Another Movie Theatre Shooting (percent, house, illegal, weapons)
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.
Let's get this straightened out a bit. I didn't sing it ........you did.
Anti-gun types? Wait, you call those advocating for more stringent controls placed upon the purchase of firearms, anti-gun types? Then you attribute all of that colourful sexual fantasy stuff from your own mind to my one sentence reply using YOUR words?
Where did I say anything about a war zone, bullets flying everywhere and if I didn't say any of that; how come you're running with it quoting me?
I made a 20 word post with 4 of those words being your words fer chrissake
You sure can spin a colourful tale with none of it serving in any way to describing fear based paranoia.
You got some real 'mojo' going for you there NV. [/QUOTE
Pardon my lack of clarity, in regards to the rhetoric employed by the anti gun types. To wit, this is the type of things we see posted here, regularly, from the folks who think private firearms ownership is a bad thing. Whether you, personally, said it, is not the issue, so much as it IS said all the time.
Yea, my spelling is having issues, as well. My phone is all I have to play with, at the moment, and its hard to type on, and see the screen clear. As if that's such a huge factor. Whatever. Thing is, this yammering for more restriction on firearms is coming from a place of irrational fear, and serious bigotry, as well, stereotyping gun owners and rights proponents, using descriptions that, while colorful, have no basis in reality. Its by design. Trying to make tempers flare, so that when someone responds in kind, they can be attacked as being poster children for the stereotype. Witness, the "mojo" comment.
All stiff legged circling and growling aside, fact is, further laws and restrictions on civilian firearms won't change a thing. Everything proposed does nothing but create new taxes and fees, and treat gun owners like criminals. Requiring registration of owners, and lists of weapons owned. Its none of anyones business, but mine, what guns I own.
Having the government tearing into peoples private lives , thinking that will bring some solution to stopping murderers, is a fools venture. But, it does have the desired effect, from a hoplophobic view, of further stigmatizing gun owners, and creating lots of new expense and red tape, to becoming one.
Firearms for security purpose, will, as it has in lots of places, become an aristocratic perk, available only to the "elite" and wealthy, with government connections. Can't say as that thought thrills me , much. That, however, is all that's being tabled, in the way of further , "reasonable" , restrictions on civilian firearms. So, I oppose these ...suggestions.
Your post is rife with all of that denigrating bumph you're suggesting renders others irrelevant and meaningless. You can't see the contradiction there?
Firstly; you ascribe the descriptor "anti-gunner types" like you're whitewashing a barn. Not all advocating for in-depth back-ground checks and detailed registration think guns are the problem but rather the proliferation of them in the wrong hands. If you have a demonstrated record of lawful ownership of legally obtained weapons; why on earth should anyone want to remove your guns from you?
Seocndly: your last para is the very epitome of that "irrational paranoia" term you coined to describe others.
Last sentence is the question at issue, because that is, exactly, what far to many wish to see. The "reasonable restrictions" argument has been proven, far to many times, to be an inroad to total bans. There are every manner of "reasonable restrictions" in place, already, the most recent ones adding nothing to any issue but more taxes and fees. I supported, and still do, the BC system, currently in place, and despite claims to the contrary, it works well. It does add cost to a purchase, but at least that cost is justified.
Expanding it into private transfers, however, is not. It creates a monster. I couldn't even give my son one of my guns, without the governments approval, which I neither want nor need. It does create that, ever coveted, central registry of gun owners, and that's a problem. It doesn't matter to the people who want guns out of civilian hands, that I have never, and never will, use my weapons for illegal purpose. The some fact I have them, and can get more, bothers them no end. They can see nothing in firearms ownership, but wrong. These are the people spearheading the "further reasonable restrictions" and "common sense gun laws" movement. That's not ever going to change.
The end goal is to do away with the 2A, and nothing less will do. There's nothing reasonable or common sense about it. Never has been. Its all just incremental movement , toward that end goal. This latest theatre shooting, was a case of human error, causing a failure in a system that should have worked. The person, someone in Alabama, in State employ, dropped the ball. The guys record HAD to have popped. His mental record was , and is, in the system. Yet, he was cleared. So, how is adding on expansions on the BC system, and creating a central registry of gun owners, in the process, going to stop such things?
Anti-gunners can ply all the BS responsible gun ownership platitudes they want. Those of US that uphold the virtues of the Constitution understand the Hoplophobe's game plan of a constant drip drip drip erosion of our Constituional Bill of Rights most specifically the 2nd.
Your post is rife with all of that denigrating bumph you're suggesting renders others irrelevant and meaningless. You can't see the contradiction there?
Firstly; you ascribe the descriptor "anti-gunner types" like you're whitewashing a barn. Not all advocating for in-depth back-ground checks and detailed registration think guns are the problem but rather the proliferation of them in the wrong hands. If you have a demonstrated record of lawful ownership of legally obtained weapons; why on earth should anyone want to remove your guns from you?
Seocndly: your last para is the very epitome of that "irrational paranoia" term you coined to describe others.
I'll tell you why. Because Nancy Lanza's guns were lawfully owned and legally obtained.
There is no sensible middle ground here. Gun control tweaking around the edges will accomplish next to nothing and leave us chasing our tails.
We must, as a society that hopefully aspires to one day be civilized, resolve to eliminate these weapons. Period.
He still had guns that he didn't steal, he instead "borrowed." The mother was to blame if she had any idea what her son really was and just kept the guns in the house. Any responsible gun owner would tell you not to A keep guns in the house if someone has documented mental problems and B, bring said person to a gun range with you. I have shot, my brother has too, my father did and my grandfather did and we all understand that. Hell, my brother was the range operator for a Boy Scout summer camp one year, you don't think he would know about responsible ownership and use. The fact is the mother didn't and had she BEEN responsible, she might not have paid the ultimate price and put those kids and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary.
Right, no law is going to keep guns away from someone that really wants them.
Your post is rife with all of that denigrating bumph you're suggesting renders others irrelevant and meaningless. You can't see the contradiction there?
Firstly; you ascribe the descriptor "anti-gunner types" like you're whitewashing a barn. Not all advocating for in-depth back-ground checks and detailed registration think guns are the problem but rather the proliferation of them in the wrong hands. If you have a demonstrated record of lawful ownership of legally obtained weapons; why on earth should anyone want to remove your guns from you?
Seocndly: your last para is the very epitome of that "irrational paranoia" term you coined to describe others.
Go fix your post, it seems you are arguing with yourself....
Mass shooting thwarted...(Yeah, it was a good guy with a gun.)
Cincinnati man shoots at 1-year-old boy, is shot by man with concealed carry permit
Quote:
A 62-year-old man with a gun in each hand fired at four people – including a 1-year-old boy – before a civilian with a concealed carry permit returned fire and wounded the shooter, cops told FOX19.
Thomas McCary is being held without bond on four counts of felonious assault.
McCary was arguing with a woman around 8 p.m. Sunday night and, when the woman’s brother, Patrick Ewing, approached, McCary pulled out a .38-caliber handgun and fired three shots at him, Cincinnati police said.
Ewing didn’t get hit, but he did get his own gun and returned fire, wounding McCary in the leg. Ewing had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Injured, McCary went into his house to get a second gun and, holding a weapon in each hand, he fired three shots in the direction of the woman, Jeaneta Walker, her 1-year-old son and a third man.
Ewing fired at McCary again to try to distract him as the victims fled indoors. McCary squeezed off a few more rounds, hitting no one, before withdrawing into his apartment, Cincinnati.com reported.
McCary was taken to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center, where he was arrested at 2:30 a.m. He was treated, released and booked into the Hamilton County Jail by 3:42 a.m. McCary is scheduled to face a judge Monday morning.
Sounds like McCary stood his ground. Are Ohio laws like Florida?
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.
[/QUOTE
