Gun control and mass shootings

21,930 Views | 423 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Goro Majima
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
To quote Judge Alex Kozinski on the 2nd Amendment:
Quote:

The majority falls prey to the delusion popular in some circles that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth born of experience is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991). In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. Id. at 341-42. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. See Kleinfeld Dissent at 578-579. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
AgsMyDude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
deddog said:

AgsMyDude said:

deddog said:

AgsMyDude said:

B-1 83 said:

Quote:


I'm tired of innocent children being slaughtered in our country. It's disgusting.
Who isn't? The solution is not to disarm the 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the population that is responsible and law abiding.


Where did I say that was the solution?

But let me guess you think absolutely nothing needs changed on the gun reform side.

It's easy to say you're fed up with the murdering of children until it's time to even consider making changes
What mass shootings would have been stopped by "gun reform"


Several....the Nashville shootings for example.

Shooter was under doctor's care for mental disorder and was high functioning autistic.

It's a slippery slope, sure, but there needs to be more done to require these folks not to have firearms, let alone an AR-15.
Why isn't the shooter in an institution?
If you are dangerous enough to Not own a gun, you are dangerous enough to be not allowed in public.

I am ok with folks who are committed in mental institutions not being able to own guns, until they are discharged.


Because not all mental health issues are either "perfectly fine" or "needs institutionalition"

It's a pretty wide spectrum but you knew that.
Slicer97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

"Then you should understand why you are contradicting yourself in your previous posts.
"
What is the contradiction? Not trying to be adversarial. Tell me what I have wrong.

Quote:

SteveA said:

I never said band AR-15's. I said a ban on semi automatic rifles and high capacity magazines would be a start.

I'm confused as to your point here.
91AggieLawyer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BigRobSA said:

SteveA said:

Quote:

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?
A ban on semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines would be a start. I'm not a gun control guy, but this happened about 4 miles from my house, and my kids were up there at the mall, so I'm a bit biased at the moment. This assault would be much more difficult for a guy armed with a 9mm handgun. The AR style weapons, or any semi auto with a pistol grip makes it too easy. Now, how do you get those out of the hands of people that do this stuff? I have no idea. Not a politician and don't claim to have answers. Obviously laws don't matter or they wouldn't be shooting up malls. But I don't think more guns is the answer. I don't think there is a need for these types of guns to be as available as they are. My opinion. Keeping it civil.



That's why pistols are almost never used.




Oh....wait, they're the #1 weapon of choice in crimes. Nevermind.



Glad your kids are safe, but don't let emotions cloud your judgement.

The left wants to tell you mass shootings are any event where more than 1 person dies. They do this to spike the "mass shooting" numbers. THEN, they say we need to ban "assault" rifles (whatever the hell that means) and high capacity magazines. Yet, they keep harping on this mass shooting nonsense which, to them, means like 2 or 3 or more victims. It doesn't take a high cap mag to kill more than 2 or 3. In fact, a revolver (just using a gun example) can easily do that. So the rhetoric they use doesn't match what they say they're trying to prevent.

EVERYTHING the left proposes with respect to gun control is BULL***** It is aimed at power, gun confiscation, and elimination of the second amendment. It has NOTHING to do with making people safer. It is about making them stronger and dispelling any resistance.
Old May Banker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

We have become an immoral society and that is the first, second and last problem we are seeing today, not the guns.
deddog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AgsMyDude said:

deddog said:

AgsMyDude said:

deddog said:

AgsMyDude said:

B-1 83 said:

Quote:


I'm tired of innocent children being slaughtered in our country. It's disgusting.
Who isn't? The solution is not to disarm the 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the population that is responsible and law abiding.


Where did I say that was the solution?

But let me guess you think absolutely nothing needs changed on the gun reform side.

It's easy to say you're fed up with the murdering of children until it's time to even consider making changes
What mass shootings would have been stopped by "gun reform"


Several....the Nashville shootings for example.

Shooter was under doctor's care for mental disorder and was high functioning autistic.

It's a slippery slope, sure, but there needs to be more done to require these folks not to have firearms, let alone an AR-15.
Why isn't the shooter in an institution?
If you are dangerous enough to Not own a gun, you are dangerous enough to be not allowed in public.

I am ok with folks who are committed in mental institutions not being able to own guns, until they are discharged.


Because not all mental health issues are either "perfectly fine" or "needs institutionalition"

It's a pretty wide spectrum but you knew that.
You can't use a "pretty wide spectrum" to take away peoples rights.
You have to be very specific.
deddog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
91AggieLawyer said:

BigRobSA said:

SteveA said:

Quote:

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?
A ban on semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines would be a start. I'm not a gun control guy, but this happened about 4 miles from my house, and my kids were up there at the mall, so I'm a bit biased at the moment. This assault would be much more difficult for a guy armed with a 9mm handgun. The AR style weapons, or any semi auto with a pistol grip makes it too easy. Now, how do you get those out of the hands of people that do this stuff? I have no idea. Not a politician and don't claim to have answers. Obviously laws don't matter or they wouldn't be shooting up malls. But I don't think more guns is the answer. I don't think there is a need for these types of guns to be as available as they are. My opinion. Keeping it civil.



That's why pistols are almost never used.




Oh....wait, they're the #1 weapon of choice in crimes. Nevermind.



Glad your kids are safe, but don't let emotions cloud your judgement.

The left wants to tell you mass shootings are any event where more than 1 person dies. They do this to spike the "mass shooting" numbers. THEN, they say we need to ban "assault" rifles (whatever the hell that means) and high capacity magazines. Yet, they keep harping on this mass shooting nonsense which, to them, means like 2 or 3 or more victims. It doesn't take a high cap mag to kill more than 2 or 3. In fact, a revolver (just using a gun example) can easily do that. So the rhetoric they use doesn't match what they say they're trying to prevent.

EVERYTHING the left proposes with respect to gun control is BULL***** It is aimed at power, gun confiscation, and elimination of the second amendment. It has NOTHING to do with making people safer. It is about making them stronger and dispelling any resistance.
gun control isn't about guns.
It's about control, and giving more of it to the government.
Given to the government by sheep who can't protect themselves, and don't want others to do so either.
deddog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

It's bad enough that we can't depend on the government and folks like you to protect us.

Gun control nazis just make it harder for law abiding folks to acquire weapons to defend ourselves.
Folks like me? Are you carrying your AR around on your back when going to the mall? Because I don't give a **** if you carry your pistol while accompanying your wife to lululemon or wherever. It's not all or nothing, and labeling everyone you don't agree with a a Nazi lib is a big reason nothing can be done. Half of you guys on this forum get winded walking up a flight of stairs, but you are going to defend everyone in the parking lot with your 9mm.Ok.
I am defending my family, not everyone.
I teach my kids and my wife to protect themselves.

If you don't want to? Fine.
Stop making it harder for the folks who still have their balls to protect their families.
I am not outsourcing the protection of my family, in my home to the freaking government.

Also, i run 30 miles a week :-)
AgsMyDude
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
deddog said:

AgsMyDude said:

deddog said:

AgsMyDude said:

deddog said:

AgsMyDude said:

B-1 83 said:

Quote:


I'm tired of innocent children being slaughtered in our country. It's disgusting.
Who isn't? The solution is not to disarm the 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the population that is responsible and law abiding.


Where did I say that was the solution?

But let me guess you think absolutely nothing needs changed on the gun reform side.

It's easy to say you're fed up with the murdering of children until it's time to even consider making changes
What mass shootings would have been stopped by "gun reform"


Several....the Nashville shootings for example.

Shooter was under doctor's care for mental disorder and was high functioning autistic.

It's a slippery slope, sure, but there needs to be more done to require these folks not to have firearms, let alone an AR-15.
Why isn't the shooter in an institution?
If you are dangerous enough to Not own a gun, you are dangerous enough to be not allowed in public.

I am ok with folks who are committed in mental institutions not being able to own guns, until they are discharged.


Because not all mental health issues are either "perfectly fine" or "needs institutionalition"

It's a pretty wide spectrum but you knew that.
You can't use a "pretty wide spectrum" to take away peoples rights.
You have to be very specific.


You can be specific.
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rattler12 said:

BluHorseShu said:

B-1 83 said:

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?



EDIT FROM THE OP: Please be respectful and hear out what potential "solutions" are proposed without going into name calling and attack mode. That's gets threads killed and users banned.
We've been down this road so many times. I'd be more interested in a thread about ideas that would more likely mitigate these things and that conservatives can actually champion. We keep going back to "I don't know what the answer is but taking guns away isn't it". I agree....but why are we pushing hard toward other options? And not even just to counter the dems but to show we really want to work to mitigate these events.
Because when you get right down to it the solutions that need to happen to eliminate crimes such as this are not palatable to the majority of the population
Which solutions are those? Are they something republicans have tried to champion but are shut down? And if they're not palatable by the majority of the U.S. population, but still allow us to not infringe on the 2A, I would hope we could either come up with others, or at least move forward with some compromise. The obvious ones include enforcing laws on the books and then maybe harsher sentences. I never hear other solutions on here other than trying to get more people to carry weapons. The new research on smart weapons seems promising. At least its something if we could produce weapons that could only be shot by the owner.
Old May Banker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There's an easy solution for mass shootings... stop surrendering social issues to degenerates.
Fenrir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BluHorseShu said:

Rattler12 said:

BluHorseShu said:

B-1 83 said:

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?



EDIT FROM THE OP: Please be respectful and hear out what potential "solutions" are proposed without going into name calling and attack mode. That's gets threads killed and users banned.
We've been down this road so many times. I'd be more interested in a thread about ideas that would more likely mitigate these things and that conservatives can actually champion. We keep going back to "I don't know what the answer is but taking guns away isn't it". I agree....but why are we pushing hard toward other options? And not even just to counter the dems but to show we really want to work to mitigate these events.
Because when you get right down to it the solutions that need to happen to eliminate crimes such as this are not palatable to the majority of the population
Which solutions are those? Are they something republicans have tried to champion but are shut down? And if they're not palatable by the majority of the U.S. population, but still allow us to not infringe on the 2A, I would hope we could either come up with others, or at least move forward with some compromise. The obvious ones include enforcing laws on the books and then maybe harsher sentences. I never hear other solutions on here other than trying to get more people to carry weapons. The new research on smart weapons seems promising. At least its something if we could produce weapons that could only be shot by the owner.
Also known as weapons that don't work when they need to.
Goro Majima
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Slicer97 said:

fire09 said:

While I'm sure this is in jest, most trained concealed carriers will egress from a live fire situation like this whenever possible with their loved ones.
This. If I'm at a mall with the wife and kid (because why else would I find myself at a mall) and a mass shooting occurs, I'm collecting my family and heading post haste to the nearest exit. The only way I'm pulling my gun is if there is a shooter between us and our only route to safety.

I'm responsible for the safety of my wife, my kid, and myself. Not the rest of y'all.
This is the way.

In fact it's literally the only way.

It took me a while to grow out of the Batman/Punisher mentality but the CCW is only there for your personal protection and to think otherwise is not only stupid but also crosses over into some legal grey area.
texsn95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

It's bad enough that we can't depend on the government and folks like you to protect us.

Gun control nazis just make it harder for law abiding folks to acquire weapons to defend ourselves.
Folks like me? Are you carrying your AR around on your back when going to the mall? Because I don't give a **** if you carry your pistol while accompanying your wife to lululemon or wherever. It's not all or nothing, and labeling everyone you don't agree with a a Nazi lib is a big reason nothing can be done. Half of you guys on this forum get winded walking up a flight of stairs, but you are going to defend everyone in the parking lot with your 9mm.Ok.
Statements like this really help build your credibility, let me tell you...
Slicer97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pulling it and running towards the sound of gunfire is also a great way to get ventilated by a cop rolling up on scene having no idea who is who.

If you can extricate yourself/loved ones from the area without pulling your weapon, that is what you do. Period.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SteveA said:

Quote:

Your opening position on this matter called for "A ban on semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines would be a start"…. There's no way for you to posit this as a solution and expect folks to take you seriously or knowledgeable on this issue.
That's your opinion, and I welcome it. But to label me a lib or nazi because I don't think these weapons should be easily available is silly and short sided.
Which are you?

You aren't reasonable.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

First, having read the entire thread, you are obfuscating the word "Regulated".
No, he is lying purposefully.
Rattler12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When this thread gets to page 189 anybody think any opinions are going to be changed?
Slicer97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rattler12 said:

When this thread gets to page 189 anybody think any opinions are going to be changed?
No.

Leftists don't understand why their ideas are bad. If they did, they'd stop being leftists.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?
A ban on semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines would be a start. (1) I'm not a gun control guy, but this happened about 4 miles from my house, and my kids were up there at the mall, so I'm a bit biased at the moment. (2) This assault would be much more difficult for a guy armed with a 9mm handgun. (3) The AR style weapons, or any semi auto with a pistol grip makes it too easy. Now, how do you get those out of the hands of people that do this stuff? I have no idea. Not a politician and don't claim to have answers. Obviously laws don't matter or they wouldn't be shooting up malls. But I don't think more guns is the answer. (4) I don't think there is a need for these types of guns to be as available as they are. My opinion. Keeping it civil.
(1) I have bad news for you if you really think this

(2) Virginia Tech wants a word with you on line 2. (Bonus! He didn't even have mags that were above 10 round capacity either, which is another one of your overlord gun control laws that apparently will save lives with magic!)

(3) I'm almost laughing at the sheer stupidity and ignorance of this. But not quite, because you are serious and unfortunately there are millions of others equally as ignorant that are incapable of any reason.

(4) I don't think there is a need for probably 99% of the things you do or own. So once you allow me to ban whatever I feel like banning in your life, we can talk after. Also....that pesky thing called the Constitution was specifically written so that "need" is not in the equation, precisely because of people that think like you do. King George didn't think the colonists needed representation, or their guns either.
Slicer97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well stated.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lesotho said:

B-1 83 said:

Please explain what measures would/should make them more difficult to obtain.


Czech Republic has a good model. I know these measures aren't popular here, but here is a rational proposal. It hurts me to see dead children so I am open to change, while still supporting the 2nd Amendment.

https://www.expats.cz/czech-news/article/czech-gun-laws-may-be-a-model-for-how-to-regulate-guns-in-the-u-s
Quit saying this.

You don't support the 2nd Amendment. You support what you think the 2nd amendment should be so that you get your warm little fuzzies and can go through life thinking somehow that it makes you safe and secure. While you are driving your car down the highway with idiots texting and not paying attention and in a scenario that is orders of magnitude more dangerous to your existence than anything firearm related.
JDL 96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SteveA said:

Quote:

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?
A ban on semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines would be a start. I'm not a gun control guy, but this happened about 4 miles from my house, and my kids were up there at the mall, so I'm a bit biased at the moment. This assault would be much more difficult for a guy armed with a 9mm handgun. The AR style weapons, or any semi auto with a pistol grip makes it too easy. Now, how do you get those out of the hands of people that do this stuff? I have no idea. Not a politician and don't claim to have answers. Obviously laws don't matter or they wouldn't be shooting up malls. But I don't think more guns is the answer. I don't think there is a need for these types of guns to be as available as they are. My opinion. Keeping it civil.
Respectfully: You ARE a gun control guy. You say a ban semi automatic rifles "would be a start". This type of thinking leads to American citizens becoming like Chinese citizens: completely disarmed and helpless to stand up to their authoritarian government.
one safe place
How long do you want to ignore this user?
With presidents like obama and biden, and the corruptness of some of the alphabet agencies, I suspect most people will feel the need for more guns and more ammo. And compromising with the leftists is not a good idea.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lesotho said:

TequilaMockingbird said:

When you talk about banning AR-15 style "assault" weapons, I always go back to the same thought. Just keeping the discussion about guns, what would prevent someone from doing the same thing with a Winchester 30-30, or a 9mm pistol, or a shotgun?


Casualty count would be lower. I don't support semi automatic rifle ban but I do support making them more difficult to acquire. Yes criminals will find a way, but there are a lot of school shooters that walked in and purchased legally and quickly.
*Charles Whitman enters the chat



As to the second point....so you fully admit that no matter what, bad guys will do bad guy things. At least that is something, because generally speaking you and your ilk won't even admit that much. So now that we have that out of the way....tell me why you think myself or anybody else on this thread should be restricted by law (and your insecurities) in what I can use to defend my family, myself, neighbors, etc. with when you readily admit that bad guys don't care about the law and will use those scary black guns that make you dribble in your drawers against me?

Why do you think my family is not worth defending against bad guys? Why do you want my girls to die? If a bad guy was doing bad guy things around you and say I showed up with one of my evil AR's...you would tell me to go away because it's all icky and scary and I shouldn't be allowed to own it and you'd rather you and your family be killed by a bad guy (who you admit doesn't care about the law and will have one) than to be defended by one?
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

I feel for you and your family. I have 6 grandkids going to elementary school so it's possible in my neighborhood too. But the cowards that would do this in my neighborhood know it won't be an easy task because there is a sign at the entrance of the school that is is protected by teachers with pistols inside. And longuns outside.

If they get to take away the long guns do you actually think they would stop there?
I don't know, man. When is the last time a shooter like this made it out alive? I dont think they go in thinking they are going to live. Maybe that sign would make him choose another school...
OK...so you admit that gun free zones are primary choices of locations then? (Hint: that is a verifiable fact).

.....but you still think that schools, malls, etc. should remain that way. Solid logic there.

You also openly admit that having armed teachers and security/police is, in fact, a deterrent? Again, it's a verifiable fact that those intending to do harm choose places with the lowest possibility of resistance. The whacko that shot up the theater in Colorado admitted that he chose the location because he knew it was a gun free zone. The whacko crazy thing that shot up the church school in Tenn chose that school over another because the other it knew had armed security. Those are two cases I can think of off the top of my head that are recent that absolutely prove the point that crazy AF bad guys go out of their way to choose venues that have unarmed victims concentrated in confined spaces because it makes doing crazy AF bad guy things easier. Very similar to how the Germans viewed concentration camps - a lot of unarmed victims that have zero capability to resist and are therefore subject to whatever they chose to do to them.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

BaitShack said:
You lost me at pistol grip.
The_Desert_Fox said:

When you see someone mention cosmetic firearm features as relating to lethality, you can pour their firearms knowledge into a tiny thimble. And their opinions about guns should be immediately disregarded.


100% this
A grip is a bit more than a cosmetic feature. Maybe if you had the knowledge you claim to, instead of the basic talking points, you would know what those advantages are. Hell, in one of the school shootings, the shooter wielded the rifle with a single hand. Can you do that effectively with a traditional stock? Regardless if you want to discard my post because a tiny part, semi auto and high capacity make for a more lethal combo in these circumstances than a handgun.
It is little more than a cosmetic feature. And yes, you can wield a low recoiling rifle with a traditional stock in one hand just as easy.

I have done it, it isn't hard and you are as accurate as you are firing wildly and unsupported as you are with that evil pistol grip that scares you so much that you probably dribble in your pants thinking about it.

BTW - I guarantee you with 100% accuracy that I both know more about firearms in general than you do, and have put more rounds downrange than you have.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

Whoever this Steve guy is, is it possible he's a troll because to continue to sound off while being so totally uninformed about firearms is something only mentally handicapped people would do.
I forgot what kind of clueless responses you get when you aren't in line with the majority in this echo chamber. My bad.
It isn't that. If there was any actual logic or even semblance of having a basic understanding of what you are talking about, odds are you'd get some spritited actual discussion.

But when you spout of drivel and stupidity at the rate and volume you have thus far....well, you get the responses you are getting. Because they are the type of responses commensurate with the type of comments you are making.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ts5641 said:

fka ftc said:

When this became standard issue for every police officer down to small town America Barney Fife, then the citizens went forth and armed themselves in a similar manner.

Someone mentioned on a previous thread that if you want to start a conversation on what guns should be legal, it should start with what the LEOs are allowed to possess.

Edited to add: I included a sample pic, so if you want to comment on what the actual officer has in the pic fine, but the point is many local cops dress up in stormin fallujah gear to pick up someone with o/s warrants for parking tickets.


This is not "standard issue" for every police officer. Not even close. Do you see many patrol officers doing their routine jobs walking around with a rifle? Maybe at special events where there's intel of something possibly going down.
Now officers have been issued more tactical gear at their disposal in the last 10-15 years. Might have something to do with 5 officers being killed in downtown Dallas. Or officers being gunned down in Baton Rouge. Or officer routinely being outgunned the last decade plus.
It started with after action debriefs and assessments resulting from the North Hollywood shootout in 1997, The LEOs that responded were severely outgunned when they came up against bad guys with automatic (not semi auto, full auto - hence "automatic") rifles and body armor. Their .38's and 9mm's didn't have the capability to defeat said armor and the long guns wielded by the bad guys kept most LEO's at distances that made pistol shots to non protected areas nearly impossible.

What is almost always left out of that incident is the fact that a local gun store owner in the area started grabbing AR's off the shelf of his store and giving them to the responding LEO's so that they could at least return fire with similar weapons, and that is what ultimately allowed the bad guys to be neutralized. Civilian AR rifles.

As a result of that incident, more and more departments started having intermediate range arms included with patrol gear, though not carried like the picture. As things like AR's became more and more commonplace and as LEO departments started getting more and more vets with training and knowledge on them, they became more routine. And they should be, because they are simply a far superior weapon over a 9mm pistol, both in accuracy and ammo selection.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

And the Founding Fathers disagreed with you. Fact.
Sort of. As long as we are talking facts...
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Everyone always disregards the well regulated militia part.


I didn't have to show my militia card to pick up a pistol from Academy.
Oh boy. Wow. Just.....wow.

Yeah. Wow.

Let me ask you a question - and I want an honest answer. Or at least as honest as you'll allow yourself to be about yourself: How is it that you are this devoid of knowledge and logic and still can function on a daily basis?
87IE
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

It's bad enough that we can't depend on the government and folks like you to protect us.

Gun control nazis just make it harder for law abiding folks to acquire weapons to defend ourselves.
Folks like me? Are you carrying your AR around on your back when going to the mall? Because I don't give a **** if you carry your pistol while accompanying your wife to lululemon or wherever. It's not all or nothing, and labeling everyone you don't agree with a a Nazi lib is a big reason nothing can be done. Half of you guys on this forum get winded walking up a flight of stairs, but you are going to defend everyone in the parking lot with your 9mm.Ok.
You are wrong on multiple things but this one takes the cake..

I don't carry to protect "everyone". I'm not responsible for your safety, you are.

Corner me or my family and I'll defend myself. Give me an option to escape and I'll do that.

The Virginia Tech shooter had a 9MM Glock and a .22 Walther pistol and killed a bunch of people. Quit concentrating on the weapon and start on the shooters. That's where the solution will come from.

schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FIDO_Ags said:

PE, I am quite emotional and incapable of looking at facts and data well informed and never been high either. I'm just not afraid to come to the circle jerk and advocate for the banning of semiautomatic weapons with high cap mags. I will say I'm not a member of the NRA since I have the experience to ignore their talking points.
And ahhh yes....the NRA boogey man. Like clockwork. You also threw in "need" in one of your earlier statements.

You have checked all of the boxes so far. I bet you are proud of yourself and actually think you are intellectually and morally superior. 100% chance you have a very smug attitude and have perfected the "looking down your nose like Obama" at everybody you feel is below you.
TheEternalPessimist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SteveA said:

Quote:

Your opening position on this matter called for "A ban on semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines would be a start"…. There's no way for you to posit this as a solution and expect folks to take you seriously or knowledgeable on this issue.
That's your opinion, and I welcome it. But to label me a lib or nazi because I don't think these weapons should be easily available is silly and short sided. Since we are talking about it, what should I know? I'm more than willing to hear what you have to say about it. I think starting with limiting the sales of these weapons might curtail some instances. All of them? No. I don't think anyone has a perfect solution, because there isn't one.
I am sorry to hear this happened close to your house. When I lived in Dallas area, my kids played hockey at Allen and we shopped in or close to that mall a lot.

However, your fear does not circumvent the 2nd amendment or my rights. The reasons I should be able to own an AR-15 style rifle are the following:

1. Fail safe against tyrannical government
2. Protection against others with nefarious intent who may or may not have an equally or more powerful weapon.
3. Because I want to own one... or MORE.

Your fear and trauma do not trump my rights. I don't like that you and/or your kids are traumatized. But that does NOT allow you and the masses to usurp my rights.

If you don't like it, you are free to write your State rep and State Senator and get them to support an Amendment to the US Constitution. But getting 3/4 of the states to agree on amending the 2nd Amendment is a stretch.... and you know that don't you.
--

"The Kingdom is for HE that can TAKE IT!" - Alexander
BluHorseShu
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fenrir said:

BluHorseShu said:

Rattler12 said:

BluHorseShu said:

B-1 83 said:

Will our resident gun control crowd please explain what gun laws would have stopped the more recent mass shootings?



EDIT FROM THE OP: Please be respectful and hear out what potential "solutions" are proposed without going into name calling and attack mode. That's gets threads killed and users banned.
We've been down this road so many times. I'd be more interested in a thread about ideas that would more likely mitigate these things and that conservatives can actually champion. We keep going back to "I don't know what the answer is but taking guns away isn't it". I agree....but why are we pushing hard toward other options? And not even just to counter the dems but to show we really want to work to mitigate these events.
Because when you get right down to it the solutions that need to happen to eliminate crimes such as this are not palatable to the majority of the population
Which solutions are those? Are they something republicans have tried to champion but are shut down? And if they're not palatable by the majority of the U.S. population, but still allow us to not infringe on the 2A, I would hope we could either come up with others, or at least move forward with some compromise. The obvious ones include enforcing laws on the books and then maybe harsher sentences. I never hear other solutions on here other than trying to get more people to carry weapons. The new research on smart weapons seems promising. At least its something if we could produce weapons that could only be shot by the owner.
Also known as weapons that don't work when they need to.
Maybe in their current state. Doesn't mean its not a worth while goal. Additionally, even standard weapons without this security fail. Owners fail to maintain them, unreliable ammunition, etc.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SteveA said:

Quote:

Your opening position on this matter called for "A ban on semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines would be a start"…. There's no way for you to posit this as a solution and expect folks to take you seriously or knowledgeable on this issue.
That's your opinion, and I welcome it. But to label me a lib or nazi because I don't think these weapons should be easily available is silly and short sided. Since we are talking about it, what should I know? I'm more than willing to hear what you have to say about it. I think starting with limiting the sales of these weapons might curtail some instances. All of them? No. I don't think anyone has a perfect solution, because there isn't one.
You are correct.

And anything limiting my rights because you have an irrational fear of an inanimate object and are incapable of objectively looking at facts sure AF isn't a perfect solution. It isn't a solution at all.

Imma give you a little knowledge - freedom is inherently dangerous because it allows people to do and act as they wish, which most of the time isn't going to line up perfectly with your internal thoughts on how they should act. There is no such thing as 100% security, no such thing as going through life without being exposed to risks, no such thing as the utopia you and your brethern think will suddenly happen should you get your way with your irrational fears being foisted upon everybody else. Freedom is dangerous because it is freedom.

And I'll take that dangerous freedom 100 times out of 100 over anything that you dream up that limits my freedom. We have enough laws, enough restrictions, enough government, enough Karens and Kyles, enough drama llamas like you that think putting shackles on me somehow protects you from whatever it is you live your life in fear of. Hard pass on all of that. Because when that happens, we lose those freedoms.....but are still exposed to the dangers. Because even the "security" of slavery has inherent dangers, but ones you don't have the freedoms to push back against or protect yourself against.

There are a lot of places you can willingly give your freedoms up and live in should you desire. Instead of trying to destroy my freedoms and abilities to do as I want so you have the illusion of security, how about you willingly give up YOUR freedoms and take on that illusion of security in one of the places in the world that already exists today how you wish this country should exist tomorrow?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.