Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"? Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 4
 
 
2013-01-09 3:15 PM
in reply to: #4570448

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
sbreaux - 2013-01-09 1:22 PM
powerman - 2013-01-09 12:57 PM
sbreaux - 2013-01-09 12:07 PM

Like the discussion here, but can someone reconcile what cruse wrote about the .223 caliber above and what ??Gen McChrystal said on TV a couple of days ago?  Here is his quote.

????"I spent a year carrying typically either a M16, later a M4 carbine," he said.  "And a M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round, which is 5.56 millimeters,  at about 3,000 feet per second.  When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating.  It's designed to do that.   That's what our solders ought to carry." 

So forgive my ignorance on the subject.  I do know a little about shotguns.  So can you have different .223 loads similar to different 12 guage shotgun shell loads (duck vs. dove loads)?    So when cruse and others mention the fact you wouldn't use the .223 on more than a coyote, it just doesn't jive with what the general is stating above. 

A plain .22 has devastating effects when it hits human flesh. It tears it apart. That is what it does. That is what bullets do. .223 has no "special" powers, and is in fact a medium power cartridge. It is especially good at wounding soldiers, not killing them. Many in Iraq and Afghanistan opted for 7.62/.308 rifles because they had better stopping power.

The media loves to make it out that the .223 has some sort of "special" lethality, or is made to be especially devastating/deadly. Simply not true... ballistics is ballistics and the same rules apply to everything. Ask anyone whether a 9mmm or a .45 has more stopping power, or if speed is more important than caliber.... hope you have a lot of time... the question has never been settled.

Let me ask you this... do you have a problem being shot with a pellet gun? Do you have a problem being shot with a .22? How about a .223? How about shot from a shot gun? How about a .50 BMG? What is an acceptable projectile you do not mind being shot with?

My preference is to not be shot at all, and I do everything in my power to not put myself in a position where that could be an outcome. 

That's kind of my point... does it really matter what you are shot with? And for all the scary talk of how deadly the .223 is and guns in general... guns are only deadly in a 1/3 of shooting. 2/3s live. VTech... the shooter went back and put multiple rounds in victims. Same thing in Sandy Hook.... Aurora shooting with the extremely lethal .223... 70 injured, 12 died, some hit with buckshot. None of that is cool. All of it is unacceptable, indeed tragic in every sense of the word... but how the media and politicians spin it to advance an agenda... not cool either.



2013-01-09 7:05 PM
in reply to: #4568412

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
crusevegas - 2013-01-08 12:54 PM

LB, was it this one?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=share

I've seen that one, here is another good one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2riOiBaZrg

And here is Eric Holder advancing brain washing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0nM0asnCXD0



Edited by powerman 2013-01-09 7:07 PM
2013-01-10 11:56 AM
in reply to: #4570166

User image

Pro
3932
2000100050010010010010025
Irvine, California
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
crusevegas - 2013-01-09 10:44 AM

Tripolar - 2013-01-08 11:06 AM
crusevegas - 2013-01-08 10:17 AM

What changes would you propose to "gun control"?

I'm not well-versed on the current laws, but some things that I've heard mentioned seem pretty reasonable to me: - Restricting assault-style weapons to those who can demonstrate a true need (e.g., police, military, etc.) - Restricting high-capacity cartridges. - Requiring licensing and possibly gun-safety and gun-training classes. (I know this is a lot more contentious.) - Limiting the number of guns you can keep on the premises. - If you have children, mandate that all weapons be in a locked safe. - More thorough background checks. Obviously, I'd prefer to live in a country with no guns, but that's not going to happen, at least in my lifetime. As long as we have the 2nd Amendment, citizens have the right to own guns. However, I don't think it's unreasonable (or goes against the intent of the founders) to regulate it well (i.e., licensing, training) or to restrict the weaponry to whatever is adequate for home defense and/or hunting. (And exclude weapons meant for war zones.) Is that asking too much?

Yes, I believe that goes too far.

Restricting assault style weapons. Why?

For one thing that is a term that truly has no real definition, it is a term to garner support for one side and make an implication about the other side.  I don't know how you are defining the term for your purpose but however you are, if you are referring to a particular type of rifle you do realize that they are a subset of rifles. I think the FBI statistics show that rifles, not just the subset you are referring to have been involved in less than 400 killings in that year or 3.5% of all gun related deaths excluding suicide. You are proposing taking away the rights of 300,000,000 law abiding US Citizens based on this? I don't understand.

Restricting High Capacity Cartridges: This is where the Anti Gun movement and people such as yourself lose most of your credibility in having a meaningful discussion on "common sense gun legislation". When you make statements that show you really don't know the first thing about firearms, ammunition aka cartridges, magazines or clips but want to take rights away from 300,000,000 law abiding citizens with terms that have no meaning. I'll try to explain, cartridges are the thing with the powder and the projectile in them, typically a brass casing.  The cartridge then goes into a magazine which then feeds into the gun, specifically the chamber of the gun. I am not sure if you are trying to outlaw high power cartridges or high capacity magazines.  On a similar matter, most "assault rifles" are of a .223 caliber, the projectile is slightly bigger around than a normal 22 but a bit longer with much more powder than a typical 22. That being said, for killing purpose, it is not very effective for anything much bigger than a coyote. For a rifle cartridge it's on the bottom end of the "High Power" chart.

Limiting the number of guns on a premises. Why? What data can you provide that this has been an issue and what numbers are you talking about?

Gun Safety and Gun Training: Here is one we can agree on. I believe it should be taught in every elementary school, just as English is. Part of the reason we have so many who are afraid of guns is because they know nothing about them. It's like sharks, most of those who are afraid of sharks have never had the pleasure of occupying the same habitat as the sharks at the same time. I know a lot of people personally who have been around sharks in the open ocean, I don't know anyone personally who has ever been threatened, let alone bit by one.

Mandate firearms in homes with children be locked up. I'm on the fence leaning against this(though I think generally it's a good idea, kids or no kids) . Every family is different and having a one system fits all 300,000,000 I'm a bit concerned with. If we do pass a law like this, I would like to also include prescription medicine, poisons including any type of household product that could be poisonous.  Just out of curiosity, should it also include knives with a sharp edge?

More thorough background checks: I think it should be up to the states and the Feds should KTFO of it all personally. I'd have no problem with the States requiring a background check for all firearms sales excluding immediate family members. I think as we can do here in NV is to go to the POPO station and they will facilitate that.

I would be curious as to what you mean by "More thorough background checks"?



Sorry I didn't have time to reply yesterday. I'm not wedded to any particular gun-control proposal, and don't claim to know all the ins and outs, so it would do no good for me to argue any of these point by point. Honestly, IMHO, the onus should be on you, the gun owners, to propose common sense solutions. There must be a middle ground between having no guns at all, versus what we have today, where virtually anyone can amass an unlimited arsenal of ridiculous (and unnecessary) killing power.

And I don't accept that either guns are the whole problem, or that people are. Clearly it's both. We have way more guns in this country than elsewhere, and we have way more gun-related deaths. Why, do you think? It's not a coincidence, so it's silly to suggest that guns don't play a big part.

If you think our gun laws don't need any changes, then indirectly you are also saying that the current level of gun violence (and yes, mass killings) is just the price we have to pay. And don't try to place all the blame on the mental health field. Some of it, sure, but on its own, it does not come close to explaining why we have such a higher rate of gun violence in this country than elsewhere.
2013-01-10 12:02 PM
in reply to: #4563505

User image

Pro
3932
2000100050010010010010025
Irvine, California
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
Oh, one more thing. Another reason the gun owners should be the ones proposing common sense solutions: the longer you wait, the greater the chance that non-gun-owners will enact legislation that you truly WON'T like.
2013-01-10 12:17 PM
in reply to: #4572091

User image

Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
Tripolar - 2013-01-10 1:02 PM

Oh, one more thing. Another reason the gun owners should be the ones proposing common sense solutions: the longer you wait, the greater the chance that non-gun-owners will enact legislation that you truly WON'T like.


Okay, here's my honest proposal:

Change or repeal the 2d Amendment. Until you do, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

If you cannot get the votes to change or repeal it, you obviously do not have the popular support you believe you do.

(edit) I'm just sick and tired of people pretending it doesn't say what it obviously says and what the Supreme Court has stated it means. Change or repeal it, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.




Edited by DanielG 2013-01-10 12:18 PM
2013-01-10 12:51 PM
in reply to: #4572137

User image

Pro
3932
2000100050010010010010025
Irvine, California
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
DanielG - 2013-01-10 10:17 AM

Tripolar - 2013-01-10 1:02 PM

Oh, one more thing. Another reason the gun owners should be the ones proposing common sense solutions: the longer you wait, the greater the chance that non-gun-owners will enact legislation that you truly WON'T like.


Okay, here's my honest proposal:

Change or repeal the 2d Amendment. Until you do, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

If you cannot get the votes to change or repeal it, you obviously do not have the popular support you believe you do.

(edit) I'm just sick and tired of people pretending it doesn't say what it obviously says and what the Supreme Court has stated it means. Change or repeal it, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.




And I'm sick and tired of people overlooking the fact that we have umpteen times more gun violence here than other civilized countries, or attributing it all to mental health screening.


2013-01-10 2:20 PM
in reply to: #4570542

New user
1

Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?

Well said NXS. I have read these posts with interest noting that at the beginning of the post there were references to morality and God as to reasons why we might be seeing more gun violence, or should I say the lack of morality and God. Also been a big discussion about mental illness and how to deal with that.

I would like to look at it from another view; this is a multi  facetted issue: moral decline, lose of valuing life, increased anger in society, the lack of the ability to discuss issues reasonable and rationally, and the list could go on. As a society we do not talk anymore about personal responsibility. It is the medicines fault, the guns fault, the medias fault (which is really one of the true statements) but not the persons responsibilities. 

When I was a child my dad's (yes I was blessed with a mom and dad that stayed together no matter how hard it got) favorite saying to us was two wrongs don't make a right. What that has to do with this thread I will let you decided.

Tripolar I was wondering where you get your statistics about our nation having the most guns and gun violence. If I remember correctly there are a number of nations that have many more guns than we have per capita and have far less violence.  So, just having more guns does not equal more gun violence. 

 

2013-01-10 2:26 PM
in reply to: #4572477

User image

Pro
15428
50005000500010010010010025
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
vinuztri59 - 2013-01-10 2:20 PM

Well said NXS. I have read these posts with interest noting that at the beginning of the post there were references to morality and God as to reasons why we might be seeing more gun violence, or should I say the lack of morality and God. Also been a big discussion about mental illness and how to deal with that.

I would like to look at it from another view; this is a multi  facetted issue: moral decline, lose of valuing life, increased anger in society, the lack of the ability to discuss issues reasonable and rationally, and the list could go on. As a society we do not talk anymore about personal responsibility. It is the medicines fault, the guns fault, the medias fault (which is really one of the true statements) but not the persons responsibilities. 

When I was a child my dad's (yes I was blessed with a mom and dad that stayed together no matter how hard it got) favorite saying to us was two wrongs don't make a right. What that has to do with this thread I will let you decided.

Tripolar I was wondering where you get your statistics about our nation having the most guns and gun violence. If I remember correctly there are a number of nations that have many more guns than we have per capita and have far less violence.  So, just having more guns does not equal more gun violence. 

 

Well, about twice as many people were killed with guns in your dad's day than there are now.....maybe that's what he meant? Laughing 

Sorry folks, gun violence and violent crime in general is nearly at an all time low (half of what it was just 20 years ago)...but by all means, keep up the fear-mongoring.....those people who own guns legally are a scary bunch.



Edited by Left Brain 2013-01-10 2:51 PM
2013-01-10 3:28 PM
in reply to: #4563505

User image

Pro
3932
2000100050010010010010025
Irvine, California
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
If you compare the United States to the rest of the world (including the third-world), it's true that we're not the worst, but we're near the top (#10 out of this incomplete list of 75):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_d...

But if you compare us to other affluent countries, we're the highest:

http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/2011/01000/Homicide,_Suici...

"The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher."

I'm sure there are plenty of other lists out there. These were just two that I found quickly through our friend Google.
2013-01-10 3:59 PM
in reply to: #4572232

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?

Tripolar - 2013-01-10 11:51 AM
DanielG - 2013-01-10 10:17 AM
Tripolar - 2013-01-10 1:02 PM Oh, one more thing. Another reason the gun owners should be the ones proposing common sense solutions: the longer you wait, the greater the chance that non-gun-owners will enact legislation that you truly WON'T like.
Okay, here's my honest proposal: Change or repeal the 2d Amendment. Until you do, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. If you cannot get the votes to change or repeal it, you obviously do not have the popular support you believe you do. (edit) I'm just sick and tired of people pretending it doesn't say what it obviously says and what the Supreme Court has stated it means. Change or repeal it, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.
And I'm sick and tired of people overlooking the fact that we have umpteen times more gun violence here than other civilized countries, or attributing it all to mental health screening.

Hello... we are going to! It's the price of freedom. Look at what it takes to lock someone up... they just get slapped on the hand and turn loose to do it again. How many times have people been murdered by violent repeat offenders? Why is that... because our system of freedom says 10 guilty should go free before one innocent is imprisoned. We have the 4th A protecting us against unlawful search and seizure. We are protected against cruel and unusual punishments (8thA) so criminals go get bulked up at Club Fed and get out and do it all over again.

Freedom of speech... any 10 year old can get on the internet and see a woman getting fisted. Free speech. He can play Grand Theft auto and go shoot cops and slap hos... 1stA.

The 2A guarantees us the RTBA... that means there will be some that have them that should not... there will be some that abuse that right... but that is OK... because we are all innocent until actually proven guilty by a jury of our peers with due precess, 6thA. Yep... the State can't do crap against me without violating my due process rights.

Guess what... rights are abused. PERIOD. End of discussion. I do not voluntarily give mine up. If you do... fine by me. But stop demanding I do the same just because you are OK with less freedom. This whole discussion keeps talking about "compromise". What compromise? The majority is demanding the individual to give up his rights, or they will be taken... that is not how this country works. This is a Republic. This is not mob rule.

If you want to drastically restrict the 2A... then drastically restrict the 4th too, I don't think you need the 8thA, the 10th while you are at it... The 6th gets in the way too much, and if you don't like that... we will take the 1stA too.



Edited by powerman 2013-01-10 4:03 PM
2013-01-10 4:07 PM
in reply to: #4570542

User image

Pro
3932
2000100050010010010010025
Irvine, California
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
NXS - 2013-01-09 1:00 PM
(SNIP)

I wish you lived near me.  I would love for you to come out, meet the neighbors and see first hand that firearms are not the problem in our country today.



And I would gladly take you up on it. Like I said before, I know the vast, vast majority of gun owners are safe, responsible, good people, and I wouldn't pass up a friendship just because of a difference of opinion about guns.

Now, maybe an opinion about who's toughest -- Bond, Bourne, or Batman -- but not guns.


2013-01-10 4:10 PM
in reply to: #4572073

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
Tripolar - 2013-01-10 11:56 AM
crusevegas - 2013-01-09 10:44 AM
Tripolar - 2013-01-08 11:06 AM
crusevegas - 2013-01-08 10:17 AM

What changes would you propose to "gun control"?

I'm not well-versed on the current laws, but some things that I've heard mentioned seem pretty reasonable to me: - Restricting assault-style weapons to those who can demonstrate a true need (e.g., police, military, etc.) - Restricting high-capacity cartridges. - Requiring licensing and possibly gun-safety and gun-training classes. (I know this is a lot more contentious.) - Limiting the number of guns you can keep on the premises. - If you have children, mandate that all weapons be in a locked safe. - More thorough background checks. Obviously, I'd prefer to live in a country with no guns, but that's not going to happen, at least in my lifetime. As long as we have the 2nd Amendment, citizens have the right to own guns. However, I don't think it's unreasonable (or goes against the intent of the founders) to regulate it well (i.e., licensing, training) or to restrict the weaponry to whatever is adequate for home defense and/or hunting. (And exclude weapons meant for war zones.) Is that asking too much?

Yes, I believe that goes too far.

Restricting assault style weapons. Why?

For one thing that is a term that truly has no real definition, it is a term to garner support for one side and make an implication about the other side.  I don't know how you are defining the term for your purpose but however you are, if you are referring to a particular type of rifle you do realize that they are a subset of rifles. I think the FBI statistics show that rifles, not just the subset you are referring to have been involved in less than 400 killings in that year or 3.5% of all gun related deaths excluding suicide. You are proposing taking away the rights of 300,000,000 law abiding US Citizens based on this? I don't understand.

Restricting High Capacity Cartridges: This is where the Anti Gun movement and people such as yourself lose most of your credibility in having a meaningful discussion on "common sense gun legislation". When you make statements that show you really don't know the first thing about firearms, ammunition aka cartridges, magazines or clips but want to take rights away from 300,000,000 law abiding citizens with terms that have no meaning. I'll try to explain, cartridges are the thing with the powder and the projectile in them, typically a brass casing.  The cartridge then goes into a magazine which then feeds into the gun, specifically the chamber of the gun. I am not sure if you are trying to outlaw high power cartridges or high capacity magazines.  On a similar matter, most "assault rifles" are of a .223 caliber, the projectile is slightly bigger around than a normal 22 but a bit longer with much more powder than a typical 22. That being said, for killing purpose, it is not very effective for anything much bigger than a coyote. For a rifle cartridge it's on the bottom end of the "High Power" chart.

Limiting the number of guns on a premises. Why? What data can you provide that this has been an issue and what numbers are you talking about?

Gun Safety and Gun Training: Here is one we can agree on. I believe it should be taught in every elementary school, just as English is. Part of the reason we have so many who are afraid of guns is because they know nothing about them. It's like sharks, most of those who are afraid of sharks have never had the pleasure of occupying the same habitat as the sharks at the same time. I know a lot of people personally who have been around sharks in the open ocean, I don't know anyone personally who has ever been threatened, let alone bit by one.

Mandate firearms in homes with children be locked up. I'm on the fence leaning against this(though I think generally it's a good idea, kids or no kids) . Every family is different and having a one system fits all 300,000,000 I'm a bit concerned with. If we do pass a law like this, I would like to also include prescription medicine, poisons including any type of household product that could be poisonous.  Just out of curiosity, should it also include knives with a sharp edge?

More thorough background checks: I think it should be up to the states and the Feds should KTFO of it all personally. I'd have no problem with the States requiring a background check for all firearms sales excluding immediate family members. I think as we can do here in NV is to go to the POPO station and they will facilitate that.

I would be curious as to what you mean by "More thorough background checks"?

Sorry I didn't have time to reply yesterday. I'm not wedded to any particular gun-control proposal, and don't claim to know all the ins and outs, so it would do no good for me to argue any of these point by point. Honestly, IMHO, the onus should be on you, the gun owners, to propose common sense solutions. There must be a middle ground between having no guns at all, versus what we have today, where virtually anyone can amass an unlimited arsenal of ridiculous (and unnecessary) killing power. And I don't accept that either guns are the whole problem, or that people are. Clearly it's both. We have way more guns in this country than elsewhere, and we have way more gun-related deaths. Why, do you think? It's not a coincidence, so it's silly to suggest that guns don't play a big part. If you think our gun laws don't need any changes, then indirectly you are also saying that the current level of gun violence (and yes, mass killings) is just the price we have to pay. And don't try to place all the blame on the mental health field. Some of it, sure, but on its own, it does not come close to explaining why we have such a higher rate of gun violence in this country than elsewhere.

Just curious.  How do you what is necessary for me or anyone else for that matter, in a nation as large and diverse as ours. 

2013-01-10 4:14 PM
in reply to: #4572762

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
Tripolar - 2013-01-10 4:07 PM
NXS - 2013-01-09 1:00 PM (SNIP)

I wish you lived near me.  I would love for you to come out, meet the neighbors and see first hand that firearms are not the problem in our country today.

And I would gladly take you up on it. Like I said before, I know the vast, vast majority of gun owners are safe, responsible, good people, and I wouldn't pass up a friendship just because of a difference of opinion about guns. Now, maybe an opinion about who's toughest -- Bond, Bourne, or Batman -- but not guns.

I am glad you would and I guarantee we would all pass a good time.  Batman, he has cooler toys.

2013-01-10 4:45 PM
in reply to: #4572073

User image

Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
Tripolar - 2013-01-10 9:56 AM
crusevegas - 2013-01-09 10:44 AM
Tripolar - 2013-01-08 11:06 AM
crusevegas - 2013-01-08 10:17 AM

What changes would you propose to "gun control"?

I'm not well-versed on the current laws, but some things that I've heard mentioned seem pretty reasonable to me: - Restricting assault-style weapons to those who can demonstrate a true need (e.g., police, military, etc.) - Restricting high-capacity cartridges. - Requiring licensing and possibly gun-safety and gun-training classes. (I know this is a lot more contentious.) - Limiting the number of guns you can keep on the premises. - If you have children, mandate that all weapons be in a locked safe. - More thorough background checks. Obviously, I'd prefer to live in a country with no guns, but that's not going to happen, at least in my lifetime. As long as we have the 2nd Amendment, citizens have the right to own guns. However, I don't think it's unreasonable (or goes against the intent of the founders) to regulate it well (i.e., licensing, training) or to restrict the weaponry to whatever is adequate for home defense and/or hunting. (And exclude weapons meant for war zones.) Is that asking too much?

Yes, I believe that goes too far.

Restricting assault style weapons. Why?

For one thing that is a term that truly has no real definition, it is a term to garner support for one side and make an implication about the other side.  I don't know how you are defining the term for your purpose but however you are, if you are referring to a particular type of rifle you do realize that they are a subset of rifles. I think the FBI statistics show that rifles, not just the subset you are referring to have been involved in less than 400 killings in that year or 3.5% of all gun related deaths excluding suicide. You are proposing taking away the rights of 300,000,000 law abiding US Citizens based on this? I don't understand.

Restricting High Capacity Cartridges: This is where the Anti Gun movement and people such as yourself lose most of your credibility in having a meaningful discussion on "common sense gun legislation". When you make statements that show you really don't know the first thing about firearms, ammunition aka cartridges, magazines or clips but want to take rights away from 300,000,000 law abiding citizens with terms that have no meaning. I'll try to explain, cartridges are the thing with the powder and the projectile in them, typically a brass casing.  The cartridge then goes into a magazine which then feeds into the gun, specifically the chamber of the gun. I am not sure if you are trying to outlaw high power cartridges or high capacity magazines.  On a similar matter, most "assault rifles" are of a .223 caliber, the projectile is slightly bigger around than a normal 22 but a bit longer with much more powder than a typical 22. That being said, for killing purpose, it is not very effective for anything much bigger than a coyote. For a rifle cartridge it's on the bottom end of the "High Power" chart.

Limiting the number of guns on a premises. Why? What data can you provide that this has been an issue and what numbers are you talking about?

Gun Safety and Gun Training: Here is one we can agree on. I believe it should be taught in every elementary school, just as English is. Part of the reason we have so many who are afraid of guns is because they know nothing about them. It's like sharks, most of those who are afraid of sharks have never had the pleasure of occupying the same habitat as the sharks at the same time. I know a lot of people personally who have been around sharks in the open ocean, I don't know anyone personally who has ever been threatened, let alone bit by one.

Mandate firearms in homes with children be locked up. I'm on the fence leaning against this(though I think generally it's a good idea, kids or no kids) . Every family is different and having a one system fits all 300,000,000 I'm a bit concerned with. If we do pass a law like this, I would like to also include prescription medicine, poisons including any type of household product that could be poisonous.  Just out of curiosity, should it also include knives with a sharp edge?

More thorough background checks: I think it should be up to the states and the Feds should KTFO of it all personally. I'd have no problem with the States requiring a background check for all firearms sales excluding immediate family members. I think as we can do here in NV is to go to the POPO station and they will facilitate that.

I would be curious as to what you mean by "More thorough background checks"?

Sorry I didn't have time to reply yesterday. I'm not wedded to any particular gun-control proposal, and don't claim to know all the ins and outs, so it would do no good for me to argue any of these point by point. Honestly, IMHO, the onus should be on you, the gun owners, to propose common sense solutions. There must be a middle ground between having no guns at all, versus what we have today, where virtually anyone can amass an unlimited arsenal of ridiculous (and unnecessary) killing power. And I don't accept that either guns are the whole problem, or that people are. Clearly it's both. We have way more guns in this country than elsewhere, and we have way more gun-related deaths. Why, do you think? It's not a coincidence, so it's silly to suggest that guns don't play a big part. If you think our gun laws don't need any changes, then indirectly you are also saying that the current level of gun violence (and yes, mass killings) is just the price we have to pay. And don't try to place all the blame on the mental health field. Some of it, sure, but on its own, it does not come close to explaining why we have such a higher rate of gun violence in this country than elsewhere.

Why is it just "gun violence" you are talking about? Why don't you take a look at overall violent crime in the USA? Our crime rate has been dropping steadily in almost every category tracked by the FBI. Our murder rate with guns is higher than other countries,,,,,, Here is the reason why, our citizens have the freedom to protect themselves and the good does outweigh the bad if you look at the entire picture. Go look at the FBI crime stats. Take a look at our violent crime per 100,000 and compare that to the UK.

No, the burden is on you to provide evidence that changes need to be made and to provide some support that the changes you suggest will provide any benefit.

TriPolar, what drugs were the last 3 mass murder's on in the 5 years prior to them committing such unthinkable acts?

How many of these school shootings took place prior to schools being designated "gun free zones" and how many after?

You want to take away or restrict the rights of 300,000,000 law abiding citizens you better have some damn good reason why! And while it's tragic and my heart goes out to the families of those who have been killed in such a violent way by mentally disturbed lunatics those numbers do no merit what you have suggested.

2013-01-10 5:11 PM
in reply to: #4572232

User image

Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?

Tripolar - 2013-01-10 10:51 AM
DanielG - 2013-01-10 10:17 AM
Tripolar - 2013-01-10 1:02 PM Oh, one more thing. Another reason the gun owners should be the ones proposing common sense solutions: the longer you wait, the greater the chance that non-gun-owners will enact legislation that you truly WON'T like.
Okay, here's my honest proposal: Change or repeal the 2d Amendment. Until you do, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. If you cannot get the votes to change or repeal it, you obviously do not have the popular support you believe you do. (edit) I'm just sick and tired of people pretending it doesn't say what it obviously says and what the Supreme Court has stated it means. Change or repeal it, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.
And I'm sick and tired of people overlooking the fact that we have umpteen times more gun violence here than other civilized countries, or attributing it all to mental health screening.

Could you provide a source for this. Remember you said gun violence, not just gun deaths.

Here is some info from the FBI.

1992 to 2011

U.S. Violent Crime down 49% and it's been pretty steady every year.

U.S. Murder Rate down 49% again a pretty steady decline.

1994 estimated 192 Million Firearms in the USA

2009 estimated 310 Million Firearms in the USA

Most of the gun related murders and especially among the young high school and mid 20s are gang related. Look at Chicago where they have the most strict gun laws and tell me how that's working?

Look at the number of women raped/sexually assaulted in the UK and compare that to the USA per capita.

Compare UK's violent crime numbers to ours.

2013-01-10 11:20 PM
in reply to: #4572902

User image

Pro
15428
50005000500010010010010025
Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
crusevegas - 2013-01-10 5:11 PM

Tripolar - 2013-01-10 10:51 AM
DanielG - 2013-01-10 10:17 AM
Tripolar - 2013-01-10 1:02 PM Oh, one more thing. Another reason the gun owners should be the ones proposing common sense solutions: the longer you wait, the greater the chance that non-gun-owners will enact legislation that you truly WON'T like.
Okay, here's my honest proposal: Change or repeal the 2d Amendment. Until you do, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. If you cannot get the votes to change or repeal it, you obviously do not have the popular support you believe you do. (edit) I'm just sick and tired of people pretending it doesn't say what it obviously says and what the Supreme Court has stated it means. Change or repeal it, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.
And I'm sick and tired of people overlooking the fact that we have umpteen times more gun violence here than other civilized countries, or attributing it all to mental health screening.

Could you provide a source for this. Remember you said gun violence, not just gun deaths.

Here is some info from the FBI.

1992 to 2011

U.S. Violent Crime down 49% and it's been pretty steady every year.

U.S. Murder Rate down 49% again a pretty steady decline.

1994 estimated 192 Million Firearms in the USA

2009 estimated 310 Million Firearms in the USA

Most of the gun related murders and especially among the young high school and mid 20s are gang related. Look at Chicago where they have the most strict gun laws and tell me how that's working?

Look at the number of women raped/sexually assaulted in the UK and compare that to the USA per capita.

Compare UK's violent crime numbers to ours.

No one ever even responds to these types of numbers because it just completely wrecks the anti-gun argument.  Still, there it is....118 MILLION more guns today (it's way more than that now thanks to the idiots who keep running their mouths about banning them) compared to 1994.  Let me say that again.....118 MILLION MORE GUNS today than in 1994.....and the violent crime and murder rate has dropped 49% in the same time period.  So much for more guns causing more crime, huh?

Part of the reason that legal gun owners won't listen to the other side is because we think "the other side" is goofy.  We see the stats, the reality of what guns have done to the crime rate, and we laugh.  Our guns don't scare us, they don't scare our families, and they don't scare anyone around us.

Sorry to have to keep stating the obvious, but more guns is not the problem.....never has been and never will be.  Read the crime numbers.  Let go of the emotion and look at the facts.

Or.....you could move to downtown Chicago....maybe a housing project if you want to really feel safe.  No guns allowed there, it's against the law!!! Laughing



Edited by Left Brain 2013-01-10 11:23 PM


2013-01-11 5:40 AM
in reply to: #4572232

User image

Subject: RE: Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"?
Tripolar - 2013-01-10 1:51 PM

DanielG - 2013-01-10 10:17 AM

Tripolar - 2013-01-10 1:02 PM

Oh, one more thing. Another reason the gun owners should be the ones proposing common sense solutions: the longer you wait, the greater the chance that non-gun-owners will enact legislation that you truly WON'T like.


Okay, here's my honest proposal:

Change or repeal the 2d Amendment. Until you do, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

If you cannot get the votes to change or repeal it, you obviously do not have the popular support you believe you do.

(edit) I'm just sick and tired of people pretending it doesn't say what it obviously says and what the Supreme Court has stated it means. Change or repeal it, don't just pretend it doesn't exist.




And I'm sick and tired of people overlooking the fact that we have umpteen times more gun violence here than other civilized countries, or attributing it all to mental health screening.


And I'm tired of druggies and kidnappers getting away with it due to the pesky 4th amendment so we should just ignore that one too. Perhaps you're hiding someone or something in your house. The cops should be able to just come in if they think you are and look for whatever they're looking for.

If you ignore an amendment, what's to stop the government from ignoring them all?

Change it or repeal it, there is a reason there are ways to do both. Don't ignore it.


New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Why are mass shooting murderers always called Gun"Men"? Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 4