Gun threads

[CES020]

Yeah maybe nothing could of been done for those kids, but the abundance of guns needs to be addressed. There are WAYYYYY to many of them. And like I said before a lot of these get in the wrong hands. They get bought legally but because of negligence or greed or ignorance (or an alleged small # that were sold illegally in a buy back) Some of these problems will take years and years to fix, they will not just improve drastically overnight. But is that really a good reason to not address them at all, or to put out more and more guns so this problem keeps getting worse with time?

Like Fred and a few others have said in this thread and others. Stricter punishments for owners of the guns. Smaller clips or magezines or whatever you want to argu about what they are called. More restrictions on bullets purchased and caliber and what they do after you shoot them (explode, hollowed out whatnot) Better background checks, yearly physical and mental exams, better education.

And once again with the second amendment. Why should it be OK for a large clip assault riffle and you can't have RPG's? They are both arms are they not?

Can you explain, in your thoughts, what the plan will be when you ban the clips, you ban the sale of these "assault weapons", you do whatever else the plan is, and then after all that, some nut job walks in and does the same thing again.

That's reality. It's going to happen again, no matter what you do.

So what's the plan then? What's the next step? The problem is the proposed solution doesn't address the root cause. It's a symptom. If you put a bandage on it, it's not going to solve anything. It might make you FEEL better, but it's not going to actually BE any better.

I'll sit with most anyone and talk about common sense solutions that address the actual problems, but this non sense that some how you're going to stop gun crimes by taking 20 round clips off the market is ridiculous. Once it's done (and it will be done), this time next year, when something happens (and it will happen), what's the excuse going to be then?

 

[bob]

...but the abundance of guns needs to be addressed. There are WAYYYYY to many of them...

What then would be the correct number? That would be the number below which there are not too many guns and over which there are too many guns. Then, for extra credit, please explain why any amount of guns over this number would be too many.

Moreover, do you actually know how many guns there are? If you do not, then how could you possibly know that there are too many?

 

[Gino]

Gina it's called the 1st amendment you do know that don't you! No lies pal just the plain honest truth and if the Sun says that it must be true !!!!!

No, sorry. I had no idea. Is that your beef ?? You can't tell a lie without hiding behind this 1st amendment thing ?? I had no idea this was your whole problem. I thought it was about owning guns and playing Dodge. My bad. I had you pegged all wrong.... especially for a limey.

So, why don't you tell us what's really ailing you ??
​

 

[Marlene]

If the police can't protect me and my neighbors, who's going to?

that isn't what I was talking about when I said the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. when there is a shooting, people will damn the police as they should have...fill in the blank. when thye do something before anything happens like in this case. there are people damning them for taking action. the police can't win as people complain that they do nothing if a shooting occurs and complain that they are harrashing people when they do something before the shooting

 

[Gino]

that isn't what I was talking about when I said the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. when there is a shooting, people will damn the police as they should have...fill in the blank. when thye do something before anything happens like in this case. there are people damning them for taking action. the police can't win as people complain that they do nothing if a shooting occurs and complain that they are harrashing people when they do something before the shooting

Lincoln said it best.

 

[Nelson Newbie]

...but the abundance of guns needs to be addressed. There are WAYYYYY to many of them...

But you could say that about lots of things. Yet governmental response in most things you would compare the issue to is quite different. It is to locate the cause of the problem and correct it ... not to remove everyone's right to lawfully partake of it.

• About one in six Americans -- 48 million people -- get sick from food poisoning every year, according to a new estimate released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control. This doesn't mean that we forbid the growing, selling and consumption of spinach or cantaloupe. Instead we find the source of the bad food and remove it from the marketplace.
• Drunk driving is a top cause of deaths and injuries. Governmental response is to prosecute and punish the drunk drivers ... not restrict the rights of all drivers.
• Murders and violent crimes occur frequently utilizing all sorts of weapons. Governmental appropriate response is to prosecute and punish the perpetrators ... not restrict the rights of all owners of firearms, knives, hammers and poisons, etc.

As has been already posted:

• Andrew Lanza obtained three weapons after killing his mother. Only one was a rifle (statistically responsible for only 3.5% of all gun deaths). IMHO, he would have still been able to carry out his slaughter with the two remaining weapons.
• Had Andrew Lanza been confronted with armed and trained resistance, it is likely that the death toll would have been greatly reduced.
• The incidence of violent crime in the England and Wales is three time higher per 100,000 people than it is in the U.S. even though a total gun ban exists.

It seems to me that it should be obvious to even the most casual observer that proper governmental response to gun crime should be to prevent certain citizens such as felons and mentally impaired individuals from obtaining firearms; punishing violent offenders at the federal level with harsher sentences; and inserting competent resistance to gun crime wherever it may be needed.

If we can afford to impose inspections and armed resistance in our airports, then we can certainly afford to do the same in our schools.

 

[Gino]

But you could say that about lots of things. Yet governmental response in most things you would compare the issue to is quite different. It is to locate the cause of the problem and correct it ... not to remove everyone's right to lawfully partake of it.

• About one in six Americans -- 48 million people -- get sick from food poisoning every year, according to a new estimate released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control. This doesn't mean that we forbid the growing, selling and consumption of spinach or cantaloupe. Instead we find the source of the bad food and remove it from the marketplace.
• Drunk driving is a top cause of deaths and injuries. Governmental response is to prosecute and punish the drunk drivers ... not restrict the rights of all drivers.
• Murders and violent crimes occur frequently utilizing all sorts of weapons. Governmental appropriate response is to prosecute and punish the perpetrators ... not restrict the rights of all owners of firearms, knives, hammers and poisons, etc.

As has been already posted:

• Andrew Lanza obtained three weapons after killing his mother. Only one was a rifle (statistically responsible for only 3.5% of all gun deaths). IMHO, he would have still been able to carry out his slaughter with the two remaining weapons.
• Had Andrew Lanza been confronted with armed and trained resistance, it is likely that the death toll would have been greatly reduced.
• The incidence of violent crime in the England and Wales is three time higher per 100,000 people than it is in the U.S. even though a total gun ban exists.

It seems to me that it should be obvious to even the most casual observer that proper governmental response to gun crime should be to prevent certain citizens such as felons and mentally impaired individuals from obtaining firearms; punishing violent offenders at the federal level with harsher sentences; and inserting competent resistance to gun crime wherever it may be needed.

If we can afford to impose inspections and armed resistance in our airports, then we can certainly afford to do the same in our schools.

........ and while we're at it... can we shorten the lines on death row by deathing them so they don't take up so much time and space, let alone costs ??

 

[Marlene]

• Andrew Lanza obtained three weapons after killing his mother. Only one was a rifle (statistically responsible for only 3.5% of all gun deaths). IMHO, he would have still been able to carry out his slaughter with the two remaining weapons.
• Had Andrew Lanza been confronted with armed and trained resistance, it is likely that the death toll would have been greatly reduced.
• The incidence of violent crime in the England and Wales is three time higher per 100,000 people than it is in the U.S. even though a total gun ban exists.

first off, psycho's name was Adam, not andrew, just so we don't mix him up with other nut jobs.

he didn't use the hand guns, he used the rifle. why? most likely because it held more bullets.

had he been comfronted with armed resistance would the death toll be reduced? well duh. had he run into Superman things would have been different too. why is it all who ask the question "what if there were armed people in the school" don't ask what would have happend if his dumba$$ mother didn't have all those guns and ammo in the house? she knew he had issues. this wasn't some great kid who showed no signs until he did what he did. this guy showed all the signs. if you ask what if to armed teachers, you have to ask what if she was a responsible person who said, yes, I have the right to own guns but should I?

what kind of violent crime in going on in scary Wales? or scary England? you would think the NRA and it's flunkies would make sure that news was all over the place so where's the proof of that?

 

[Nelson Newbie]

first off, psycho's name was Adam, not andrew, just so we don't mix him up with other nut jobs.

he didn't use the hand guns, he used the rifle. why? most likely because it held more bullets.

had he been comfronted with armed resistance would the death toll be reduced? well duh. had he run into Superman things would have been different too. why is it all who ask the question "what if there were armed people in the school" don't ask what would have happend if his dumba$$ mother didn't have all those guns and ammo in the house? she knew he had issues. this wasn't some great kid who showed no signs until he did what he did. this guy showed all the signs. if you ask what if to armed teachers, you have to ask what if she was a responsible person who said, yes, I have the right to own guns but should I?

what kind of violent crime in going on in scary Wales? or scary England? you would think the NRA and it's flunkies would make sure that news was all over the place so where's the proof of that?

:Oops: How could I have made such a horrible blunder as to confuse the name Andrew with Adam! Thank you for straightening that out.

So then you agree with my point. Leaving superheros and untrained education functionaries out of it, however, my suggestion should be limited to trained police or private security individuals.

The information comparing US to UK stats is linked to in Post #208. For your convenience, here's a link to the video. From there you are welcome to go to the sites referenced (FBI and comparable UK) and look up the stats for your own edification.

 

[Kentucky Wraps]

first off, psycho's name was Adam, not andrew, just so we don't mix him up with other nut jobs.

he didn't use the hand guns, he used the rifle. why? most likely because it held more bullets.

had he been comfronted with armed resistance would the death toll be reduced? well duh. had he run into Superman things would have been different too. why is it all who ask the question "what if there were armed people in the school" don't ask what would have happend if his dumba$$ mother didn't have all those guns and ammo in the house? she knew he had issues. this wasn't some great kid who showed no signs until he did what he did. this guy showed all the signs. if you ask what if to armed teachers, you have to ask what if she was a responsible person who said, yes, I have the right to own guns but should I?

what kind of violent crime in going on in scary Wales? or scary England? you would think the NRA and it's flunkies would make sure that news was all over the place so where's the proof of that?

Let's stick to logical, sound arguments. This man was solely responsible for his own actions and possibly his mother for not locking the guns in a safe. Guns aren't the criminals. Does it logically follow that he would not have done what he did had his mother done so? NO.

Again...lol at your NRA comments. The NRA exists because citizens support it VERY strongly by membership etc. It's not an evil agency...it's an "association" of advocates. As an NRA member, you are speaking to me as well. I thank the NRA for making sure people like you don't get their way. If the crackpot's mother kept the firearms in a locked gun cabinet...and he'd gotten his weapons elsewhere, you'd still by screaming "more gun control" and shifting the blame off of the shooter and onto guns and their advocates. The FACT isn't that guns are to blame. The FACT isn't that the NRA is responsible for anybodies actions. The FACT is a deranged man CHOSE to murder many innocent children due to mental illness and other mental/emotional factors. His CHOICE was firearms and not Bombs, chemical, poisons, knives, swords, grenades, a car, Boeing 747, or any other destructive elements. FACT, more people are killed around the world by other methods than firearms.

 

[cajun312]

Compare the number of home invasions in America, where the crook may encounter an armed homeowner, and in England where the crook may encounter a homeowner with a butter knife or a rock.

 

[fmg]

Compare the number of home invasions in America, where the crook may encounter an armed homeowner, and in England where the crook may encounter a homeowner with a butter knife or a rock.

I can assure you if I encountered a home invasion in England I would not be armed with a Butter Knife or a Rock to take the bA$tard down.Most likely he would be on the end of either a millwall Brick or a good smack round his norf n sarf to wipe him out clean but I can guarantee you I would not have a gun to kill him.I just could not live with myself knowing I took a life.

 

[cajun312]

I can assure you if I encountered a home invasion in England I would not be armed with a Butter Knife or a Rock to take the bA$tard down.Most likely he would be on the end of either a millwall Brick or a good smack round his norf n sarf to wipe him out clean but I can guarantee you I would not have a gun to kill him.I just could not live with myself knowing I took a life.

I wouldn't want to kill anyone either, but if it's him or me, I won't hesitate.

 

[Kentucky Wraps]

I can assure you if I encountered a home invasion in England I would not be armed with a Butter Knife or a Rock to take the bA$tard down.Most likely he would be on the end of either a millwall Brick or a good smack round his norf n sarf to wipe him out clean but I can guarantee you I would not have a gun to kill him.I just could not live with myself knowing I took a life.

Could you live with yourself if you couldn't stop him from taking your families lives?

 

[fmg]

I wouldn't want to kill anyone either, but if it's him or me, I won't hesitate.

Cos you have a gun and so does he.If the gun laws were a lot tighter here then eventually maybe and just maybe he won't have a gun and neither will you so no one has to lose a life.
Where is the love here in the USA i don't get it.So much anger and hatred its unbelievable.Just look at how certain people on this forum get after reading one or two points that they disagree with it turns into such hatred.
Be nice everyone!!!

 

[SignProPlus-Chip]

I can assure you if I encountered a home invasion in England I would not be armed with a Butter Knife or a Rock to take the bA$tard down.Most likely he would be on the end of either a millwall Brick or a good smack round his norf n sarf to wipe him out clean but I can guarantee you I would not have a gun to kill him.I just could not live with myself knowing I took a life.

What's the plan if he's armed?

Die?

 

[fmg]

What's the plan if he's armed?

Die?

I would Call Mosh or Gina as they seem to have an answer to everything

 

[SignProPlus-Chip]

Cos you have a gun and so does he.If the gun laws were a lot tighter here then eventually maybe and just maybe he won't have a gun and neither will you so no one has to lose a life.
Where is the love here in the USA i don't get it.So much anger and hatred its unbelievable.Just look at how certain people on this forum get after reading one or two points that they disagree with it turns into such hatred.
Be nice everyone!!!

No hatred or anger here brother. Just trying to understand your mindset.

Hoping that he "maybe" won't have a gun is a gamble in my opinion.

Someone steps into my house, armed or not, to harm myself or my family, their life is forfeit. Most people don't understand the home invasion scenario...there is NO TIME to think, only to react. If your not on top of an intruder either before or as they make their way in, you are already at a disadvantage. If they are armed, then even more-so.

 

[mark galoob]

lol...holy cr*p on a cracker...what is a narf and scarf?

mark galoob:ROFLMAO:

 

[fmg]

Norf n Sarf is cockney rhyme for Mouth. Say it! Norf as in North and Sarf as in South