, I am not. War is not the only way to solve a problem. Even in America
But someone somewhere has to start the dialogue and I am looking for the Democrats to do that and be real leaders.Democrats be real leaders... to what end? Your missing the point. Not everyone feels and thinks like you do. I happen to be one that does, but many dont.
I don't think just because Slavery couldn't be ended without war automatically means the constitution cannot be changed without war. I am also not saying lots of people think like me, I am saying people who do think like me need to speak out and popularize a counter argument. That hasn't happened. Democrats lead to what end?? the NRA pushes their BS to what end? The whole country is paralyzed by this concept that people should be allowed to own guns because it's the constitution. Unless someone proposes a counter argument you can't even measure how much support is there for actual change.
And the constitution DOES NOT give carte blanche to people to own guns. It says the right to own cannon be infringed BECAUSE A well regulated militia is needed. Show me the well regulated militia? See how you conveniently bolded just one part of the sentence and left the context out?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.+100 If you ask most of the idots that use the 2nd amendment to protect their right to own a AR-15', when the 2nd amendment was written, they will tell you it was written in the 90's.
Made a point earlier that when the forefathers wrote in the right to bear arms the typical "Arm" was a musket and flintlock pistol. We also had no one protecting the public. But most will lie to you and say it is not outdated.
Not you. Unless you own a AR-15 with a bump trigger and have armor piercing rounds.
HofstraBBall wrote:fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:You dont have a narrative. Only school boy responses. Next comes the part where you promise to beat me up. Ill use smaller words next time.fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:who are you talking to? You sound very proud of yourself but I have no clue what you are saying. All you do here is say gun owners are stupid, the 2nd amendment is outdated and if you cant see that your stupid too.fishmike wrote:Nalod wrote:Small changes add up and for goodness sake its worth every life to try!! We are long past events changing peoples minds.this is all emotion. I get it. "Small changes add up." I mean ok... do they?
My family has been touched by a sensless murder by a man who had a gun that was supposed to have been removed by the sheriff due to a restraining order. He did not have license for it but they suppose to come and collect them. This bought this home to our family. I am enraged by these murders!
My son was in a movie theatre lobby and kid 10 feet from him was gunned down in a gang related argument. He was 16 at the time. My boy was a bit dramatized by the ordeal.
I can't imagine what this has done in urban communities with high "body counts".
I can't imagine any father of any child killed not losing his mind on those very recipients of NRA funds who vote for lax laws over the people. I suppose they stop because it makes them into the monster that took their child. The sick phuchs who have gone after the Sandy Hook parents are culpable. THis is the Alex Jones crowd and they are big Trump supporters.
Time to put people before party. The "Take a knee" bought attention to police violence. Trump loves the damage it does to NFL because of his failed USFL team. It also dilutes the message as being anti patriotic!
Here are some good stats for the last 30 years.
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/ne...
When it was bad 6 people per/100,000 were being killed in gun homicides. When it was better it was 4 people per/100,000Dont mistaken my tone for insensitivity. Its just when you consider the amount of firepower out there on the street do people really think partial bans or making it tougher to get specific weapon types is going to make any difference at all?
"But we gotta try!"
Maybe try something different? I dont know Nalod. I dont know what the solution is. You have two very different viewpoints and cultures in one country. States with tougher guns have fewer killings. Thats an easy one. The only plausible solution as currently presented is to separate those cultures as much as possible. Its works over large averages. Would it have prevented this? We both know it likely would not have. Connecticut has very tough laws. Sandy Hook happened there.
Here's a question. Guns have been around awhile. School shootings are pretty new. How did this come about? Free press and free speech are great, until all the bad people copy each other because everyone knows what they did, how they did it and how much pain they caused. I think these people who are able to hurt others this way are in great pain. I think they see others being happy while they suffer. I think they see the suffering of people on the internet who are at ground zero of these horrific events. I think they see that suffering and identify with it. THATS HOW I FEEL they say. I think those people who hurt others that way want those people to feel their own suffering. Our intense coverage of these events ensures they continue.
Our freedoms, every one of them comes with a cost. Free speech, free press.... there is always a cost. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is the Gov can not take away our freedoms (starting with no taxation w/o representation) because... we are armed.
Big cost to that one also.
Emotion? More like common sense. Btw. Why quote a study done in 2012? Great, we found out that white guys like to kill themselves and most homicides happen among African Americans. Thanks for the insight.
Here is the thing, people can go and find stats/facts and make any wrong idea sound good. You just did. Without using some simple logic to alnalyze what the real issue is. You are missing THE MOST IMPORTANT point! And it has nothing to do with HANDGUNS or homicide rates. Its has everyhting to do with ASSAULT RIFFLES!! We dont need them. But thats just simple common sense. But I guess you missed that point as you were busy quoting a 2012 study. Here is some more commons sense.. the second amendment was designed for people who lived in the middle of no where and did not trust the government to protect them. It was also written in a time that "Arms" reffered to pea shooter that needed to be filled with gun powder. Fact is, people are too stupid to remember this. Gun companies know this and continue to hide behind that pretense when arming every 19 year old , that has a couple of hundred bucks, with a riffle that is used in modern warfare.
I have an idea. I should be able to buy a nuclear weapon as it is my right to bear arms. I mean what do I do if my enemy on my block gets one before I do.Here is the problem.
The average citizen is stupid, forget easily and wont do any real work for any cause. They just like burgers.
Politicians need NRA's money so they will never sign a bill against any gun company.
Gun companies dont give a shit about 17 people dying. They probably like it as most gun stock prices and sales go up after a mass shooting.
Things never change, they just get worse. People just put their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. It wont.Your attitude is exactly why its difficult to change the culture and get legislation passed. You are exactly the type of person that people quote when say "lets see the liberal snowflakes come take my guns." You are literally fueling that with your single minded view point and how you express it.
Also your simple wrong. You think this could not have been accomplished with hand guns? Give me a break and wake up. Take away the AR-15 and this kid shows up with 3 pistols instead. One on each hip and a 3rd just in case.
What you wrote is a facebook rant.
Quoting a 2012 study....that would be you.
At least you understood my point that 2nd amendment is outdated. Now run with that.Your point is as most of your points. Spoken from a high moantain of arrogance. Problem is, that mountain is usualy just a pile of your own shit. (2012 study and saying that becuase a mass shooting can be perpetuated with a handgun we should allow even more powerful arms in the general public)
Let me break it down for you, since you did not understand. I guess you misse the part where I put it in CAPS and said that was the main point. But I dont think you did. As usual, you just choose to change the narrative and try to dismiss logic with an insult.
Point: AR-15 riffles should be ilegal. As they are weapons of modern warfare and should not be allowed to be purchase by the average citizen (As most are idiots). Fish- "Yeah but people have committed mass murders with handguns" Great! So because "People" can also commit mass murders with knives we should allow M60 GPMG's, M24E6's and any other high powered army weapon? What kind of logic is that? Do you put a limit to any weapon we should be allowed to purchase?
Things Fish has been wrong about:
Phil, Triangle,, Grant, Rose, Noah, D Smith, Frank, AR-15's......Unfortunately there are many like you out there, reason why things will never change. People that dont stop and think but blame every logical step someone else suggests.
Would never beat anyone up that I can just have fun proving wrong. Your still avoiding my ONLY point. AR-15's have no place in the public hands. You want to own a handgun? Sure. Make the process tougher and punish those shops that take short cuts. You want to shoot handguns. Sure.
The point you seem to be missing is that an AR-15, in the hands of the insane, can do a lot more damage in a shorter amount of time, than one with a handgun. Is it possible to kill many people with a whole bucnh of hand guns. Sure. But why make it easier for them by allowing these things in the hands of the public? And its just starting. Your claim is 5 to 10 million. The last srudy was in 2010 so No one knows.
BTW. I have shot an AR-15 and a M&P15. Have a marine friend in Tampa and we go hunting in December and January and he takes me shooting. We do not need to have these available to the masses. Specially with a bump trigger that can make them full automatic for $100 bucks.
AK47 is about 1K on black market.
Pretty affordable and in large supply.
We need to be careful with restricting the legal market and so providing enormous incentives for black arms market.
At least legal sales can be controlled to some extend and collect taxes.
We can end up in the same place as prohibition and painkillers.
If this will be easy it will be already solved... but it is not.
If someone is planning to kill a bunch of people getting legal or illegal gun will not matter for him.
HofstraBBall wrote:Can you show me where I say its OK for the public to have AR-15s, or that I support that thought in any way shape or form?fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:You dont have a narrative. Only school boy responses. Next comes the part where you promise to beat me up. Ill use smaller words next time.fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:who are you talking to? You sound very proud of yourself but I have no clue what you are saying. All you do here is say gun owners are stupid, the 2nd amendment is outdated and if you cant see that your stupid too.fishmike wrote:Nalod wrote:Small changes add up and for goodness sake its worth every life to try!! We are long past events changing peoples minds.this is all emotion. I get it. "Small changes add up." I mean ok... do they?
My family has been touched by a sensless murder by a man who had a gun that was supposed to have been removed by the sheriff due to a restraining order. He did not have license for it but they suppose to come and collect them. This bought this home to our family. I am enraged by these murders!
My son was in a movie theatre lobby and kid 10 feet from him was gunned down in a gang related argument. He was 16 at the time. My boy was a bit dramatized by the ordeal.
I can't imagine what this has done in urban communities with high "body counts".
I can't imagine any father of any child killed not losing his mind on those very recipients of NRA funds who vote for lax laws over the people. I suppose they stop because it makes them into the monster that took their child. The sick phuchs who have gone after the Sandy Hook parents are culpable. THis is the Alex Jones crowd and they are big Trump supporters.
Time to put people before party. The "Take a knee" bought attention to police violence. Trump loves the damage it does to NFL because of his failed USFL team. It also dilutes the message as being anti patriotic!
Here are some good stats for the last 30 years.
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/ne...
When it was bad 6 people per/100,000 were being killed in gun homicides. When it was better it was 4 people per/100,000Dont mistaken my tone for insensitivity. Its just when you consider the amount of firepower out there on the street do people really think partial bans or making it tougher to get specific weapon types is going to make any difference at all?
"But we gotta try!"
Maybe try something different? I dont know Nalod. I dont know what the solution is. You have two very different viewpoints and cultures in one country. States with tougher guns have fewer killings. Thats an easy one. The only plausible solution as currently presented is to separate those cultures as much as possible. Its works over large averages. Would it have prevented this? We both know it likely would not have. Connecticut has very tough laws. Sandy Hook happened there.
Here's a question. Guns have been around awhile. School shootings are pretty new. How did this come about? Free press and free speech are great, until all the bad people copy each other because everyone knows what they did, how they did it and how much pain they caused. I think these people who are able to hurt others this way are in great pain. I think they see others being happy while they suffer. I think they see the suffering of people on the internet who are at ground zero of these horrific events. I think they see that suffering and identify with it. THATS HOW I FEEL they say. I think those people who hurt others that way want those people to feel their own suffering. Our intense coverage of these events ensures they continue.
Our freedoms, every one of them comes with a cost. Free speech, free press.... there is always a cost. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is the Gov can not take away our freedoms (starting with no taxation w/o representation) because... we are armed.
Big cost to that one also.
Emotion? More like common sense. Btw. Why quote a study done in 2012? Great, we found out that white guys like to kill themselves and most homicides happen among African Americans. Thanks for the insight.
Here is the thing, people can go and find stats/facts and make any wrong idea sound good. You just did. Without using some simple logic to alnalyze what the real issue is. You are missing THE MOST IMPORTANT point! And it has nothing to do with HANDGUNS or homicide rates. Its has everyhting to do with ASSAULT RIFFLES!! We dont need them. But thats just simple common sense. But I guess you missed that point as you were busy quoting a 2012 study. Here is some more commons sense.. the second amendment was designed for people who lived in the middle of no where and did not trust the government to protect them. It was also written in a time that "Arms" reffered to pea shooter that needed to be filled with gun powder. Fact is, people are too stupid to remember this. Gun companies know this and continue to hide behind that pretense when arming every 19 year old , that has a couple of hundred bucks, with a riffle that is used in modern warfare.
I have an idea. I should be able to buy a nuclear weapon as it is my right to bear arms. I mean what do I do if my enemy on my block gets one before I do.Here is the problem.
The average citizen is stupid, forget easily and wont do any real work for any cause. They just like burgers.
Politicians need NRA's money so they will never sign a bill against any gun company.
Gun companies dont give a shit about 17 people dying. They probably like it as most gun stock prices and sales go up after a mass shooting.
Things never change, they just get worse. People just put their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. It wont.Your attitude is exactly why its difficult to change the culture and get legislation passed. You are exactly the type of person that people quote when say "lets see the liberal snowflakes come take my guns." You are literally fueling that with your single minded view point and how you express it.
Also your simple wrong. You think this could not have been accomplished with hand guns? Give me a break and wake up. Take away the AR-15 and this kid shows up with 3 pistols instead. One on each hip and a 3rd just in case.
What you wrote is a facebook rant.
Quoting a 2012 study....that would be you.
At least you understood my point that 2nd amendment is outdated. Now run with that.Your point is as most of your points. Spoken from a high moantain of arrogance. Problem is, that mountain is usualy just a pile of your own shit. (2012 study and saying that becuase a mass shooting can be perpetuated with a handgun we should allow even more powerful arms in the general public)
Let me break it down for you, since you did not understand. I guess you misse the part where I put it in CAPS and said that was the main point. But I dont think you did. As usual, you just choose to change the narrative and try to dismiss logic with an insult.
Point: AR-15 riffles should be ilegal. As they are weapons of modern warfare and should not be allowed to be purchase by the average citizen (As most are idiots). Fish- "Yeah but people have committed mass murders with handguns" Great! So because "People" can also commit mass murders with knives we should allow M60 GPMG's, M24E6's and any other high powered army weapon? What kind of logic is that? Do you put a limit to any weapon we should be allowed to purchase?
Things Fish has been wrong about:
Phil, Triangle,, Grant, Rose, Noah, D Smith, Frank, AR-15's......Unfortunately there are many like you out there, reason why things will never change. People that dont stop and think but blame every logical step someone else suggests.
Would never beat anyone up that I can just have fun proving wrong. Your still avoiding my ONLY point. AR-15's have no place in the public hands. You want to own a handgun? Sure. Make the process tougher and punish those shops that take short cuts. You want to shoot handguns. Sure.
The point you seem to be missing is that an AR-15, in the hands of the insane, can do a lot more damage in a shorter amount of time, than one with a handgun. Is it possible to kill many people with a whole bucnh of hand guns. Sure. But why make it easier for them by allowing these things in the hands of the public? And its just starting. Your claim is 5 to 10 million. The last srudy was in 2010 so No one knows.
BTW. I have shot an AR-15 and a M&P15. Have a marine friend in Tampa and we go hunting in December and January and he takes me shooting. We do not need to have these available to the masses. Specially with a bump trigger that can make them full automatic for $100 bucks.
I did not say that.
Yes.. you are indeed a master of proving that things I never said are indeed wrong.
HofstraBBall: we need to ban AR-15s. That will solve the problem.
fishmike: How will that solve the problem when there are 5-10 million already sold in the US and handguns are the murder weapon of choice?
HofstraBBall : fishmike thinks everyone should able to have AR-15s
I am simply challenging you to look deeper than band aid fixes that will have no impact. Do you think these shootings would not have been carried out if the AR-15 wasnt available?
fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Can you show me where I say its OK for the public to have AR-15s, or that I support that thought in any way shape or form?fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:You dont have a narrative. Only school boy responses. Next comes the part where you promise to beat me up. Ill use smaller words next time.fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:who are you talking to? You sound very proud of yourself but I have no clue what you are saying. All you do here is say gun owners are stupid, the 2nd amendment is outdated and if you cant see that your stupid too.fishmike wrote:Nalod wrote:Small changes add up and for goodness sake its worth every life to try!! We are long past events changing peoples minds.this is all emotion. I get it. "Small changes add up." I mean ok... do they?
My family has been touched by a sensless murder by a man who had a gun that was supposed to have been removed by the sheriff due to a restraining order. He did not have license for it but they suppose to come and collect them. This bought this home to our family. I am enraged by these murders!
My son was in a movie theatre lobby and kid 10 feet from him was gunned down in a gang related argument. He was 16 at the time. My boy was a bit dramatized by the ordeal.
I can't imagine what this has done in urban communities with high "body counts".
I can't imagine any father of any child killed not losing his mind on those very recipients of NRA funds who vote for lax laws over the people. I suppose they stop because it makes them into the monster that took their child. The sick phuchs who have gone after the Sandy Hook parents are culpable. THis is the Alex Jones crowd and they are big Trump supporters.
Time to put people before party. The "Take a knee" bought attention to police violence. Trump loves the damage it does to NFL because of his failed USFL team. It also dilutes the message as being anti patriotic!
Here are some good stats for the last 30 years.
https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/publish/ne...
When it was bad 6 people per/100,000 were being killed in gun homicides. When it was better it was 4 people per/100,000Dont mistaken my tone for insensitivity. Its just when you consider the amount of firepower out there on the street do people really think partial bans or making it tougher to get specific weapon types is going to make any difference at all?
"But we gotta try!"
Maybe try something different? I dont know Nalod. I dont know what the solution is. You have two very different viewpoints and cultures in one country. States with tougher guns have fewer killings. Thats an easy one. The only plausible solution as currently presented is to separate those cultures as much as possible. Its works over large averages. Would it have prevented this? We both know it likely would not have. Connecticut has very tough laws. Sandy Hook happened there.
Here's a question. Guns have been around awhile. School shootings are pretty new. How did this come about? Free press and free speech are great, until all the bad people copy each other because everyone knows what they did, how they did it and how much pain they caused. I think these people who are able to hurt others this way are in great pain. I think they see others being happy while they suffer. I think they see the suffering of people on the internet who are at ground zero of these horrific events. I think they see that suffering and identify with it. THATS HOW I FEEL they say. I think those people who hurt others that way want those people to feel their own suffering. Our intense coverage of these events ensures they continue.
Our freedoms, every one of them comes with a cost. Free speech, free press.... there is always a cost. The whole point of the 2nd amendment is the Gov can not take away our freedoms (starting with no taxation w/o representation) because... we are armed.
Big cost to that one also.
Emotion? More like common sense. Btw. Why quote a study done in 2012? Great, we found out that white guys like to kill themselves and most homicides happen among African Americans. Thanks for the insight.
Here is the thing, people can go and find stats/facts and make any wrong idea sound good. You just did. Without using some simple logic to alnalyze what the real issue is. You are missing THE MOST IMPORTANT point! And it has nothing to do with HANDGUNS or homicide rates. Its has everyhting to do with ASSAULT RIFFLES!! We dont need them. But thats just simple common sense. But I guess you missed that point as you were busy quoting a 2012 study. Here is some more commons sense.. the second amendment was designed for people who lived in the middle of no where and did not trust the government to protect them. It was also written in a time that "Arms" reffered to pea shooter that needed to be filled with gun powder. Fact is, people are too stupid to remember this. Gun companies know this and continue to hide behind that pretense when arming every 19 year old , that has a couple of hundred bucks, with a riffle that is used in modern warfare.
I have an idea. I should be able to buy a nuclear weapon as it is my right to bear arms. I mean what do I do if my enemy on my block gets one before I do.Here is the problem.
The average citizen is stupid, forget easily and wont do any real work for any cause. They just like burgers.
Politicians need NRA's money so they will never sign a bill against any gun company.
Gun companies dont give a shit about 17 people dying. They probably like it as most gun stock prices and sales go up after a mass shooting.
Things never change, they just get worse. People just put their heads in the sand and hope it goes away. It wont.Your attitude is exactly why its difficult to change the culture and get legislation passed. You are exactly the type of person that people quote when say "lets see the liberal snowflakes come take my guns." You are literally fueling that with your single minded view point and how you express it.
Also your simple wrong. You think this could not have been accomplished with hand guns? Give me a break and wake up. Take away the AR-15 and this kid shows up with 3 pistols instead. One on each hip and a 3rd just in case.
What you wrote is a facebook rant.
Quoting a 2012 study....that would be you.
At least you understood my point that 2nd amendment is outdated. Now run with that.Your point is as most of your points. Spoken from a high moantain of arrogance. Problem is, that mountain is usualy just a pile of your own shit. (2012 study and saying that becuase a mass shooting can be perpetuated with a handgun we should allow even more powerful arms in the general public)
Let me break it down for you, since you did not understand. I guess you misse the part where I put it in CAPS and said that was the main point. But I dont think you did. As usual, you just choose to change the narrative and try to dismiss logic with an insult.
Point: AR-15 riffles should be ilegal. As they are weapons of modern warfare and should not be allowed to be purchase by the average citizen (As most are idiots). Fish- "Yeah but people have committed mass murders with handguns" Great! So because "People" can also commit mass murders with knives we should allow M60 GPMG's, M24E6's and any other high powered army weapon? What kind of logic is that? Do you put a limit to any weapon we should be allowed to purchase?
Things Fish has been wrong about:
Phil, Triangle,, Grant, Rose, Noah, D Smith, Frank, AR-15's......Unfortunately there are many like you out there, reason why things will never change. People that dont stop and think but blame every logical step someone else suggests.
Would never beat anyone up that I can just have fun proving wrong. Your still avoiding my ONLY point. AR-15's have no place in the public hands. You want to own a handgun? Sure. Make the process tougher and punish those shops that take short cuts. You want to shoot handguns. Sure.
The point you seem to be missing is that an AR-15, in the hands of the insane, can do a lot more damage in a shorter amount of time, than one with a handgun. Is it possible to kill many people with a whole bucnh of hand guns. Sure. But why make it easier for them by allowing these things in the hands of the public? And its just starting. Your claim is 5 to 10 million. The last srudy was in 2010 so No one knows.
BTW. I have shot an AR-15 and a M&P15. Have a marine friend in Tampa and we go hunting in December and January and he takes me shooting. We do not need to have these available to the masses. Specially with a bump trigger that can make them full automatic for $100 bucks.
I did not say that.
Yes.. you are indeed a master of proving that things I never said are indeed wrong.
HofstraBBall: we need to ban AR-15s. That will solve the problem.
fishmike: How will that solve the problem when there are 5-10 million already sold in the US and handguns are the murder weapon of choice?
HofstraBBall : fishmike thinks everyone should able to have AR-15sI am simply challenging you to look deeper than band aid fixes that will have no impact. Do you think these shootings would not have been carried out if the AR-15 wasnt available?
Glad we agree. You said that AR-15 are not the real problem. I totally disagree. It is the biggest problem. As it would be if it was legal to own an even more powerful weapon. Again....a guy can kill people with a baseball bat. Give that guy a AR-15 and he is a quick mass murderer. At least make them work.
You have to start with what makes sense and can easily be changed (Renewing the ban on assault weapons which expired in 2004 seems pretty easy) before you can talk about some new better idea that you have yet to come up with. Btw, what was used in the Las Vegas shootings? Hint, not hand guns
martin wrote:GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Same here. My family has land upstate NY. We are very close to town, our property is not huge and the worse animals we deal with are the neighbor's dogs who to visit. There are black bears, coyotes and some small rock cats. Nothing I cant handle with a bat, flashlight and my rottweiler. If I was farther out away from town I would probably have a simple shot gun for the above reasons. I am glad I dont have to bother.fishmike wrote:GustavBahler wrote:It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.fishmike wrote:Gudris wrote:That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.
I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?
No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.
Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.
No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.
I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitateI really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.
I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.
Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?
Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?
Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.
One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.
Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.
Wish it werent the case.
I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.
Thats my case. Im way out in the country. Compared to most of my neighbors, Im lightly armed. Dont need an arsenal, or want one. Not storming the beaches at Normandy.
Im not worried about critters, although they're around. Unfortunately Meth is a big problem in rural areas out here, and some resort to breaking into homes to feed their habit. Almost everyone in my neighborhood has been hit. Lots of examples round here of break-ins while people are home. Morons like Gudris would have me just sit there
and let some tweaker do what he wants. Easy to be high minded from thousands of miles away.I was lucky to survive several instances of being fired upon, dont need morons telling me its a bad idea to defend myself.
Holy crap man! Be safe!
Im good. Crazy mofos aside, I like it here.
Unfortunately you look at the police blotter for the area, about 80 percent of those arrested, were in possesion of meth.
I spent 5 years in Europe. I would love to live in a country with few or no guns around. Not stupid enough to pretend like Im still there.
fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.
I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?
No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.
Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.
No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.
I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitateI really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.
I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.
Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?
Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?
I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.
If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.Name one. Please.
Yes I gave two examples of two different things-
One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.
Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So fuck that as well.
Example of knee jerk reaction -
Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?Completely irrelevant bullshit. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.
And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.
These assault rifles with the 556 round are made for one thing killing people not hunting not home defense.
The argument where I need one to protect myself falls way short because when was the last time someone with an AR or an AK stopped a crime?
I will go back to lurking now thanks
arkrud wrote:fishmike wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:priceless.meloshouldgo wrote:fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:Im not advocating war. I simply said said guns are part of the constitution. You said so was slavery and that was changed.... after over a million casualties. So if you want to tie in one aspect you need to tie in the other. Slavery didnt stop with good ideas and logical thinking. It ended with 3% of the population dying and 600K plus soldiers.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:so you ready go to war to get rid of the guns? You willing to strap one on and fight to have them removed? You ready to fight that group of Americans who are fallible and need to recognized times changed? Drink that in.fishmike wrote:this is part of America. Its a gun toting nation. Its not just that the NRA is the strongest and best funded lobby in Wash. What people fail to understand is a massive part of this country's population believe in the 2nd ammendment and armed citizens. They put the right to bear arms as important an American value as free speech and the most basic right. I mean I could go into gun culture all day. City people dont understand it. Neither to most suburbanites. In the rest of the country its as important as the good lord Jesus. That is what you are up against.Also here it is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.The ONLY solution is mental health. No gun laws will prevent these shootings. The thought of "liberals coming after their guns" only strengthens the lobby. What happens after gun tragedies? Sales go up. Stock pile.
My suggestion is Canada or Europe. Different laws and different culture. Im not being snarky. Just suggesting some acceptance is in order before people look at what can and cant be changed.
Sucks. Social media fuels it. When these people hurt, and want to hurt others there is a platform. Everyone sees it. Now it can be used as a threat. Now angry teens have a voice. There are many hard questions ahead. Terrible tragedy and a big problem here. Or is it? Do we need to be safe or do we need to feel safe?
Slavery was constitutional as well, part of the same backbone, drink that in.
It's a document, it's not infallible. Times have changed, the world has changed, there's no shame in admitting the Constitution needs to change.No, I am not. War is not the only way to solve a problem. Even in America
But someone somewhere has to start the dialogue and I am looking for the Democrats to do that and be real leaders.Democrats be real leaders... to what end? Your missing the point. Not everyone feels and thinks like you do. I happen to be one that does, but many dont.
I don't think just because Slavery couldn't be ended without war automatically means the constitution cannot be changed without war. I am also not saying lots of people think like me, I am saying people who do think like me need to speak out and popularize a counter argument. That hasn't happened. Democrats lead to what end?? the NRA pushes their BS to what end? The whole country is paralyzed by this concept that people should be allowed to own guns because it's the constitution. Unless someone proposes a counter argument you can't even measure how much support is there for actual change.
And the constitution DOES NOT give carte blanche to people to own guns. It says the right to own cannon be infringed BECAUSE A well regulated militia is needed. Show me the well regulated militia? See how you conveniently bolded just one part of the sentence and left the context out?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That is incredible and simple language. The constitution is the backbone of this country. Shall not be infringed. Drink that in guys.+100 If you ask most of the idots that use the 2nd amendment to protect their right to own a AR-15', when the 2nd amendment was written, they will tell you it was written in the 90's.
Made a point earlier that when the forefathers wrote in the right to bear arms the typical "Arm" was a musket and flintlock pistol. We also had no one protecting the public. But most will lie to you and say it is not outdated.
Bazooka is also a firearm.
Constitution is a measuring tool for the laws to be written not the law by itself.
So new law can be written to address the details of what weapons can be carried and be owed.
The problem is not with constitution or law but about the consensus in the society on need to change the acting law.
As the culture in US as well conditions on the ground are different so this laws have to be defined on State level not federal level.
And most of the laws for that matter.
Re
Yup, it's only a matter of time before some dumbass creates a home made nuke to "protect" themselves and does a test run on a inner city school by "accident". Technically the second amendment in the fushmikeinterpretation guarantees the said dumbass the right bear "arms" and doesn't specify it can't be nuclear fission capable. Can't argue against stupidity, but you can take actions to start creating laws and upholding them.
rammagen wrote:part of the issue the mentality of the people buying AR 15s. I just had an argument on real gm over an AR if it is an assault rifle the kid did not like the fact I shown him and so goes to insults. It is quick gratification. Mind you I served I know what an assault rifle is. I do not think people with out full training should be able to purchase one. Hey want an Ar 15 join up for two years see the damage get shot at and then let me know if you want one. The moron then proceeds he needs it for home protection and hunting. Sure .... but this just proves my point if we let idiots like my example buy guns with out training then these things will continue. Mind you I support the second amendment but not for this. I own a shotgun for home defense.
These assault rifles with the 556 round are made for one thing killing people not hunting not home defense.
The argument where I need one to protect myself falls way short because when was the last time someone with an AR or an AK stopped a crime?
I will go back to lurking now thanks
I have to say I agree with all of this. I own several AR’s just because I can. They have no real purpose other then killing people. There is no justfiable need for anyone to have a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. I put these new home defense shotguns which are semi automatic and chamber 15-20 rounds in the same catagory. It’s just a matter or time before one of these is misused.
As far as training, I trained with my local sheriff’s department at the law enforcement range and also find it helpful that my local shooting range is next to a millitary base and I can get knowledgeable answers to any questions.
While I do enjoy shooting an AR occasionally I don’t need one and keep them locked in a safe. I am just as happy shooting a lever or bolt action rifle if I want to send some rounds down range. I can’t justify owning one other then if the country and government fell into anarchy and chaos or we were invaded by a foreign country. Unlikely yes, but I keep them for that purpose just the same. I also was very curios about the AR. Television and movies make them look bad ass, so there was that curiosity thing also. Having satisfied the curiosity I can honestly say, I don’t need one and if it helps keep them out of the hands if mass killers, I would gladly give them up.
Rookie wrote:rammagen wrote:part of the issue the mentality of the people buying AR 15s. I just had an argument on real gm over an AR if it is an assault rifle the kid did not like the fact I shown him and so goes to insults. It is quick gratification. Mind you I served I know what an assault rifle is. I do not think people with out full training should be able to purchase one. Hey want an Ar 15 join up for two years see the damage get shot at and then let me know if you want one. The moron then proceeds he needs it for home protection and hunting. Sure .... but this just proves my point if we let idiots like my example buy guns with out training then these things will continue. Mind you I support the second amendment but not for this. I own a shotgun for home defense.
These assault rifles with the 556 round are made for one thing killing people not hunting not home defense.
The argument where I need one to protect myself falls way short because when was the last time someone with an AR or an AK stopped a crime?
I will go back to lurking now thanksI have to say I agree with all of this. I own several AR’s just because I can. They have no real purpose other then killing people. There is no justfiable need for anyone to have a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. I put these new home defense shotguns which are semi automatic and chamber 15-20 rounds in the same catagory. It’s just a matter or time before one of these is misused.
As far as training, I trained with my local sheriff’s department at the law enforcement range and also find it helpful that my local shooting range is next to a millitary base and I can get knowledgeable answers to any questions.
While I do enjoy shooting an AR occasionally I don’t need one and keep them locked in a safe. I am just as happy shooting a lever or bolt action rifle if I want to send some rounds down range. I can’t justify owning one other then if the country and government fell into anarchy and chaos or we were invaded by a foreign country. Unlikely yes, but I keep them for that purpose just the same. I also was very curios about the AR. Television and movies make them look bad ass, so there was that curiosity thing also. Having satisfied the curiosity I can honestly say, I don’t need one and if it helps keep them out of the hands if mass killers, I would gladly give them up.
Im sure if I had access to the training you did, your background, wouldnt have hesitated to take one to a range. Its not so much its purpose, but the craftsmanship and the performance.
Unfortunately some individuals have more sinister motives for owning an AR, which I believe we are in agreement that they shouldnt be available to the general public.
The issue is complex and not only about gun control - agreed!
While restricting guns to certain people doesn't guarantee they can't get still kill people - it certainly would make it significantly harder. Most people are honest, but I wouldn't leave my wallet out and not think that a certain percentage of people wouldn't steal it. We laugh at the idiot who is robbed when he leaves his car door unlocked and don't think anything when we allow everyone access to firearms knowing a certain percentage of people would be extremely dangerous with them.
Automatic weapons have a greater killing potential and are not needed for hunting or defending against the government - when I think of the high volume of people killed in mass shootings - just replace that automatic with a non-automatic and the death toll likely decreases. That means more lives are spared and isn't that the point - valuing human lives is supposed to be the priority.
It's easy to stay detached when reading an online story about these horrible incidents. Imagine the intensity and desperation you might feel if you were involved or knew somebody lost in one of these incidents. I think about 9/11 with that same connected intensity because I knew people who died (and escaped) in the towers... Certainly takes on a different significance when traumas like these impact a person directly. Would have to think that if a gun supporter's family member was killed with an automatic weapon that may shift that person's ethical and moral stance on this issue...
jskinny35 wrote:Can't understand why this issue is so divisive...The issue is complex and not only about gun control - agreed!
While restricting guns to certain people doesn't guarantee they can't get still kill people - it certainly would make it significantly harder. Most people are honest, but I wouldn't leave my wallet out and not think that a certain percentage of people wouldn't steal it. We laugh at the idiot who is robbed when he leaves his car door unlocked and don't think anything when we allow everyone access to firearms knowing a certain percentage of people would be extremely dangerous with them.
Automatic weapons have a greater killing potential and are not needed for hunting or defending against the government - when I think of the high volume of people killed in mass shootings - just replace that automatic with a non-automatic and the death toll likely decreases. That means more lives are spared and isn't that the point - valuing human lives is supposed to be the priority.
It's easy to stay detached when reading an online story about these horrible incidents. Imagine the intensity and desperation you might feel if you were involved or knew somebody lost in one of these incidents. I think about 9/11 with that same connected intensity because I knew people who died (and escaped) in the towers... Certainly takes on a different significance when traumas like these impact a person directly. Would have to think that if a gun supporter's family member was killed with an automatic weapon that may shift that person's ethical and moral stance on this issue...
Look at the posts above you. How many children died? And people are discussing how many fukking AR15s they own and how often they shoot them. Does that give you context for why this issue is divisive? It's because there are millions of people so focused on the "me, my and mine" they have forgotten about everything else. This is a country of selfish a$$holes disguised to fool people into believing they are part of a civilized society. These people don't have a shred of basic decency in them.
GustavBahler wrote:martin wrote:GustavBahler wrote:fishmike wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Same here. My family has land upstate NY. We are very close to town, our property is not huge and the worse animals we deal with are the neighbor's dogs who to visit. There are black bears, coyotes and some small rock cats. Nothing I cant handle with a bat, flashlight and my rottweiler. If I was farther out away from town I would probably have a simple shot gun for the above reasons. I am glad I dont have to bother.fishmike wrote:GustavBahler wrote:It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.fishmike wrote:Gudris wrote:That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.fishmike wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.
I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?
No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.
Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.
No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.
I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitateI really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.
I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.
Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?
Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?
Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.
One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.
Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.
Wish it werent the case.
I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.
Thats my case. Im way out in the country. Compared to most of my neighbors, Im lightly armed. Dont need an arsenal, or want one. Not storming the beaches at Normandy.
Im not worried about critters, although they're around. Unfortunately Meth is a big problem in rural areas out here, and some resort to breaking into homes to feed their habit. Almost everyone in my neighborhood has been hit. Lots of examples round here of break-ins while people are home. Morons like Gudris would have me just sit there
and let some tweaker do what he wants. Easy to be high minded from thousands of miles away.I was lucky to survive several instances of being fired upon, dont need morons telling me its a bad idea to defend myself.
Holy crap man! Be safe!
Im good. Crazy mofos aside, I like it here.
Unfortunately you look at the police blotter for the area, about 80 percent of those arrested, were in possesion of meth.
I spent 5 years in Europe. I would love to live in a country with few or no guns around. Not stupid enough to pretend like Im still there.
Gustav... I really would like to understand two things about your situation as I suppose it is not out of the norm in some areas in the US.
1) Why are you staying in an unsafe area like the one you live? Is this about affordable housing? Emotional ties to the neighborhood?
2) My european mind tells me that the law enforcement should take care of situations like this not the population of a country. What is the problem here? Not enough funding?
Happy for an explanation! I would really like to understand.
I live here in Germany... a country with basically no guns in the population and still a rather save place so the rural aspect aside its difficult for me to really understand the mistrust into the governement/state to take care of the safety of its ppl!
You are not going to stop mass killing but you will limit the younger kids and school shootings
Personally after 4 yrs in the army I would rather have heavier bullet to go shooting then an ar 556.