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.
The dead people in this story would strongly disagree with you.
The killer had already assaulted the wife in the past and she had an ORDER OF PROTECTION. Lotta good that did her.
Nice FAILURE of your big government system, there.
If she had a gun, she and her kids would be alive.
So until YOU CAN PROTECT the citizens, your argument is invalid. Besides, we're not going to change our constitution and way of life anyway. So you'll stay pressed, I guess.
I'll say this- Protection orders are useless against crazy people. Government fails us consistently, because it's made up of people. People given power by nature abuse it, and become concerned primarily with their own interests. That is mans nature, and will never change. Have a blessed day.
Just a question. For those that have armed security details , what exactly are those firearms used for ?
For many in this country that use their firearms to provide and income and or feed their family how would you explain that they don't need one since they are only used for fighting a war?
For those that believe laws work, please explain why the Federal and State's very tough laws against illicit drugs and the harsh penalties that go along with it have done little to stop drug trafficking and drug use?
There is only one answer (no it's not because it's very profitable to run drugs) because if that was the case why aren't you doing it? It's because criminals do not obey laws. Only law abiding Americans obey laws.
Here's another one for those who believe and fight so hard against gun ownership because they believe it will make for a safer society.
While you drink your wine, beer, and sip your scotch and fancy drinks just keep in mind you support an industry that is one of the causes of child abuse and neglect, diseases and sickness, tragic car accidents causing death, destruction, life time crippling injuries of innocent people, huge heath costs placing the burden on us all and kills nearly 250 people each day in the USA.
and to top it all off it's not even a protected amendment. Talk about greed, the gov't is laughing all the way to the bank with the tax revenue. Money always comes first before the "children"
Is there not some middle ground between a society where we all open carry and one where we disarm every single person? I feel like there could be. Why do these arguments always get into this "guns are weapons of war which should never be used" vs. "everyone should brandish a weapon?"
With regard to the family massacre, if it were me, I would have moved far away from my crazy ex. Knowing about how he was a loon and all, I would not have wanted to be within 500 miles of him.
For the record I'm fine with concealed carry, although I would prefer my state had more training requirements. At this point all you need in my county is a 3 hour night class down at the sheriff's dept. and $25.00. I feel if you're going to carry a concealed weapon, you can give up at least whole weekend. I would gladly pay more for the increased training (if I can afford a $500 gun, I can afford $100 for a class). Seriously, my speeding ticket class was 12 hours.
I'm also fine with weapons for home defense although in my particular case I would not use mine unless it was a very extreme circumstance.
The NRA used to provide gun safety classes in public schools. Why don't we bring those back? Some schools even had shooting teams. There is so much support for sex education (kids need to be educated so they have safe sex, blah, blah, blah). Shouldn't that apply to gun safety?
Wouldn't the same logic used to push sex ed in schools be just as relevant to gun safety? The more kids are allowed to handle weapons in a safe and monitored environment, the less likely they will be to handle weapons unsafely out of curiosity. Also, if more kids were able to shoot guns in a safe and monitored environment, they would have a better understanding of the power of guns based in reality and not on what they see in movies or video games.
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.
There's so much fail in this post I really don't know quite where to begin. However, this stood out:
Quote:
As for what we should do, I think Connecticut's response was appropriate.
Seriously? Here's the definition of a large capacity magazine under CT law:
Quote:
"Large capacity magazine" means any firearm magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar device that has the capacity of, or can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than ten rounds of
ammunition,
The law goes on further to state:
Quote:
While transporting the large capacity magazine between any of the places set forth in this
subsection, or to any licensed gun dealer, provided (A) such large capacity magazine contains not
more than ten bullets
Do you seriously think that as Adam Lanza prepared to shoot up that school that if this law were in effect at that time he would have thought "gee I better make sure there are no more than 10 rounds in my mags"?
If you honestly think that CT's response by making these laws was appropriate please call me because I have a lovely bride for sale that I'd like to discuss with you.
A determined person is going to do what they're going to do. I get that. If those CT laws had been in place and Adam Lanza was determined enough he could have just made the 2 hour round trip to New Hampshire to get magazines.
Massacres in schools and in public have skyrocketed relative to what they were 40 years ago. They used to NEVER happen, or happen once a decade. Now they happen every year, sometimes several times a year and it's been that way since the 1990s. A school shooting will not even make news anymore unless double digits are killed.
We can't attack the problem if we completely disregard the tool. Maybe if we make large capacity magazines a little more difficult to acquire, then it will be that much more difficult to engage these killings. I'm not saying gun control is the only solution but I'm at least willing to have the conversation to deal with the larger problem which are these massacres.
There is also media coverage - which should be addressed.
There is also mental health & depression - which should be addressed.
There are improvements that can be made in security procedures - which should happen.
There are also legal changes we can make on the liability side - which should be addressed.
There are also gun regulations - which need to be part of the solution.
There are also a cultural shift that should happen so depressed or crazy kids don't think the answer to their problem is going out in a blaze of violence.
I'm not saying gun regulations alone are the solution that balance the equation but they are PART of it. I'm also saying that I don't understand what the hell the fear is. Our rights are very well protected even under Connecticut's scenario. Heck, I have a relative that lives in Austria - and they have VERY strict gun regulations although you CAN still own one. They make you take a psychological test before issuing a concealed carry license.
It's an insult to the victims to do nothing. It would be as if a preventable fire consumed a building and we said... we don't need to look at building safety codes. Property owners have a right to keep their building as they see fit!
These mass shooting occurrences are preventable and used to rarely happen. Some of you are taking the line of logic as if bad, illegal things happen so we should not have laws at at all. Murders still happen. Does that mean we should just abolish laws against murder because some people still murder? I don't think you guys are anarchists. For whatever reason, though, the gun issue makes Americans unreasonable. It's really hard to understand, I don't have the attachment to weapons and don't have the emotional connection between a weapon and freedom. Other countries have freedom too and at least a psych eval before you buy a weapon. It doesn't make them un-free. People here are making a leap from gun safety codes to totalitarian dictatorships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Roma
There's so much fail in this post I really don't know quite where to begin. However, this stood out:
Seriously? Here's the definition of a large capacity magazine under CT law:
The law goes on further to state:
Do you seriously think that as Adam Lanza prepared to shoot up that school that if this law were in effect at that time he would have thought "gee I better make sure there are no more than 10 rounds in my mags"?
If you honestly think that CT's response by making these laws was appropriate please call me because I have a lovely bride for sale that I'd like to discuss with you.
Last edited by redguard57; 02-11-2015 at 12:26 PM..
Do you feel better about yourself now that you have insulted me? You and your kind are the reason I say I won't get into a debate about who is right- you're whole mental well being rests on believing you are right, and others wrong. That is sad.
When you say that you won't get into a debate with "you and your kind" you clearly mean those who will lambaste you in a debate all day long. Your positions are based on emotions and baseless knee jerk reactions rather than facts and reality and you know it. Most people in your position understand this which is why they take the approach of portraying themselves as morally or intellectually superior just as you've done here. If anything you people are certainly consistent.
Where am I trying to curtail your rights? I do not have to agree with the pro gun lobby- I am against people owning anything besides standard hunting rifles, and I stand by that. Stop taking others opinions so PERSONALLY!! I could see you gun people getting upset if I ACTUALLY had the power to take your guns, but I'm simply stating an opinion. Pro gun folks amaze me at how they take any disagreement personally!
Quote:
Where am I trying to curtail your rights?
How about right here:
Quote:
I am against people owning anything besides standard hunting rifles, and I stand by that.
A determined person is going to do what they're going to do. I get that. If those CT laws had been in place and Adam Lanza was determined enough he could have just made the 2 hour round trip to New Hampshire to get magazines.
Massacres in schools and in public have skyrocketed relative to what they were 40 years ago. They used to NEVER happen, or happen once a decade. Now they happen every year, sometimes several times a year and it's been that way since the 1990s. A school shooting will not even make news anymore unless double digits are killed.
We can't attack the problem if we completely disregard the tool. Maybe if we make large capacity magazines a little more difficult to acquire, then it will be that much more difficult to engage these killings. I'm not saying gun control is the only solution but I'm at least willing to have the conversation to deal with the larger problem which are these massacres.
Yes, I prefer that we do nothing further because the gun laws on the books already or even before Newtown are more than enough. Please name any other law or sets of laws that restrict that rights of law abiding citizens.
Quote:
Massacres in schools and in public have skyrocketed relative to what they were 40 years ago.
Wrong (again). The biggest issue in any gun control debate is usually that the gun control advocates are speaking from a position of ignorance.
A school shooting will not even make news anymore unless double digits are killed.
If you actually believe that maybe we can discuss you paying me to paint my fence after you buy my bridge. Sound good?
Quote:
We can't attack the problem if we completely disregard the tool.
The problem is that nobody seems to understand that guns are not the problem.
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.
