Guns

[GTsail]

*****As far as these shooting rampages go, I'm no expert but it seems that most of them are well planned in advance, with a build up of weapons and ammo over a period of time. I'm not sure any of them were spur of the moment types of events. Have no doubt, if a lunatic wants to kill people he's going to find a way to do it. He'll carry 30 clips of 7 rounds if he has to. You can change a clip in 1 second. He'll practice for weeks until he's got it down pat. Or maybe he'll upgrade to explosives, IED's, the info is widely available on this here internet.

*****The guys doing the mass shooting are on some form of sociopathic or psychopathic downward spiral. They have clear thought processes, but due to either emotional stress or a pre-existing mental illness they have lost they ability to feel empathy or care about themselves. If it is bad enough that they feel they want to end their life or seek revenge in some way then they look to strike out at those they perceive as responsible for the negativity in their life. But they remain determined and focused. That's why these guys have armor and multiple guns, many that they acquired over time. If you look at cases like Columbine, those kids were planning it out weeks (months maybe?) ahead of time, building pipe bombs and designing custom levels in video games to mimic their school's layout.

I'm in agreement with what Johnnypenso and FoolKiller just said, most of these mass killings are being done by guys who have a few screws loose, and have planned out their shootings in advance to some degree.

I cannot find any mass shootings by concealed carry permit holders, let alone ones that were an on-the-spot decision.

Sadly, I remember a pre-meditated shooting from August 2009 in Pennsylvania.

George Sodini - LA Fitness shooter

George Sodini shot 12 people (killed 3 and wounded 9).

I remember reading that George Sodini had a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

This guy seems to have actually practiced the shooting beforehand, so I doubt that any kind of clip/magazine limitation would have made much of a difference.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Zenith]

I find it odd that people are so worried about cranes falling over in NYC, shark attacks, and mass shootings killing them. People seem to like to worry about the most unlikely things that can kill them all the while driving an SUV at 90mph while stuffing a cheese burger and texting. Of course any avoidable death by accident or murder is entirely unacceptable, but the amount of time some people spend worrying about the unlikely stuff proved how bad the vast majority are with understanding probability.

 

[Grand Prix]

We don't really need crossbows for knocking a knight in plate armour off his horse these days, so the slow-to-reload windlass crossbows with massive draws aren't really needed to kill or heavily injure a person in regular clothing. A murderous lunatic would skip those, and go for hand span crossbows, recurve bows and longbows instead, which are much faster to reload and still just as deadly. Or a modern compound bow. Instead of shooting one bolt per minute, could shoot 5 bolts per minute or 10 arrows a minute (in skilled hands, reloading would be even faster than that) with a regular bow. They're relatively quiet as well. They are also easily obtainable and you could even build one yourself.


All of that is beside the point though, even if bows were the only projectile weapons you could buy in Wal-Mart, there are still myriads of "assault weapons" out there on the black market. Those won't disappear overnight.

 

[Zenith]

Besides, I'm only a lamp on Tuesdays.

 

[arora]

All of that is beside the point though, even if bows were the only projectile weapons you could buy in Wal-Mart, there are still myriads of "assault weapons" out there on the black market. Those won't disappear overnight.

No no no Rob, those will all be turned in as the laws get passed lol.

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

All of that is beside the point though, even if bows were the only projectile weapons you could buy in Wal-Mart, there are still myriads of "assault weapons" out there on the black market. Those won't disappear overnight.

This x 1000. Why don't people understand that banning guns will not stop people from owning guns? Cocaine is illegal, yet it's still sold and used.

 

[arora]

Washington city councilman walks out on council meeting because of citizen with CCW.

​

It's a bit long but worth watching. Good for this mayor, and lol the same people who didn't want you to have a gun didn't want you to wear a hat

We need more of these civilians showing up at government functions 👍

 

[a6m5]

Washington city councilman walks out on council meeting because of citizen with CCW.

That was pretty intense. Classic case of politician who pretends to be about "P.C." & your rights...... until it's something he disagrees with.

I almost feel bad for him that he ended up looking like a donkey's ass & the video going viral.

 

[Zenith]

Good video, glad I watched.

 

[Nicksfix]

So, the 🤬 Feinstein has spoken.

Article and video

Just a refresher as to what is in this bill ..... article

It's never to late to call your Congressman, urge him / her to shoot this bill down .... let them know, your vote for them in the next election depends on their stance on gun control.

 

[jcm]

I'm somewhat suprised how almost none of these mass shootings arern't premeditated, and I no longer think limiting the amount of ammunition that can be legally carried in public is worth the trees you'd have kill to make the paper to write the law out

Thanks for shooting holes in my barely thought out scheme for supressing the masses

Anyway, I seriously hope your country doesn't do anything too stupid regarding your gun laws, good luck America

 

[a6m5]

From the article:

"We should be outraged at how easy it is" for attackers to get hold of the semi-automatic weapons or large-capacity magazines used in those slaughters, Feinstein told the event at the U.S. Capitol that she organized.

You can apply this logic to so many things, and the cars should be banned first. I've lived in the States for over 25 years. American gunmen got nothing on American drivers.

Feinstein noted her proposal exempts from the ban more than 2,000 models used for hunting or sporting purposes.

Divide & conquer, right? You can't shoot up schools with pump action, or "high power" rifles?(for real this time). As much as I'd like to believe that she is an idiot, I think she's a liar with a agenda.

She also claimed that today's assault weapons are more powerful, lethal & technologically advanced than the ones they banned in 1994. What, SCAR? ACR? Are they not firing same caliber they used in 1993?

"How are you going to hunting with something like that?" asked Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, pointing to the assault weapons displayed to his left. "You kill something, there's nothing left to eat."

I so want to know what "assault weapon" this guy was pointing at. Was it the RPG I almost bought at Walmart last week? The .50 Cal that threaten all the schools around the country? I so wish to know. And is this educated American Citizen implying that Second Amendment protects hunting rifles?

 

[Omnis]

Mayor Dudley = Haggar

 

[xXKingJoshXx]

Are these politicians or whatever purposely being stupid? Nothing is going to be accomplished by any ban on any type of gun. Like I said earlier, "Why don't people understand that banning guns will not stop people from owning guns? Cocaine is illegal, yet it's still sold and used." I also believe politicians are payed way too much (and I know I'm not the only one here that thinks like this).

 

[Nicksfix]

As much as I'd like to believe that she is an idiot, I think she's a liar with a agenda.

She is an idiot

This video is awesome.

 

[a6m5]

This video is awesome.

This politician's a lying scumbag backstabber?

Did not see that coming..... I'm gonna send this video to everybody I know. You guys should do the same. 👍

I'll send this one instead:



Horse's mouth.

 

[Nicksfix]

Yet, another good one .... love this guy.

 

[arora]

I thought it was common knowledge, while all Americans believe they are created equal, elitist liberals are always a bit more equal then the rest.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Seeing as we have 3 times the death rate from cars, what is next?

You can't really compare the two considering that cars are not designed to be weapons.

With no right to defend yourself from tyranny there is no telling what comes next.

And what are the odds that tyranny is just going to show up on your doorstep some day?

See, the problem with this argument is that you assume a) politicians are planning to start tyranny any day now and that b) the right to bear arms is the only thing stopping them from doing so. This shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part, because any true tyrant would find a way to revoke the right to bear arms straight away, and since the politicians haven't done that, there is no threat of tyranny. So your statement comes across as one giant rationalisation, and rationalisations are lies we tell ourselves to convince ourselves that we're right. Since you clearly haven't considered the alternative - an America where there is and never was a right to bear arms - I have to ask: do you even know what a tyrant is?

 

[arora]

I'm not going to take that post to seriously but I'd like to point something out to you. Did you watch that city council meeting vid? You see, even on a scale that small a person of authority wanting his way in total disregard to the law. In fact when faced with the truth and a gun what did he do exactly?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm not going to take that post to seriously

You should. Because so far, all I've seen from you is naivety. Case in point:

In fact when faced with the truth and a gun what did he do exactly?

What truth? The speaker offered an opinion. The councilman wasn't comfortable with the idea that someone in the room was carrying a weapon, and so he excused himself from the chambers.

 

[a6m5]

And what are the odds that tyranny is just going to show up on your doorstep some day?

Is it so hard to believe? Do history repeat itself? If so, I'd think it's more than likely. Maybe not in my lifetime, but if we are talking about the Second Amendment, it's not about when.

I thought tyrannical rule has always existed, and at one time or another, anywhere on the planet where there were people.

I hope I'm making sense. This flu is kicking my butt, and the "PM" medicine sure don't help.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is it so hard to believe? Do history repeat itself? If so, I'd think it's more than likely. Maybe not in my lifetime, but if we are talking about the Second Amendment, it's not about when.

And yet, there are countries where there is no right to bear arms set out in the consitution - like mine - that are doing just fine without it and not living under the weight of a tyrant.

I thought tyrannical rule has always existed, and at one time or another, anywhere on the planet where there were people.

Then by that logic, you're already living under a tyrant - the NRA.

 

[arora]

Why do you keep thinking the nra has anything to do with the government or has any authority? I know, you must think if they went away a mob rule democracy would wipe out our 2nd amendment.

 

[a6m5]

And yet, there are countries where there is no right to bear arms set out in the consitution - like mine - that are doing just fine without it and not living under the weight of a tyrant.

So if it works in your country, in our current social systems, there is no risk of tyrannical rule in the future, and armed citizens would not help deter it anyway?

I can't argue someone who knows the future. People buy, or are forced to buy insurance because of risks involved. If we know that there is no risk, I guess we are done here. prisonermonkey wins!

Then by that logic, you're already living under a tyrant - the NRA.

Political lobbying group, who many of us feel that they are not doing enough to protect the Second Amendment, you are comparing them to tyrannical rulers of our time, and in the history books?

I can't even begin to argue that. Have a good night bud.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why do you keep thinking the nra has anything to do with the government or has any authority?

Did I say they were? a6m5 made the point that "tyrannical rule has always existed". I just took that one step further and applied it to every facet of everyday life, and not just the political sphere.

So if it works in your country, in our current social systems, there is no risk of tyrannical rule in the future, and armed citizens would not help deter it anyway?

Don't Americans pride themselves on being the "land of the free"? If so, why do you refuse to trust future generations to maintain that and uphold democracy? Or do you simply not trust your generation to teach the next generation the values of democracy? And if so, doesn't arming yourselves to protect yourselves against a future threat that you could have prevented otherwise demonstrate a fundamental lack of judgement that makes you unqiuely unqualified to be trusted with weapons in the first place?

See, that's the trap that I think so many proponents of the Second Amendement fall into: you wrongfully assume that the Second Amendment is the first, last and only thing protecting you from becoming a banana republic, and that by taking it away, it will inevitably lead to disaster. Which is somewhat ironic that you have accused me of generalising predictions of the future, when there's a good fifty or so pages of discussion forum here where the overriding argument in favour of gun ownership is "if we lose the right to bear arms, society itself will collapse!".

Political lobbying group, who many of us feel that they are not doing enough to protect the Second Amendment, you are comparing them to tyrannical rulers of our time, and in the history books?

Take the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings as an example. The NRA pointedly refused to support any form of gun control, and instead insisted that their proposal, of allowing teachers the right to carry concealed weapons in classrooms, was the only way forward.

Completely disregarding gun control reforms without even looking at them sounds exactly like a politician compeltely disregarding the Second Amendment. The only difference is in the effects of their actions compared to that politician.

 

[Tesla]

And yet, there are countries where there is no right to bear arms set out in the constitution - like mine - that are doing just fine without it and not living under the weight of a tyrant.

It helps that we never had a bloody revolution and that we live on an island. No land borders means that it's much more difficult to smuggle in weapons. If Australia hadn't been formed as a glorified prison, arms would've been in hands of settlers. If conditions had taken a turn for a worse, a large scale revolt may have occurred and we could be living in a republic today. All speculation of course.

Gun control in America today would be useless simply due to the sheer amount of arms in circulation. If America had been founded under more peaceful circumstances, this discussion would be much more well suited to a time before arms were readily available to the public.

 

[arora]

Completely disregarding gun control reforms without even looking at them sounds exactly like a politician compeltely disregarding the Second Amendment. The only difference is in the effects of their actions compared to that politician.

We have looked at it, for ten years in fact, when we had essentially the same reforms being proposed now as law.

 

[kk20]

Those of you that have seen me before will know that I am against guns as you can be. However, Everything does begin to make sense. Banning guns and forcing those with guns to hand them in will result in citizens with no guns. However those that wish to do harm will still find a way illegally in the same way that drugs are obtained. Leaving the good citizens defenceless.

However I do think ownership of guns should be tighter.

Having said that, I dont think guns should be made legal in countries where they are illegal...

 

[a6m5]

Did I say they were? a6m5 made the point that "tyrannical rule has always existed". I just took that one step further and applied it to every facet of everyday life, and not just the political sphere.

I've yet to understand this position. How does the existence & the role of NRA compare to tyranny rule?

Don't Americans pride themselves on being the "land of the free"? If so, why do you refuse to trust future generations to maintain that and uphold democracy? Or do you simply not trust your generation to teach the next generation the values of democracy? And if so, doesn't arming yourselves to protect yourselves against a future threat that you could have prevented otherwise demonstrate a fundamental lack of judgement that makes you unqiuely unqualified to be trusted with weapons in the first place?

I absolutely mean no offense, but "trust" the future generation? If faith deterred potential problems, we'd be able to drop the police, senate, any systems of checks & balances there is in place. We are on topic of political power attempting to defy the Constitution, and you are suggesting that we should trust the American pride? I wasn't born yesterday, no thank you. Maybe when we live in the world where used car salesmen have customers' best interest in mind, we can start talking about having blind faith in politicians.

See, that's the trap that I think so many proponents of the Second Amendement fall into: you wrongfully assume that the Second Amendment is the first, last and only thing protecting you from becoming a banana republic, and that by taking it away, it will inevitably lead to disaster. Which is somewhat ironic that you have accused me of generalising predictions of the future, when there's a good fifty or so pages of discussion forum here where the overriding argument in favour of gun ownership is "if we lose the right to bear arms, society itself will collapse!".

Your previous argument was based on a event-free future, which I don't think is a way to live for anyone. I believe that planning for that potential bump in the road, or a rainy day is important in life. I suppose I assumed that was a fairly typical thing.

You are forcing this sort of strange opinion on me about how I believe that the Second Amendment is the only thing protecting the U.S. from tyrannyical rule? I have never even come close to making this claim. Respecting the Law written into the Constitution and assuming that Obama Administration is going to turn into, or be replaced with Saddam Hussein-type dictator is not a claim I ever made, or even personally believe. Let's make that part clear.

I guess my analogy for violating the Second Amendment would be like removing a clause from a insurance policy. You might never need it in a thousand years, but it was put there for a reason.

Take the aftermath of the Sandy Hook shootings as an example. The NRA pointedly refused to support any form of gun control, and instead insisted that their proposal, of allowing teachers the right to carry concealed weapons in classrooms, was the only way forward.

Maybe because gun control will only handicap law abiding people? And the handicap the gun control would provide, they still wouldn't stop school shootings. These gun control bills they come up with makes as much sense as banning Celicas & Mustangs because of drunk driving. You can stop people from buying them, but they are already out there. If they don't have them, they can steal them. If they can't get them, they can just use other cars to drink & drive.

Also, after Sandy Hook, I do recall them insisting that school have armed guards utilizing retired police officers, military personnel, etc. Right to carry concealed weapon in classroom being the only way forward is absolutely false.

Completely disregarding gun control reforms without even looking at them sounds exactly like a politician compeltely disregarding the Second Amendment. The only difference is in the effects of their actions compared to that politician.

Should we throw in Playstation/Xbox-fanboys in there while we are at it? Political lobby lacks the very ability to apply tyrannical rule to the public. Let's not start comparing apples to oranges.