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'm an Israeli. When I served in the IDF I took home on leaves a full automatic military M-16, and most of the 18-21 did the same. Reservists of other ages also have automatic rifles while on leave. Other civilians have pistols (usually cab drivers, security guards, some members of the general public). Settlers in the West Bank could get rifles also.
Arabs have TONS of illegal weapons, including hand grenades, RPG, machine guns etc.
And yet, we never ever had a massacre like this performed by some lunatics. Yes, we had terror attacks, but it's part of the war.
I don't own a gun, but if and when I get one, it will be only after I have been fully trained in all aspects of its use. I can understand why a person might want to have one for hunting (and yes, I know different kinds of guns are used for different kinds of game), or even have one for protection. My question is, why do some people feel that they need dozens of guns? You can only use one at a time..........
.308 A wonderful rifle but expensive to feed.
.223 Standard carry rifle. Not as long range as the .308 but easy to have a decent rifle in the car.
9mm carbine Places a carbine in the ready locker, that there are two of, that is of common caliber of the pistol located there. So two carbines, two pistols.
H&K USP .45 A wonderful pistol, practically a rifle, but one needs a field jacket to carry it concealed.
Sig 9mm Works as an off duty carry pistol.
Kimber .45 It was the smaller carry to the USP but was found to be less than satisfactory, so hence the Sig. Assets, however, once acquired, are rarely disposed of.
Small M1911 that fits a lock box.
Etc, etc, etc. Multiple missions, multiple guns. One aspect about it is to have two guns for the same caliber just in case there is a failure of one.
FURTHER, during 2016, I bought 4 or so guns because I thought Clinton was going to win the election and then do what she could to get rid of them.
SURE IT IS ABOUT POLITICS..........because we don't trust the politicians.
Last edited by TamaraSavannah; 11-06-2017 at 04:40 AM..
Umm, no offence but you really sound like you are living on the edge in perpetual fear.
That is not living on the edge of perpetual fear because it is a plan on how to deal with threats. At least this is how I was taught. Some people take a more offensive approach such as guns or confronting the threat, but I take a more defensive stance. For example, we have a plan for a home invasion. First we consider why anyone would want to invade the home. So my plan is to give us time by having an early warning system in place. Next would be to barricade in a spot that has an escape route mostly because we have a small child. I also would need help so my husband needs to be with us.
One thing I did not consider was one night when there was a false alarm in the A.M. 5 years ago, my husband ran straight downstairs. I had to go over the plan again with him because I cannot be worrying about what is happening to him while trying to protect our daughter.
I have learned to ignore people who claim fear when my plan is made known. My husband included. If I didn't have a plan, I would be constantly worried or I wouldn't be proactive enough. Actually, not being proactive is what causes the worry.
So when a person says they have a loaded gun ready in the house, I consider that as part of their plan. I would not want to be in that house though.
We should stop covering these mass killings in the media. This will get rid of copycats and the motive of infamy. Seriously, almost no one would get the idea to randomly kill people on their own.
The gun genie is out of the bag. There are way too many guns in circulation to ever put them back. The whole argument of trying to 'regulate guns/gun control' is pretty moot at this point. You may as well try to dry up Lake Erie or the equivalent.
Maybe tighter controls on permits, better background checks, stiffer penalties for unregistered guns etc. might give LEO more tools but I'm not convinced it will help much.
That leaves you with protecting yourself, better education, etc, because it seems we are back to the wild west days.
What is as bad is that many people have little tolerance. You drive a little slow in someones opinion and the next thing you know, they are pointing a gun a you. People have lost all respect for each other and you can die if you are meek, and you go to jail if you are aggressive. Everyone looses.
Couple that with commercialism where we are taught from birth not to be satisfied. We see expensive cars, private jets, mansions with swimming pools and we go home to crummy little trailer on a rented lot that we can barely make the payment on and we are not happy. We are taught racism and not to trust what is different. For 200 bucks we can go out and buy a gun and think 'this makes me equal' and I can prove it if I need to. Then the guy in a corvette in front of you is going too slow.
We need a change in our heart more than we need more bureaucracy regulating guns.
It's not that hard to get a normal car if you're reasonably responsible and you can keep the car with few questions asked, save for license renewal, if you follow the rules. We're talking a revolver, shotgun, or hunting rifle style weapon here - the type of thing that really can't be used to mow down a room full of people in seconds without modifications (which should be illegal.)
It IS noticeably more difficult to get a license to drive a trailer truck, construction equipment, etc. You have to show some higher level of skill and, if I recall, they test that skill more frequently than a basic license. Same idea with guns - if you want something more deadly, you'd be better prove you are responsible enough to have it, and that should be checked regularly.
We also don't allow dangerous and irresponsible people to keep their cars. The same should apply to guns, for the same reasons. A dangerous and irresponsible person with a car can easily kill people; the same applies to guns.
All these people out there who think - incorrectly - that "everyone should have whatever guns they want, no questions asked" need to look around the roads more when driving. Look at all the irresponsible and dangerous idiots out there; do you REALLY want to give those people the "right" to buy whatever deadly firearm they want when they can't even use a turn signal correctly?
It's not that hard to get a normal car if you're reasonably responsible and you can keep the car with few questions asked, save for license renewal, if you follow the rules. We're talking a revolver, shotgun, or hunting rifle style weapon here - the type of thing that really can't be used to mow down a room full of people in seconds without modifications (which should be illegal.)
It IS noticeably more difficult to get a license to drive a trailer truck, construction equipment, etc. You have to show some higher level of skill and, if I recall, they test that skill more frequently than a basic license. Same idea with guns - if you want something more deadly, you'd be better prove you are responsible enough to have it, and that should be checked regularly.
We also don't allow dangerous and irresponsible people to keep their cars. The same should apply to guns, for the same reasons. A dangerous and irresponsible person with a car can easily kill people; the same applies to guns.
All these people out there who think - incorrectly - that "everyone should have whatever guns they want, no questions asked" need to look around the roads more when driving. Look at all the irresponsible and dangerous idiots out there; do you REALLY want to give those people the "right" to buy whatever deadly firearm they want when they can't even use a turn signal correctly?
Well, let's look at it this way.
Do I really want to give a despicable jerk who scalded a baby in boiling water a fair trial?
Yes....because that is his right.
Owning a car, driving a car is not under the Constitution........guns (and fair trials) are.
I'm an Israeli. When I served in the IDF I took home on leaves a full automatic military M-16, and most of the 18-21 did the same. Reservists of other ages also have automatic rifles while on leave. Other civilians have pistols (usually cab drivers, security guards, some members of the general public). Settlers in the West Bank could get rifles also.
Arabs have TONS of illegal weapons, including hand grenades, RPG, machine guns etc.
And yet, we never ever had a massacre like this performed by some lunatics. Yes, we had terror attacks, but it's part of the war.
Israel has mandatory military service and is in a war zone where people are defending the country on a daily basis. Not comparable to American society.
We should stop covering these mass killings in the media. This will get rid of copycats and the motive of infamy. Seriously, almost no one would get the idea to randomly kill people on their own.
I do agree with that. Morning Joe just brought up that issue, but they're still covering the shooting all morning. These are ratings boosts for media.
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.
