Another Mass Shooting In The Us...

[joeschmoe1920]

Ejcot: we get it. You have an axe to grind against the US and a lot of time on your hands. The gun debate is getting old, and I think we all know gun laws won't be changing. Shouldn't you be posting more videos of mistaken national anthems as proof of how horrible America is?

 

[bobg]

Law-abiding citizens' giving up their firearms will absolutely not prevent violence, in any form.

<snip>

That strikes me as a rather strange statement considering that Omar Mateen obtained his weapons legally. I know it can be argued that he was no boy scout, but that's part of the problem - "law-abiding" is not black and white.

But moreover, even boy-scout level law-abiding folks get drunk and have temper tantrums. I can't quote it, but I am sure there is a statistic showing that a gun in the house is most often used against a resident of the house.

And law-abiding people live with mentally ill relatives. Recall that Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter/killer, used his Mother's guns. And sane, law-abiding people can become mentally ill. And guns owned by law-abiding citizens can be stolen.

Bob

 

[steveinbsas]

That strikes me as a rather strange statement considering that Omar Mateen obtained his weapons legally. I know it can be argued that he was no boy scout, but that's part of the problem - "law-abiding" is not black and white.

But moreover, even boy-scout level law-abiding folks get drunk and have temper tantrums. I can't quote it, but I am sure there is a statistic showing that a gun in the house is most often used against a resident of the house.

And law-abiding people live with mentally ill relatives. Recall that Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter/killer, used his Mother's guns. And sane, law-abiding people can become mentally ill. And guns owned by law-abiding citizens can be stolen.

Bob

I agree that even law abiding individuals who are rational and/or sane can change and, in a moment of rage, use a gun against another (innocent) human being. They can also use a knife, a machete, a hammer, a baseball bat, a chainsaw, a frozen leg of lamb, etc. The damage inflicted would (at least on average) be less severe if a gun was not used.

Omar Mateen and Adam Lanza were obviously not law abiding citizens even before they opened fire (and neither was the Colorado movie shooter). They all broke the law when they entered gun free zones where they then committed mass murder. It's difficult to believe that any of them were mentally healthy. It is also difficult to believe they were insane. They obviously planned their actions in advance.

Even if it was possible to get all law abiding citizens to turn in their guns (if it became the law to do so), how long do you think it would take to get the rest of the guns out of the hands of those who have no desire to obey the laws regarding having, stealing or using guns?

The British MP was reportedly shot with a homemade gun. If that's true it shows that it is possible to have a gun without buying or stealing one. It has also been reported that the man who killed her has mental issues, but if he actually had a homemede gun, he probably knew it was agianst the law to make or possess it.

http://www.fromthetr...un-knife/162486


PS: Homemade guns don't have to be primitive, either. With 3-D printing it is now possible to create a modern, homemade gun that works:

http://www.bbc.com/n...onment-22421185

 

[wineguy999]

That strikes me as a rather strange statement considering that Omar Mateen obtained his weapons legally. I know it can be argued that he was no boy scout, but that's part of the problem - "law-abiding" is not black and white.

But moreover, even boy-scout level law-abiding folks get drunk and have temper tantrums. I can't quote it, but I am sure there is a statistic showing that a gun in the house is most often used against a resident of the house.

And law-abiding people live with mentally ill relatives. Recall that Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter/killer, used his Mother's guns. And sane, law-abiding people can become mentally ill. And guns owned by law-abiding citizens can be stolen.

Bob

The statement was made in response to a comment which implied an end to violence if law-abiding people simply gave up their firearms. For anyone who believes that, I have a beautiful bridge for sale in San Francisco.

Indeed, "law-abiding" is a gray area. By default, the moment a person pulls a trigger to do harm, they become a criminal, no matter their past.

I was taught a healthy respect for firearms from childhood. No one ever had to lock them up in our house, because the kids understood them and knew how to use them safely. Do I have a need for an assault-style weapon? Absolutely not, but I have no idea where to draw the line, and you'll never get that genie back in the bottle.

 

[scotttswan]

Ejcot: we get it. You have an axe to grind against the US and a lot of time on your hands. The gun debate is getting old, and I think we all know gun laws won't be changing. Shouldn't you be posting more videos of mistaken national anthems as proof of how horrible America is?

I have no grind against the USA. Gun laws will be changing, the majority of Americans want it.

http://www.gallup.co.../1645/guns.aspx

The more deaths the more opinion will change.


P.s. it take fuck all time to Google the facts.

 

[Happy Lady]

The NRA has a powerful lobbying group in Washington. Perhaps they are helping with those purse strings along with selling baseball caps,T- shirts and women's purses, Just Goggle and dig a little deeper and find out how much money they spend ( not donations, heaven forbid). Most of the funds are aimed at pursuading congressmen and women to always vote NO on any type of gun control laws and more regulations about who can purchase guns and more rigid background checks. No responsible gun enthusiast should have a quarrel with this.

My husband and I were gun owners for years when we lived in the USA. We shot skeet and trap and target practice. I also was a member of a bow club for target practice. So, I am not against having arms and keeping them in a safe place. Our unloaded guns were locked in a gun cabinet and the ammunition was kept 2 miles away in a safe in our office. Yes, we did have children and did what we thought prudent to keep them safe. We never felt that we needed to carry a gun except to the target range. So, I am not one of the before -mentioned "nut cases".
We have family members who hunt deer, rabbit, and pheasant and I have no problem with that. Mostly, they hunt in the woods of our sheep farm back in Ohio.

 

[GS_Dirtboy]

I am an ex-NRA member. Mainly because I don't think they speak for me - we seem to have different values aside from liking firearms, and they are severely tone deaf when it comes to responding to shootings.

 

[bobg]

The statement was made in response to a comment which implied an end to violence if law-abiding people simply gave up their firearms. For anyone who believes that, I have a beautiful bridge for sale in San Francisco.

Indeed, "law-abiding" is a gray area. By default, the moment a person pulls a trigger to do harm, they become a criminal, no matter their past.

I was taught a healthy respect for firearms from childhood. No one ever had to lock them up in our house, because the kids understood them and knew how to use them safely. Do I have a need for an assault-style weapon? Absolutely not, but I have no idea where to draw the line, and you'll never get that genie back in the bottle.

Three comments: 1) And "end" to violence is not going to happen but wouldn't a reduction be worthwhile? Fewer guns floating around must lead to fewer shootings and fewer deaths. It's sort of like speed limits. Reducing the speed limit does not end crashes but results in fewer crashes and fewer deaths.

2) Drawing a line is often what governing is all about. Sure it is always difficult, but some line is better than no line at all. And in this case we already have a line. You can't buy/own a 50 caliber machine gun, or a 105mm howitzer, or a 81mm mortar, or a nuclear bomb. The existing line just has to be nudged to the other side of assault weapons. Maybe farther - but at least to the other side of assault weapons.

3) Ideas cannot be put back into a bottle. But guns are tangible things. And worthless without ammunition - also tangible. There may not be a perfect solution, but something can be done - if we can just find the political will.

Bob

 

[bobg]

I agree that even law abiding individuals who are rational and/or sane can change and, in a moment of rage, use a gun against another (innocent) human being. They can also use a knife, a machete, a hammer, a baseball bat, a chainsaw, a frozen leg of lamb, etc. The damage inflicted would (at least on average) be less severe if a gun was not used.

Omar Mateen and Adam Lanza were obviously not law abiding citizens even before they opened fire (and neither was the Colorado movie shooter). They all broke the law when they entered gun free zones where they then committed mass murder. It's difficult to believe that any of them were mentally healthy. It is also difficult to believe they were insane. They obviously planned their actions in advance.

Even if it was possible to get all law abiding citizens to turn in their guns (if it became the law to do so), how long do you think it would take to get the rest of the guns out of the hands of those who have no desire to obey the laws regarding having, stealing or using guns?

The British MP was reportedly shot with a homemade gun. If that's true it shows that it is possible to have a gun without buying or stealing one. It has also been reported that the man who killed her has mental issues, but if he actually had a homemede gun, he probably knew it was agianst the law to make or possess it.

http://www.fromthetr...un-knife/162486


PS: Homemade guns don't have to be primitive, either. With 3-D printing it is now possible to create a modern, homemade gun that works:

http://www.bbc.com/n...onment-22421185

"They can also use a knife, a machete, a hammer, a baseball bat, a chainsaw, a frozen leg of lamb, etc. The damage inflicted would (at least on average) be less severe if a gun was not used." And way, way, less severe if an assault weapon was not used.

"Omar Mateen and Adam Lanza were obviously not law abiding citizens even before they opened fire (and neither was the Colorado movie shooter). They all broke the law when they entered gun free zones where they then committed mass murder. It's difficult to believe that any of them were mentally healthy. It is also difficult to believe they were insane." It's also difficult to believe that they could have done anywhere near as much damage without assault weapons.

"[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Even if it was possible to get all law abiding citizens to turn in their guns (if it became the law to do so), how long do you think it would take to get the rest of the guns out of the hands of those who have no desire to obey the laws regarding having, stealing or using guns?" A really long time. Probably never. But surely fewer guns floating around will mean fewer gun deaths. Especially fewer assault weapong. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]​3-D printing is a real problem. But it will be a long time before you can 3-D print ammunition. And very few people will ever be able to design a workable gun. So it's really a matter of keeping the designs off the internet. I don't know but I think that government agencies do a decent job of keeping child porn off the internet. [/background]

[background=rgb(252, 252, 252)]Bob[/background]

 

[scotttswan]

See, even in these forums there are lots of sensible Americans who see that the crazy laws in the states really need to be fixed.

Public opinion is on their side and this is why the NRA and the weapons industry spends a fortune spreading bullshit articles and buying off politicians.