"Gun control" advocates push for "just a little more restriction" and then just a little more after that. Really? MERGED (newspaper, difference)

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by wallflash

It is best identified by the ads you see for guns, like the Bushmaster ad convincing many buyers that they could regain their manhood by buying the Bushmaster. Or the Sig ads designed to appeal to this teenage type mentality. Or the neighbor that brought over the first AR15 I ever saw to show me how "really cool and badass" his new gun was. Or in the words of the gun shop owner who inadvertently let out that "many of his buyers want to feel like soldiers without joining the military".


Many are just little GI Joe types playing with their cool toys. Any time spent on a gun site will shbow you this.

So let me get this straight...
You believe distasteful marketing by Sig Sauer and Bushmaster is responsible?
I wonder what your opinion of Viagra ads are
(Lightening the tone here relax)


You believe someone who finds their firearm "cool and badass" to be at fault?
Tell me what you think of folks who find Ferrari and Lamborghini cars to be intriguing, or Mustang, Camaro, Corvette aficionados...
(Which by the way vehicles killed more people)

A gun shop owner whom reports that those that buy them do so to feel like soldiers?
I am a member of a few gun forums, I even write for some blogs in spare time...
I'll let ya know, these "range rambos" "tacticool bros" are very few and far between...
Even still, they are not the ones committing nor promoting such nefarious acts...

Originally Posted by wallflash

I didn't say they endorsed these attacks. I said their childish insistence on their rights at the cost of others rights to remain alive has led to what we see today.

Which is falsely equating yourself, me, and any other law abiding gun owner as part of a problem...
You and I are in agreement, it isn't you, me, or any other peaceable law abiding citizen to blame. Nor is it our constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, nor the arms that we so choose to keep and bear.

Originally Posted by wallflash

I felt confident in my shotgun for ordinary criminals. I got the handgun to deal with gun nutters.

You keep saying gun nutters... would the gun nutters be the aficionados you speak of?
Ordinary criminals and you felt confident in a shotgun, ordinary criminals being what?
Drunk drivers?
Home invaders?
Illegal immigrants?
Drug dealers?

Broad brush stroke there, it would serve better to be more specific...

Originally Posted by wallflash

Certainly, we have no examples of police shooting innocent people by mistake, do we? Ones that are almost certainly better trained than the armed school guards will be.

There are indeed instances, and those are few and far between. They are not the norm and nor are they condoned. I have spoken out in past instances of bad police. I don't equate them all as bad tainted power abusive blood lusting etc.

Originally Posted by wallflash

Having to consider outfitting children in bullet proof gear and having armed guards roam school grounds most certainly is a sign of a sick society

No argument there. That will happen when these scumbags aren't made an example of nor a deterrence being present. For years I've sat back and watched every good feels approach to issues go from the top down and either perpetuate the issues or make them more complex to solve.

Originally Posted by wallflash

that has let the gun cultists lead us down a terrible road,which was my point.

And I say again, your point is short sighted in believing it is the weapons issue.

Originally Posted by wallflash

It might be our best solution NOW , now that our society has devolved to this point due to the gun cultists , but its still a sign of a sick society.

It should have been law a long, long time ago. But it makes many uncomfortable with the hyperbolic "what if, what could," distorted view of reality.

Sick society absolutely. Parents don't parent. I don't see kids doing kid things anymore. Adderall Ritalin Xanax doped up kids, tablets, smart phones, social media, video games, movies, providing gratuitous violence and gore.
I guess it's easier to give little Johnny the ADD/ADHD for a diagnosis, hop him up on pills that alter mood, that alter perception, that alter thought process, because mom and dad are too lazy to be involved in their kids life to be a legitimate parent and spend time raising their kids, and hoping school and the government will along with a video game...

Originally Posted by wallflash

The shooter IS to blame. Not a single person claims differently, so you are being disingenuous if you claim otherwise.

But you keep saying NRA and AR15...

Originally Posted by wallflash

What is also being said is that these nutters have way too easy access to the tools to commit these murders due to the gun cultists insisting on having their toys.

Disingenuous claiming that I am somehow responsible?

Originally Posted by wallflash

Because it is the NRA that spends millions, maybe billions over the decades, lobbying to stop any and all sensible gun control.

Good thing they do. You just said

Originally Posted by wallflash

The shooter IS to blame. Not a single person claims differently, so you are being disingenuous if you claim otherwise.

So why place "sensible laws" that would affect only the likes of you and me and millions of other peaceable law abiding citizens based on the actions of very few?

Originally Posted by wallflash

Even when 90% of the US supports some version of it, the NRA spends its money to stop it. They are extremely complicit in these shootings.

No they're not, you're contradicting your last statement.

Originally Posted by wallflash

The shooter IS to blame. Not a single person claims differently

It's a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. If not for the NRA you would not own a weapon, I would not own a weapon, nobody except for those intent on breaking laws, would own a weapon.
Broad brush strokes do not work. Clinton tried with his AWB and it proved to not be one bit effective in reducing crime.

Originally Posted by wallflash

How about every other civilized country in the world not having our problem? Im am interested in an honest answer. Why are we the only non two bit country looking to arm our teachers and outfit our kids in bullet proof gear to keep them from being killed in mass shootings regularly?

Because you have said yourself. You've identified the same things I have.
Society.
Ineptitude of an agency whose sole responsibility is to investigate crimes which twice, have dropped the ball in florida (pulse and this school shooting)
and there is most definitely a difference in the implement being used to commit atrocities.
UK has knife attacks.
Australia has arson.

I have an FBI agent friend who has spent some time abroad. So before you claim the rest of the free world doesn't have this problem take this into consideration.

Their reporting of murders are vastly different than ours. Some of these European utopias that you use as a reference only report a murder when a party has been found guilty of murder...

this same agent also has been vocal in other matters such as the FISA warrant, and isn't a proponent of Trump either...
I've asked them of this latest incident... they are infuriated by the Ineptitude of whomever was in charge of investigating this individual, and wasn't too thrilled with what the sheriff had to say on the incident...
They share the same sentiment as me-see something, say something works, when there are actual agents doing what they're paid to do...

Anyways, a gun free zone would only be efficient if the government instilled martial law, came for every weapon, magazine, information to produce, and ammunition in existence in our continent extending from South America to Canada with strict importation implements in place to ensure nothing is being shipped into this contintent via air or ship, remotely related to a firearm. A complete disregard for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 8th amendment would have to occur to ensure a gun free zone in a school would work to topple the 2nd.

We have a constitution, we have due process.
To mimic what Europe and the rest of the world has, would be tyranny. And pro gun enforcers to be armed to seize these weapons. So when you claim you have disdain for AR15s and their owners, consider the following.

The United States government has been at war for how long with a bunch of middle eastern cave dwelling goat herders, spending trillion or more, with the most advanced weaponry to ever exist.
Yet.
Can't garner a win in Afghanistan or Iraq.

You really think an outright ban, a registry, any seizure and forfeiture is going to happen with a tyrannical government at the helm?

That's being realistic not militant as you would perceive it to be. You would have the biggest bloodiest and most expensive act to ever occur against American Citizens, to get your way to suppress ownership and eliminate the AR15. And it would take agents of the government armed with AR15s, as well as their fully automatic/burst fire brother-M4/M16 to achieve it. So you are Pro AR15 and Pro Gun if you believe the only way to stop it is to go after the inanimate object rather than focus on the big picture of things.


Perception is everything wallflash.

You have good points and valid points. Which would be easier?
Addressing societal issues.
Addressing firearms.

My perception is societal issues. Every good feels law that has ever been passed needs to go. Parents need to parent. Stop putting kids on psychotropic medications at young ages. Allow parents to discipline as they see fit and not call it abuse. A deterrence and lesson of right from wrong is drastically needed. Our society has become degenerate because of it.

An end of glorifying violence as a form of entertainment would be a good start.

All of those Hollywood actors that profiteer from playing roles as gun toting bad guys/good guys would probably object...
So too would the graphics designers at Sony/Microsoft/Ubisoft/ID/etc...

A revision made to how the media reports these instances. But their ratings would suffer due to a lack in social divide and arguing over who's source is more credible than the other.

A return of being decent respectable responsible human beings would be great. Rather than who can bully the other worse for extra points. (I'm trying very hard to be the change I hope to seek by not insulting you or others... I believe we can agree to disagree without insulting)

So social media would take a dive... no more platform to endorse hostility and bullying. It really would need a revamp to ensure no person under the age of 18 may use social media sources like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. These platforms don't necessarily endorse or promote degeneracy, but they are a vehicle for it and serve as a degenerate form of reality. How many teens to early 30s care and are concerned more about obtaining likes and support on these platforms? Whether it be selfies (because narcissitie is too difficult to spell) to ranting/raving, to reporting their daily activities for attention?
Alot. I predict anyone now aged 20-32 will be hunch backed by 40 due to staring down at the soft glow of a smart phone while out and about.

Make kids be kids. Stop making excuses for failed parenting, failed policies, and poor behavior. Stopping couping kids up indoors, feeding them junk food, giving them smart phones, tablets, video games. Take them hunting. Go for bike rides. Play sports. Do something anything but create an alternative reality revolving solely around video games for 2-6 hours per night to lead sedentary lives...
I'm 30. I am probably the last of a generation that played outdoors climbed trees, built forts, had steel Tonka trucks as a toddler to 5 6 years old, rode bicycles made jumps, skateboarded, and did active things outdoors with others. I kid you not, I have yet to see kids be kids, and parents be parents.

Go to any restaurant and pay attention to the rambunctious brats using booths as a jungle gym, running about carrying on like they're in a playground. Or screaming. Same with going into stores. People unfit to be considered parents.

There was a night and day difference between how my parents were, compared to my exs parents, my exs parents were more concerned being friends with her and her little brother. My current girlfriend, her parents were old fashioned/old school too. Her, her brothers and sister were outdoors kids, who engaged with others, gave the occasional bully a whatfor. Not one of them, her, her siblings are weak timid individuals, easily swayed by irrelevant emotion, or what a popular opinion/trend, or fad is...

Stopping the false equivalencies of NRA and firearm aficionados = potential threats.

Start investigating leads when present with a credible threat to safety and well being of others. This is no joking matter... or a matter of how far one can exercise their first amendment right to free speech...


This progressive attitude that somehow villains have rights and excusing their behavior due to circumstances of life is weak, petty, ignorant, and foolish.
If it were up to me, this scumbags lawyer would have lost their BAR and been sent for mental screening coming out with this "oh he's a broken human he had it rough" nonsense.

With that many witnesses this punk ought to be found guilty and executed following a guilty charge. Any deflection by the defense attorney, blaming the weapon, blaming the circumstances of this individual is petty nonsense and should not be admissible in court excusing the punks behavior.

[BruSan]

Originally Posted by fisheye

So far none of the perpetrators have had problems entering any school. As far as 'hardening' how far can you take that? Are you talking bullet proof grass for entrances and ground level floors? Even if you went that far; they still have the buses. Logistically I just think it is impossible or too costly. We have not been successful with all the precautions that were currently taken.

It isn't only that; but our system let us down even when they had advance notice like in this last case. When you leave your safety in the hands of others; you depend on them to be there when you need them. That has not happened with the majority of these shootings.

There are many very capable young men and women in high school. What they lack is training. I am not saying that it is a perfect solution; but it is the only solution - they are there when attacks, like this, happen. We could never arm them all with today's views; but we could train them to use classroom objects to suppress the shooter's fire, distract them, or take them out. We could empower our kids.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as training young students to be armed while in school would be the most repugnant of options.

If we are to take anything from the battlefield and experiences of PTSD, which student would you choose to subject to that possibility of living the rest of his/her life with either the guilt he/she did not act fast enough, or the guilt he/she took a human life.

I completely agree you cannot harden every student site effectively, nor would you want to, but in the short term I would choose that option only out of the hope it would occasion embarrassment or shame on the part of everyone to the extent they start some meaningful discussions. Having to watch your students forego their normal social interactions because of fear of getting shot should serve to light a freak'n fire under the feet of the most obstinate of fools.

I hate to say this but, things are going to have to get much worse before there will be the merest of hints of any commitment for change for the better.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by wallflash

Clean up your post and quit claiming I am saying you endorse and support mass murders. I am not saying that at all, and when you can drop that false claim and deal with what I am actually saying we can continue. You ask some good questions, but I am getting tired of having to deal with the continuing false claim that I am suggesting you support mass murder.


Clean your post up, address what I actually say, and then we can continue.

I will when you say there is a distinct difference between "gun cultists" and "gun nutters" and mass murdering scumbags.

Your posts come off as guilt by association.
If in possession of or support of possession of an AR15, then-
If NRA member-

Originally Posted by wallflash

Your very first sentence indicates to me that you aren't reading what I say. I never claimed that at all. I said that Bushmaster has ran ads enticing gun cultists to buy their guns to "get their man card back".

https://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/bus...#axzz57O6Mfsca

It's tacky advertising...
I am reading what you are saying completely, hence why I repeated perception

You perceive a tacky ad as "enticing" to promote buying a Bushmaster.
While, that wouldn't be the angle of approach I personally would take to market a product, there are many other tacky ways in promoting products.

Originally Posted by wallflash

Its a gun manufacturer using the "become a man" angle on its customers , not me claiming it. Please note that the gun dealer admits to an "overwhelming response " by the gun cultists to the ad campaign to become more manly by buying their gun. Which refers us back to my response on part of the reason I have disdain for these types.


Pay better attention to what is said please.

That is 1 dealer. 1 firearms retailer that reported this. I stand in line to fill out 4473s and form 4s for suppressors. I hear the conversations folks engage in at gun stores.
It may be discredited as anecdotal expirience, but not one instance have I ever heard a reason to purchase was solely to be "manly" or "be like a soldier without having to join the armed forces"

I have heard conversations ranging from
I like this over that because it fits my hand better, the trigger is crisp, the sights are better, the weight is better, it is more balanced, it doesn't have overwhelming recoil, it is compact, it is full sized, my relative, neighbor, friend has one and I got to shoot it and like it. The price is right. So on and so forth. You again are under the impression that is the sole driving force of the AR15... it isnt...


And it mostly isn't guys/young guys going and purchasing... I'm seeing alot of women getting involved in shooting sports, and self defense. Young women. 20-30 somethings...

Edit to add-I have heard a few occasions of veterans both old and young say, this is just like the rifle/carbine I was issued when overseas.
Men and women. I chalk that up, due to my perception as nostalgia.

When a Vietnam veteran is holding a triangular hand guard AR rifle, a Gulf War vet holding an A2 style rifle, Iraq/Afghan vet with an AR carbine, I perceive that as a desire for a weapon they are familiar with and expirienced with, whether for nostalgia or for home defense, or for plain old pursuits of happiness to shoot targets on the weekend or afterwork, and hunting.

[jojajn]

Originally Posted by michiganmoon

You make a sad, but true point.

It had once been common for high schools to have an open campus. Now high schools are locking down their campus in ways that erode the everyday freedom of students, faculty, and parents. Some schools have a policy that classroom doors must remain locked at all times during the door just in case an emergency happens. Security cameras, security cameras before you can get in the building, not allowed to exit doors to get other buildings on campus that you once used, etc...

All freedoms have limits - the 1st Amendment has limits...the 2nd Amendment has limits, I can't own a nuke...we need to tighten the 2nd Amendment further IMHO.

Schools in America land of free and abundant gun ownership:

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by jojajn

Schools in America land of free and abundant gun ownership:

Attachment 195420

Just guessing here, but I have the feeling that the picture you posted, if it is indeed a "school", is in actuality a juvenile detention facility if it has anything at all to do with "students".

Unless, of course, you'd like to identify the name and location of it.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

The so-called "gun control" advocates have spent the last several decades proving (inadvertently) that their half measures do not work. "Assault weapons" bans, waiting periods, "gun free" zones, background checks, and all the rest rarely reduce the crime rate, and often result in an increase instead. And yet they keep coming back and saying we need "just a little more" of their "reasonable restrictions".

When they point to countries whose results they like, they invariably point to places like England, Japan, Australia, etc. - countries that have almost completely banned guns from their subjects.

Take the hint.

In fact, complete bans of all guns are the only things that have ever reduced "gun crimes". And they must be accompanied by ruthless confiscation. Advocates who say they want "just some reasonable regulations", know by now they won't work. The only thing they could now be intending, is an eventual complete ban on all guns. While pretending they will do only just a little, to fool you into going along with "just a little". And then next year, just a little more.

Their total gun bans must be accompanied by SWAT teams going door to door to every house and apartment in America, taking people's guns whether they want to give them up or not. They know that many people will object to giving up their guns voluntarily... but a gun ban won't work unless everybody turns in their guns.

Advocates who say they want a few "reasonable regulations", are either astonishingly ignorant of the results of their own policies, or are lying to you.

We really haven't done much to address gun violence in this country, even the assault weapons ban was very weak legislation. Waiting periods should be extended beyond 72 hours, background checks are also another area.


Other civilized countries don't have anywhere near the problems we have in this country when it comes to gun violence. No one is asking for total confiscation, that's the card that the NRA plays - any new regulation is the first step in total confiscation. I don't see how anyone can ignore what is going on in this country, pretty obvious that we need some changes in our policy or we can continue down this path.

[fisheye]

Originally Posted by BruSan

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one as training young students to be armed while in school would be the most repugnant of options.

If we are to take anything from the battlefield and experiences of PTSD, which student would you choose to subject to that possibility of living the rest of his/her life with either the guilt he/she did not act fast enough, or the guilt he/she took a human life.

I completely agree you cannot harden every student site effectively, nor would you want to, but in the short term I would choose that option only out of the hope it would occasion embarrassment or shame on the part of everyone to the extent they start some meaningful discussions. Having to watch your students forego their normal social interactions because of fear of getting shot should serve to light a freak'n fire under the feet of the most obstinate of fools.

I hate to say this but, things are going to have to get much worse before there will be the merest of hints of any commitment for change for the better.

I have never said to arm our young. Although I carried my .22 to HS for 4 years while I shot on my HS rifle team. But those days are long gone. What training are we doing to neutralize these shooters? I do not mean our police. Even in the San Bernardino convention shooting there were teams of first responders practicing very close and they could not assist. We could have our 'experts' turn training into a game - practice throwing books at dummies or shoes. We could maybe combine some of your 'hardening' ideas with better ways to secure doors. Possibly new ways to immobilize individuals, that our military is currently working on, could be incorporated in our schools? But we have to start someplace and the 'target' seem to be the best place to start.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by ambient

How can I show you a law that addresses gun proliferation and violence when you basically start off your criteria as "it can't stop me from owning anything I want?" You know you're setting up a non-starter out of the gate, because you fundamentally don't believe in any laws regulating weapons.

So what's the point of having this fake debate?

The point in this debate, for me at least, is to open you and folks like you, to an invitation to propose proactive measures without false equivalencies, insulting, nor proposing any more or new restrictive legislation that would affect current and future law abiding citizens and their constitutionally protected rights to keep and bear arms they so choose to have. No subjective interpretation on what firearms one may purchase, possess or construct at home.

We can do it. Can you?

Originally Posted by Weichert

I just read the news. Like the guy at the 7-11 in Florida last year who shot kids because their music was too loud. Or the retired police capt who killed guy at the movie because he was using iphone and eating popcorn too loudly. Or the retired AF col who went to wrong door and was killed,,, this stuff happens.

And these people are tried for their crimes. It's already against the law to murder someone.
Those examples you provided, only the wrong house one would possibly constitute as a legitimate case for standing ones ground, due to a perceived threat of property and life. The other 2 I'm sure we're found guilty and serving life/facing death penalty.

Do you have the article for the airforce colonel by the way?

[ringwise]

Originally Posted by FatBob96

Among other things.

Lack of respect, lack of good role models, especially father figures

Kids are taught to hate the flag, hate the Police, hate America, play violent video games where they kill by the hundreds without consequence, hit "replay" and get another life to do it all over again.

No family values, helicopter parents, no religion in schools, no real friends or meaningful social interaction beyond Facebook.

Bury their heads in their phones and play candy crush all day instead of playing sports or other outdoor recreation with friends and family.

We're raising a generation of Ritalin fueled, disconnected loners and social misfits and we wonder why one of them occasionally goes berserk and shoots up a school......

And you all want to blame the guns???

Really?

Another common denominator of many of these men doing the shooting is a mother that enables their son, is unwilling to admit the son has a problem, blame and threaten others when authorities step in, and when things get very bad, they isolate the son further from society.

[BentBow]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

No, I don't think it is. Eventually the young people are going to take guns away from the old people. They have lived under the fear of being gunned down in their schools for decades. And they appear to be quite tired of it.

Your right to play with an AR 15 doesn't supersede their right to live.

Better buy more now! Every time there is a school shooting - the NRA and the gun manufactorers make more money.

Profiting on the blood of dead american children.

Sure it does, that is why you cannot legislate my gun from my hands without a bloody fight. I have that right that supersedes anything you want.