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.
I get the gist of it.....the problem here is that there isn't an honest discussion going on from either side.
You have extreme gun-nuts like you correctly describe but then you have people like the OP and Huffpo who use these events not to target the gun-nuts but also bad people like yourself too.
They don't even have facts about the guys history, mental state, how he got the gun....nothing. Just a nice tidy group of dead people including children and it was like....jackpot!
Double bonus for it happening in a "red state", they love that.
If you just watched the media you'd think these were the majority of killings when the reality is that most are gang\drug related with illegal wheapons...but that doesn't fit the storyline.
For the most part, that is absolutely true.
I've been an avid collector of fine firearms for almost 40 years. I've carried concealed for almost 20. I'm a staunch believer in the 2nd amendment, as written.
I also believe in the SCOTUS decision in Heller Vs. DC. The Second Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions.
I do not believe in unlimited gun ownership for all citizens with no restrictions or regulation by the state or federal government.
I also do not believe in arbitrarily banning certain types of guns, and that the anti gun crowd goes too far in what they consider "reasonable restrictions", usually caused by ignorance of the subject on their part.
Because of my two sided beliefs, I'm considered an enemy by both gun advocates and anti gun advocates on this board.
It appears that there is no possibility of any bipartisan consensus on this issue, any time soon and those of us who believe as I do are shut out of the dialogue.
Sorry but pointing out isolated cases of people going nuts around the Nation and using a gun to kill others is not going to change the laws or peoples oinions on gun ownership. The simple fact is it is far too late to get rid of the guns that are already out there and criminals simply do not care what laws are in place and many honest citizens would never give up their guns, heck many law enforcement agencies would not even enforce such an order and many have already said they would not. While I have no problem with background checks to not allow those with a felony background or someone that has been diagnosed to be a danger to themselves and/or others (why aren't they in an institution) to buy a gun legally, but the fact of the matter if someone wants a gun they will get one and no law will change that. I would remind everyone that there was a ban on assualt type rifles in Colorado when those two nutjob teens went on their shooting spree in their school the laws protected no one. Better education, better screening and a better mental healthcare system would do more than any laws. Oh and you really want to reduce gun violence go after those that commit most of it, and that would be criminals, and gangs in particular. Make illegal punishable by five years, no good time reduction, if the DA can prove someone belongs to a gang, round em up, put them on trial and lock em up, you might surprised how many would not join or stop being a member of a gang, you would also notice a major drop in death by guns.
I wasn't aware that restrictions on magazine size and the outlandish idea of doing a background check before arming someone were limited to "scary looking black rifles."
But really, you're right that a gun control law wouldn't have stopped this. The country has a culture problem (that gun nuts fully embrace) that says the way to solve problems is to start shooting. Events like this aren't going to end until people change that.
First, do you stereotype everyone or just people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights?
Using a gun to solve every little problem like disrespecting someone or being in the wrong part of town is a THUG problem. The people embracing this type of lifestyle haven't been taught to value a human life.
I've been called a gun nut on this forum based on the number of guns I own, the control measures I want repealed (I don't want new ones) and that fact that I carry a gun with me at all times. I fully embrace the "gun culture". I have a lot of friends that do the same and we are very much alike. I hate violence. The last time I threw a punch in a fight was October 1986 and the recipient of that punch was wearing a football helmet. If confronted with a severe threat I have no problem with swift and focused violence to end said threat. I don't want to. I'd like to go through life without ever having to pull my weapon on someone else. But I still train and prepare for that day. Is that a waste? Maybe. Part of my training is staying in shape and there is never any harm in that.
I've been an avid collector of fine firearms for almost 40 years. I've carried concealed for almost 20. I'm a staunch believer in the 2nd amendment, as written.
I also believe in the SCOTUS decision in Heller Vs. DC. The Second Amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions.
I do not believe in unlimited gun ownership for all citizens with no restrictions or regulation by the state or federal government.
I also do not believe in arbitrarily banning certain types of guns, and that the anti gun crowd goes too far in what they consider "reasonable restrictions", usually caused by ignorance of the subject on their part.
Because of my two sided beliefs, I'm considered an enemy by both gun advocates and anti gun advocates on this board.
It appears that there is no possibility of any bipartisan consensus on this issue, any time soon and those of us who believe as I do are shut out of the dialogue.
I don't tend to lose much sleep over it because given the rural composition of the US senate.....there are plenty of R's and D's that support the 2nd amendment. That's why the dems have been so quiet about gun control this summer (other than Hillary) is they don't want to hurt their chances in any of the key midterms. It really is a dead issue.
In short, it's a fundraising issue more than anything.
The impetus for gun control calls comes from urban areas that are unwilling to devote the energy, resources etc. to address their own problem. It's just easier to blame everybody else and especially, the other party.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of the US has gun problems no worse than Canada.
P.S. I (and my CC licensed father) both share your views about reasonable controls on firearms.
From what I have heard this was a guy that got angry, flew of the handle and used a gun to make his point and have the last word with that family. What sicko does that?
If they were travelling in a car and they had that same argument he could have grabbed the wheel and steered it into a tree or into oncoming traffic. Where there is a will there is a way.
If the guy ws so pissed but didnt' have a gun he could have come back in the middle of the night and burnt the house down. He could have snuck in with a baseball bat, a knife or used a pillow and went bed to bed to murder.
A gun is a highly efficient way to kill something but there are other ways.
Don't blame the gun blame the wacko.
Of course. Every mass killing with a gun brings the issue front and center. Especially when there is an active movement in Texas, no less, to go around brandishing firearms in every public and commercial space for the sole reason to get people used to having guns in their faces everywhere they go.
The OP's point is valid. According to the radical gun advocates, anybody with a gun is your friend and you shouldn't fear him until he pulls it out and blows your head off. Then he was mentally deficient and you should have been carrying also so you could have adequately defended yourself.
I think that really is the gist of it?
Personally I'm more concerned why people are snapping and going on killing spree's. This phenomenon has been going on forever sporadically but why has it become common place ? I'm willing to bet that if we can figure out what is causing people to freak out and take lives and solve that there might not be anymore mass shootings (inner city hood violence is a completely different thing) but if we eliminated firearms they would still go on or be done in a different way.
From what I have heard this was a guy that got angry, flew of the handle and used a gun to make his point and have the last word with that family. What sicko does that?
If they were travelling in a car and they had that same argument he could have grabbed the wheel and steered it into a tree or into oncoming traffic. Where there is a will there is a way.
If the guy ws so pissed but didnt' have a gun he could have come back in the middle of the night and burnt the house down. He could have snuck in with a baseball bat, a knife or used a pillow and went bed to bed to murder.
A gun is a highly efficient way to kill something but there are other ways. Don't blame the gun blame the wacko.
Exactly. Guns don't kill people.........people kill people. Don't regulate guns. Regulate the people who own those guns. There is nothing in the second amendment that says we can't require regulation, licencing, mandatory training and mental health screening for any individual desiring to own a gun. It won't solve every act of gun violence but it would go a long way towards mitigating the gun violence in the nation.
Of course. Every mass killing with a gun brings the issue front and center. Especially when there is an active movement in Texas, no less, to go around brandishing firearms in every public and commercial space for the sole reason to get people used to having guns in their faces everywhere they go.
That's a bald faced lie. The movement is happening because people want to protect themselves. Adults with backbones don't rely on government to help as a first defense, cowards do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
The OP's point is valid. According to the radical gun advocates, anybody with a gun is your friend and you shouldn't fear him until he pulls it out and blows your head off. Then he was mentally deficient and you should have been carrying also so you could have adequately defended yourself.
I think that really is the gist of it?
According to the radical antigun advocates if there were no guns then no one would get shot.
Instead of making more signs and advertizing gun free zones, put up truthful signs. Killing Zone, citizens beware.
It's only a valid point to people who can't take the thought process to the next level. If you carry then you are less likely to become a victim. Strange how hard that is for some people to figure out.
How does a guy kill six people and live? He is supposed to be shot on site
Especially in Texas !
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.
