Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. — A gunman has shot seven people, killing five of them, in a subdivision west of Atlanta.
Police: 7 people shot, 5 dead in Georgia shooting - The Washington Post
Five people were killed, including several children. And these people were killed not only because this guy was mentally-ill... These people were killed because this guy have a license and gun! I'm not against all weapons, but i'm against weapons in hands of average citizens, which think that they will never use their guns wrong!
People, time to understand, that gun under your pillow will bring more harm than good.
When gun control works on "criminals" you will have an argument. Control criminals not guns.
If their was another person with a gun around, the nutter could have been stopped.
Did you read about the 11 year old who ran the burglars off by pointing a shotgun in their face in MI? yup. She is alive and safe because her parents taught her the RIGHT way of using this inanimate object, "shotgun."
Last edited by Byron1022; 02-09-2015 at 01:02 PM..
Reason: addition
It absolutely false to say that people who support the 2nd amendment are OK with mass shootings. That is a shameful statement. It's absolute nonsense as they are saddened and disgusted by these mass shootings like anyone else. Furthermore, placing restrictions on gun ownership will not stop them.
What would have changed is if people had been allowed to carry a gun into one of those venues. It would have taken one armed teacher to put an end to it. Yet, since this has been forbidden by the gun control crowd, it was like shooting fish in a barrel. What do we have for that, a lot of dead people.
The logic is clear enough.
A spree shooter, if determined enough, could prepare for the possibility that he would have armed resistance. The kid in question had two weapons, a vest and a helmet. Had he been able to get his gear on, someone with a handgun might have taken him down but maybe they would have been taken out first by his longer range weapon. What took him down was rapid response by the school security team.
You do understand that guns are designed to kill, don't you? There is an obvious difference between a swimming pool and a gun. What about huge magazines of ammo? What is their purpose? To shoot as many as possible and do as much damage as you can get away with before you are shot dead yourself. There is no other reason to have ammo at the ready with a huge clip. NONE! What is your argument against that? I am sure it wouldn't be a logical one.
Having read about hunters who get lost in the wild, I can see a purpose along a line or two.
First of all, though, let's clarify terms. That boxy thing that goes into a rifle, that the ammo is put in, that for a pistol it's what the brunette drops out of the bottom of her pistol in the advertisements for "Dueños del ParaÃso" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGrXnohDh-A
that's a magazine.
Okay, that said, let's get back to our hunters who get lost in the wild, who thought they were just going a little distance off the trail and then can't find their way back. In such accounts, they often only had a few rounds because they were only to shoot one deer. So lost, they are now in a harsh decision tree, save their 7 rounds to be able to kill something so they don't starve or use it to fire a distress signal?
The thing is with a magazine or two, one can carry an ample amount of ammo with undue hardship (if it's light, carrying a few magazines of .308 is quite heavy). Secondly, say one is lost and they that ammo but now they are weak from starvation or they broken a few bones and to shoot, they have to load the gun each time......not the most favorable of situations.
Now, once again, I provide a counter scenario to another's argument of an absolute.
Can I assume that those who are against gun ownership and/or the ownership of "high" capacity magazines is because you want a safer society with less deaths, injury etc.?
Can I assume that those who are against gun ownership and/or the ownership of "high" capacity magazines is because you want a safer society with less deaths, injury etc.?
I guess.
They also believe that criminals will actually follow the laws.
One thing that amazes me with the wealthy or politicians who cry for gun control is that they're protected by people who are armed.
The thing about gun grabbers is their emotional instability by calling us "gun nuts." My sanity has been trusted enough to be armed to hunt other armed men on the other side of the world. I pass a background check every time I buy a gun and my guns have never shot anyone or anything on their own.
If you don't like guns, that's fine, just stop trying to take away our right in the name of "public safety" or some fairy tale scenario.
I don't like Dodge, does that mean I'm going to say they need to be banned in case a Dodge runs a kid over?
It's also amazing how the gun control people have no issue exploiting mass shootings to push their agenda. Isn't it strange how mass shootings seem to happen so often in areas where guns are banned? Those darn criminals not following the laws again!
I was in the army for years so I can do it pretty quickly. Timing myself I've done it in half a minute. My house is small and made of wood. You hear everything.
But I choose not to live in fear of the 1 in 5000 chance someone will invade my home and try to kill me. What do I have that anyone wants? The entire contents of my house are worth maybe $8500 and most of that is the furniture. It would be much more profitable to steal my car from the driveway and leave the house alone.
Home invasions have occurred about once every 3 years in my area since the 1990s and almost ALWAYS involved drugs. The last one I can find for my town occurred in 2004. The much more likely scenario is someone wanders onto my property drunk or high. I do not want to kill a person for making a mistake under the influence. I do not want the liability or the guilt of my nephews/nieces/children getting their hands on my weapon and firing it, another more likely scenario - they DO SEE IT AS A TOY and I've had to talk to parents that their kid does not understand. Not my own kids but other kids.
Truthfully, I've trained everyone in my house to kick the screens out and jump out the windows if there's an emergency. I would grab the phone, jump out and call 911 rather than get into a gun battle where the rounds will go straight through the walls. My walls are paper thin, have no insulation and with the way my house is laid out I'd just as likely hit someone else in it.
As for what we should do, I think Connecticut's response was appropriate. What I would also do is on the liability and sentencing end. Increase penalties for armed violent burglaries. We put away people for longer times for drug possession than robbery. Also increase liabilities for guardians of minors or mentally disabled who get hold of their weapons.
Well now we know you are completely lying.
Putting the bolt in is pushing the rear take down pin, lifting the upper receiver, pushing the bolt in towards the barrel, and putting the rear take down pin back in. Thats about 1/10th of a field strip. Congrats, you take 30 seconds when a 12 year old girl can do a complete field strip. So lets say it plainly: you don't own an AR15.
Second, FBI/DOJS says there are around 3,600,000 home invasions in a year. With 116,000,000 households that is around a 3.1% chance this year that you will need to use your firearm to defend yourself or your home. But good on you for thinking "It can never happen to me". I'm sure people who skip insurance probably said that too.
Third, if you think you will kill someone who is drunk or high for being on your property, please check yourself into the nearest psych facility. You are a danger to yourself and others. The rest of us normal folks can properly identify a threat. In fact homeowners, like the ones you espouse are too stupid to own a standard capacity magazine or "assault rifle", are BETTER then police at identifying perpetrators, shooting them, and cause less collateral damage as a result.
Your nieces shouldn't be near your firearm, which you state is hanging on your wall without a bolt. So first on this disaster: your gun is either a hunk of metal more apt to giving them a concussion from falling off the wall OR your gun is loaded. Which is it? Because it should be put away with young company that cannot be trusted, but even if it wasn't it would be the same as leaving a piece of rebar in your room.
Wait, you just said you'd shoot the first drunk you see on your property, now your running out the window. Hey, awesome. I'm sure the mom can collect her 2.3 kids from their rooms and just throw them out the window as well, right? Whats good for you must be good for everyone.
Connecticut's response was pure stupidity. FBI, DOJ, and the ATF all said that magazine limits, "assault weapons" and similar laws have ZERO effect on crime. If they did crime would have skyrocketed after the 2004 sunset of the federal AWB. But wait, that didn't happen. Registration, so that they can pull a California, Dinkins, NOLA, SAFE ACT (oops, we need to get some RINO's on board so lets skip the forced confiscation and hush it up that we ever talked about it), etc and come grab what you've got after they "rethink" their position or pass another law. yeah, that's wonderful.
But hey, you must love the Second Circuits ruling on supposed "constitutional rights": high permit costs, time off work, only kept in the home, can't actually practice with it, and being attacked outside the home is "imaginary".
I was in the army for years so I can do it pretty quickly. Timing myself I've done it in half a minute. My house is small and made of wood. You hear everything.
But I choose not to live in fear of the 1 in 5000 chance someone will invade my home and try to kill me. What do I have that anyone wants? The entire contents of my house are worth maybe $8500 and most of that is the furniture. It would be much more profitable to steal my car from the driveway and leave the house alone.
Home invasions have occurred about once every 3 years in my area since the 1990s and almost ALWAYS involved drugs. The last one I can find for my town occurred in 2004. The much more likely scenario is someone wanders onto my property drunk or high. I do not want to kill a person for making a mistake under the influence. I do not want the liability or the guilt of my nephews/nieces/children getting their hands on my weapon and firing it, another more likely scenario - they DO SEE IT AS A TOY and I've had to talk to parents that their kid does not understand. Not my own kids but other kids.
Truthfully, I've trained everyone in my house to kick the screens out and jump out the windows if there's an emergency. I would grab the phone, jump out and call 911 rather than get into a gun battle where the rounds will go straight through the walls. My walls are paper thin, have no insulation and with the way my house is laid out I'd just as likely hit someone else in it.
As for what we should do, I think Connecticut's response was appropriate. What I would also do is on the liability and sentencing end. Increase penalties for armed violent burglaries. We put away people for longer times for drug possession than robbery. Also increase liabilities for guardians of minors or mentally disabled who get hold of their weapons.
It's not about living in fear ya doofus. I don't live in fear of a fire breaking out in my kitchen, but I still have a fire extinguisher easily accessible and ready to go.
You obviously don't grasp the premise of insurance. That "it won't happen to me" mindset is very dangerous, I hope for you and your families sake you never experience just how dangerous. The "I don't have anything of value" argument is dangerous too, criminals don't know what you do and don't have, and they are also stupid.
Love how you ignored my point about the failed assault weapons ban.
Oh, and if it takes you 30 seconds to collect and put together your AR, triple that time when your adrenaline is through the roof and it's pitch black out and you have assailants in your house bearing down on you. It takes some finesse to get the charging handle lined up and slotted correctly with the bolt before you can drop it all into the receiver. The same issue comes into play when talking about gun safes. Too much adrenaline and panic to expect to be able to operate a lock in any sort of acceptable timeframe. I wouldn't even recommend keeping the magazine and rifle in separate places, let alone keep the bolt and the rifle separate. That's just asinine.
Maybe if you kept it hidden/out of reach and never talked about it you would have to worry less about children vs. hanging it on your damn wall.
Yeah, because it's not like a modern military has ever turned against it's own people to serve a monstrous regime. Oh, wait...
Use your brain. The Nazi's didn't threaten the entire world with just members of the National Socialist Party..
Maybe you should try using yours first, and learn a little history too. The Nazi's first took away everyone's guns so your argument falls apart. Second, the regular military was not responsible for the "final solution". That was he domain of the special police force, the SS. (which also arrested people for owning guns) I do agree that efforts & excuses to justify gun control come directly from the Nazi play book.
You really should try to think these things through.
Last edited by WaldoKitty; 02-10-2015 at 03:35 AM..
The American revolution was won with the aid of the French, the only military that rivaled the British, and in a time when the most advanced military armaments were canons and rifles that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. .....
Yet 10s of 1000s died by these very weapons that you claim can't even hit a barn. Furthermore at what point did the military become so powerful to make gun ownership irrelevant? You have simultaneously claimed this wasn't so during the revolution but absolutely certain by WWII? What does your brain say about that?
As I said earlier, you really need to think this nonsense through before stating it as some sort of fact.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
