another shooting in San Bernadino CA

[Len Cnut]

I don't know, maybe it's just some sort of weird coincidence, but all the victims of these shootings are never carrying their own arsenal of weapons to fight back. Poor bastards. Perhaps we're looking at this all wrong. Too many restrictions and not enough guns is the real problem. Now there's a thought, right? Or, we can just keep things the way they are because nothing will ever stop these massacres, and besides, a piece of paper over 2 centuries old and a lot of money says we don't really have to change a thing anyways.

I hesitate to take this conversation any further at the risk of sounding like I am for more guns in society, or even that I am happy as the laws allowing them currently stand, because the truth is I am neither.

that being said, my original point is, imho a valid one.

And in agreement with most gun owners, and that is, with the amount of weapons out there now there is not a piece of legislation that could be passed that can prevent what happened in San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech or any of these mass shootings. There just isn't.

If it would make you feel good if we suddenly "banned" gun possession, or even just banned assault rifles, mega magazines and military style ammo, that is certainly a persons choice.

But again, imho, that would be like handing out placebos to the disillusioned. But I would certainly offer you the glass of water to wash it down.

I don't personally agree with anyone owning an assault rifle and mega ammo, I just don't see the point of the second amendment supporting that.

But the duck has crossed the road on keeping these things out of people who will use whatever resources available to obtain them.

And I believe if I am not mistaken the shooter in the South Carolina church used only a handgun and killed 9 people in less than 40 seconds.

So unless you can find a way to gather up all the handguns in this country, your point is moot.

well fuck that, i'm happy as they stand, shooters don't kill people, psychos with shooters do, all America is doing is presenting the rest of the world with an example of what a free society entails, don't ever lose that, it ain't a bad thing it's just the hard way, I like to think I'm as humanitarian as they come but restriction is just pussying out, 'if there was less guns they'd be less able', fuck that, attack what makes them wanna, not what makes them able, thats my thinking. I mean you go for the root of the cause right, not just the cause cuz then they could just go find a knife or a big stone or a fuckin' car or something, just wait outdoors and mow em down. I wish we had your gun laws over here personally, a lump of metal don't make people wanna go kill people, thats something fucked up in their head, thats what you need to address, nevermind trimming down the efficency with which they can do the shit, thats just pussying out of the real problem and trying to bring rates down so you got as much of an issue as the next country, that ain't solving the problem thats just settling, 'we're down to the local overage now so it's OK cuz only 5 died', well I'd hate to be the fuckin' 5, i'll say that much.

That ain't humanitarian, it's political. These people are fuckin' psychos, do you understand that, psychos? (not you Shades, generally). As in a fuckin' lunatic, you wanna make it so Grandpa Cunningham can't duck hunt in case someone finds his rifle and wants to rip a kids school up, fuck that, go for the psycho not the fuckin' iron he used.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Len B'stard

[shades]

fuck that, attack what makes them wanna, not what makes them able

Can always count on you Lenny to say something poetic, in your own warped way

poetry

Edited December 6, 2015 by shades

[Len Cnut]

There is something seriously ugly and cynical and defeatist about attacking the means and not the cause is what i mean, it says something really awful about the faith people have in the human race. All these fuckin' liberal people and the true face of their liberalness boils down to 'fuck it, we're all psychos, hold us down and we'll behave', fuck that shit.

If you SERIOUSLY believe in freedom of choice and freedom of speech and the advancement of the human race through those things then lets REALLY go for it and don't pussy out when things get rough cuz this is evolution, this is us following the path and taking the knocks as they come, there's a way out of this and it ain't to just resort to becoming restrictive and fuckin' fascist about things, today it's guns tommorow it'll be drink cuz the drink makes you beat your wife and so on and so forth and everything in between until you can't go take a slash without a permit and that'll be freedom for ya, might as well fuckin' hand in your cards and give in to Islamists now if thats your thinking, the terrorist ones i mean.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Len B'stard

[bran]

I don't know, maybe it's just some sort of weird coincidence, but all the victims of these shootings are never carrying their own arsenal of weapons to fight back. Poor bastards. Perhaps we're looking at this all wrong. Too many restrictions and not enough guns is the real problem. Now there's a thought, right? Or, we can just keep things the way they are because nothing will ever stop these massacres, and besides, a piece of paper over 2 centuries old and a lot of money says we don't really have to change a thing anyways.

I hesitate to take this conversation any further at the risk of sounding like I am for more guns in society, or even that I am happy as the laws allowing them currently stand, because the truth is I am neither.

that being said, my original point is, imho a valid one.

And in agreement with most gun owners, and that is, with the amount of weapons out there now there is not a piece of legislation that could be passed that can prevent what happened in San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech or any of these mass shootings. There just isn't.

If it would make you feel good if we suddenly "banned" gun possession, or even just banned assault rifles, mega magazines and military style ammo, that is certainly a persons choice.

But again, imho, that would be like handing out placebos to the disillusioned. But I would certainly offer you the glass of water to wash it down.

I don't personally agree with anyone owning an assault rifle and mega ammo, I just don't see the point of the second amendment supporting that.

But the duck has crossed the road on keeping these things out of people who will use whatever resources available to obtain them.

And I believe if I am not mistaken the shooter in the South Carolina church used only a handgun and killed 9 people in less than 40 seconds.

So unless you can find a way to gather up all the handguns in this country, your point is moot.

well fuck that, i'm happy as they stand, shooters don't kill people, psychos with shooters do, all America is doing is presenting the rest of the world with an example of what a free society entails, don't ever lose that, it ain't a bad thing it's just the hard way, I like to think I'm as humanitarian as they come but restriction is just pussying out, 'if there was less guns they'd be less able', fuck that, attack what makes them wanna, not what makes them able, thats my thinking. I mean you go for the root of the cause right, not just the cause cuz then they could just go find a knife or a big stone or a fuckin' car or something, just wait outdoors and mow em down. I wish we had your gun laws over here personally, a lump of metal don't make people wanna go kill people, thats something fucked up in their head, thats what you need to address, nevermind trimming down the efficency with which they can do the shit, thats just pussying out of the real problem and trying to bring rates down so you got as much of an issue as the next country, that ain't solving the problem thats just settling, 'we're down to the local overage now so it's OK cuz only 5 died', well I'd hate to be the fuckin' 5, i'll say that much.

That ain't humanitarian, it's political. These people are fuckin' psychos, do you understand that, psychos? (not you Shades, generally). As in a fuckin' lunatic, you wanna make it so Grandpa Cunningham can't duck hunt in case someone finds his rifle and wants to rip a kids school up, fuck that, go for the psycho not the fuckin' iron he used.

god damn it len for a dirty punker you are alright

i own 2 guns and not once in my life have i ever wanted to kill anyone. i fucking make sure my gun is locked up but if you watch the media every gun owner is a nutjob hoarding ammo in some bunker. every walk of life owns a gun from lawyers to politicians, democrats and republicans. its the real dirty truth to the gun issue, it cuts through political lines, when sandy hook came up politicians worried more about their reelection chances than actually giving a shit about the dead but they will get up there and grand stand all the while surrounded by crazy amounts of firepower..... guns are evil except when they are protecting me!

what laws would have stopped this? the guns used in this attack were illegal in the state of california, san bernardino is a 2 hour drive to mexico. you know how many guns are smuggled from mexico a day? i posted in the last gun thread about homemade guns, a shipment of guns was found at the border, what scared border agents, all these guns were homemade and acted and shot like any gun made in a US plant. what is also scary is usually mexican drug cartel leaders will pay families of mules just to get caught, so with that shipment being caught, how many were actually smuggled through?

i mean what do you do go up to a psycho "sir, these guns are illegal in this state, murder is also illegal just to let you know sir" im sure the psycho will realize the law will render him powerless to act on his impulses.

[Len Cnut]

I don't know, maybe it's just some sort of weird coincidence, but all the victims of these shootings are never carrying their own arsenal of weapons to fight back. Poor bastards. Perhaps we're looking at this all wrong. Too many restrictions and not enough guns is the real problem. Now there's a thought, right? Or, we can just keep things the way they are because nothing will ever stop these massacres, and besides, a piece of paper over 2 centuries old and a lot of money says we don't really have to change a thing anyways.

I hesitate to take this conversation any further at the risk of sounding like I am for more guns in society, or even that I am happy as the laws allowing them currently stand, because the truth is I am neither.

that being said, my original point is, imho a valid one.

And in agreement with most gun owners, and that is, with the amount of weapons out there now there is not a piece of legislation that could be passed that can prevent what happened in San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech or any of these mass shootings. There just isn't.

If it would make you feel good if we suddenly "banned" gun possession, or even just banned assault rifles, mega magazines and military style ammo, that is certainly a persons choice.

But again, imho, that would be like handing out placebos to the disillusioned. But I would certainly offer you the glass of water to wash it down.

I don't personally agree with anyone owning an assault rifle and mega ammo, I just don't see the point of the second amendment supporting that.

But the duck has crossed the road on keeping these things out of people who will use whatever resources available to obtain them.

And I believe if I am not mistaken the shooter in the South Carolina church used only a handgun and killed 9 people in less than 40 seconds.

So unless you can find a way to gather up all the handguns in this country, your point is moot.

well fuck that, i'm happy as they stand, shooters don't kill people, psychos with shooters do, all America is doing is presenting the rest of the world with an example of what a free society entails, don't ever lose that, it ain't a bad thing it's just the hard way, I like to think I'm as humanitarian as they come but restriction is just pussying out, 'if there was less guns they'd be less able', fuck that, attack what makes them wanna, not what makes them able, thats my thinking. I mean you go for the root of the cause right, not just the cause cuz then they could just go find a knife or a big stone or a fuckin' car or something, just wait outdoors and mow em down. I wish we had your gun laws over here personally, a lump of metal don't make people wanna go kill people, thats something fucked up in their head, thats what you need to address, nevermind trimming down the efficency with which they can do the shit, thats just pussying out of the real problem and trying to bring rates down so you got as much of an issue as the next country, that ain't solving the problem thats just settling, 'we're down to the local overage now so it's OK cuz only 5 died', well I'd hate to be the fuckin' 5, i'll say that much.

That ain't humanitarian, it's political. These people are fuckin' psychos, do you understand that, psychos? (not you Shades, generally). As in a fuckin' lunatic, you wanna make it so Grandpa Cunningham can't duck hunt in case someone finds his rifle and wants to rip a kids school up, fuck that, go for the psycho not the fuckin' iron he used.

god damn it len for a dirty punker you are alright

i own 2 guns and not once in my life have i ever wanted to kill anyone. i fucking make sure my gun is locked up but if you watch the media every gun owner is a nutjob hoarding ammo in some bunker. every walk of life owns a gun from lawyers to politicians, democrats and republicans. its the real dirty truth to the gun issue, it cuts through political lines, when sandy hook came up politicians worried more about their reelection chances than actually giving a shit about the dead but they will get up there and grand stand all the while surrounded by crazy amounts of firepower..... guns are evil except when they are protecting me!

what laws would have stopped this? the guns used in this attack were illegal in the state of california, san bernardino is a 2 hour drive to mexico. you know how many guns are smuggled from mexico a day? i posted in the last gun thread about homemade guns, a shipment of guns was found at the border, what scared border agents, all these guns were homemade and acted and shot like any gun made in a US plant. what is also scary is usually mexican drug cartel leaders will pay families of mules just to get caught, so with that shipment being caught, how many were actually smuggled through?

i mean what do you do go up to a psycho "sir, these guns are illegal in this state, murder is also illegal just to let you know sir" im sure the psycho will realize the law will render him powerless to act on his impulses.

This is exactly what i mean, it's just bullshit, you're a greaser right, you come from an area that fits the fuckin' prejudiced idea of what a psycho American nutjob is, profile-wise, perfectly, owns a gun, right fuckin' location, listens to Metal, there you go, exactly the kinda person you'd wanna keep shooters from and you got shooters and how many massacres you committed? Fucking none, simple as that, and the reason for that is you're a sweetheart just like 500 million other metallers are sweethearts, it REALLY aint that fuckin' complicated, what makes the idea of freedom to express oneself and be oneself beautiful is that when you can you dont want or need to harm anyone else, these are beautiful ideals, reach and grasp for them, thats the fuckin' advancement of the human race right there, we are not defined by the lunatics that make us look bad, you can either approach this with a restrictive fascist mindset or you can let people be free and from that standpoint seek to address the issue that trouble us that are a result of our evolution but if you want to take the restrictive path and see it through to it's logical conclusion then thats fuckin' easy, just lock up everybody on this earth that exists in state sponsored camps until they can prove themselves innocent, make the world into a fuckin' guilty until proven innocent type thing and we'll just roll from there, see how far it gets us.

We're gonna try and work out whoose lethal now based on social prejudice, thats basically what it is right? Cuz I'm fuckin' brown skinned from the crazy part of the world and you're a metalhead from middle America, we got our own kinda psycho profile, so far we ain't killed nary-a homeless person It's intellectual indolence is what it is.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Len B'stard

[bran]

I don't know, maybe it's just some sort of weird coincidence, but all the victims of these shootings are never carrying their own arsenal of weapons to fight back. Poor bastards. Perhaps we're looking at this all wrong. Too many restrictions and not enough guns is the real problem. Now there's a thought, right? Or, we can just keep things the way they are because nothing will ever stop these massacres, and besides, a piece of paper over 2 centuries old and a lot of money says we don't really have to change a thing anyways.

I hesitate to take this conversation any further at the risk of sounding like I am for more guns in society, or even that I am happy as the laws allowing them currently stand, because the truth is I am neither.

that being said, my original point is, imho a valid one.

And in agreement with most gun owners, and that is, with the amount of weapons out there now there is not a piece of legislation that could be passed that can prevent what happened in San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech or any of these mass shootings. There just isn't.

If it would make you feel good if we suddenly "banned" gun possession, or even just banned assault rifles, mega magazines and military style ammo, that is certainly a persons choice.

But again, imho, that would be like handing out placebos to the disillusioned. But I would certainly offer you the glass of water to wash it down.

I don't personally agree with anyone owning an assault rifle and mega ammo, I just don't see the point of the second amendment supporting that.

But the duck has crossed the road on keeping these things out of people who will use whatever resources available to obtain them.

And I believe if I am not mistaken the shooter in the South Carolina church used only a handgun and killed 9 people in less than 40 seconds.

So unless you can find a way to gather up all the handguns in this country, your point is moot.

well fuck that, i'm happy as they stand, shooters don't kill people, psychos with shooters do, all America is doing is presenting the rest of the world with an example of what a free society entails, don't ever lose that, it ain't a bad thing it's just the hard way, I like to think I'm as humanitarian as they come but restriction is just pussying out, 'if there was less guns they'd be less able', fuck that, attack what makes them wanna, not what makes them able, thats my thinking. I mean you go for the root of the cause right, not just the cause cuz then they could just go find a knife or a big stone or a fuckin' car or something, just wait outdoors and mow em down. I wish we had your gun laws over here personally, a lump of metal don't make people wanna go kill people, thats something fucked up in their head, thats what you need to address, nevermind trimming down the efficency with which they can do the shit, thats just pussying out of the real problem and trying to bring rates down so you got as much of an issue as the next country, that ain't solving the problem thats just settling, 'we're down to the local overage now so it's OK cuz only 5 died', well I'd hate to be the fuckin' 5, i'll say that much.

That ain't humanitarian, it's political. These people are fuckin' psychos, do you understand that, psychos? (not you Shades, generally). As in a fuckin' lunatic, you wanna make it so Grandpa Cunningham can't duck hunt in case someone finds his rifle and wants to rip a kids school up, fuck that, go for the psycho not the fuckin' iron he used.

god damn it len for a dirty punker you are alright

i own 2 guns and not once in my life have i ever wanted to kill anyone. i fucking make sure my gun is locked up but if you watch the media every gun owner is a nutjob hoarding ammo in some bunker. every walk of life owns a gun from lawyers to politicians, democrats and republicans. its the real dirty truth to the gun issue, it cuts through political lines, when sandy hook came up politicians worried more about their reelection chances than actually giving a shit about the dead but they will get up there and grand stand all the while surrounded by crazy amounts of firepower..... guns are evil except when they are protecting me!

what laws would have stopped this? the guns used in this attack were illegal in the state of california, san bernardino is a 2 hour drive to mexico. you know how many guns are smuggled from mexico a day? i posted in the last gun thread about homemade guns, a shipment of guns was found at the border, what scared border agents, all these guns were homemade and acted and shot like any gun made in a US plant. what is also scary is usually mexican drug cartel leaders will pay families of mules just to get caught, so with that shipment being caught, how many were actually smuggled through?

i mean what do you do go up to a psycho "sir, these guns are illegal in this state, murder is also illegal just to let you know sir" im sure the psycho will realize the law will render him powerless to act on his impulses.

This is exactly what i mean, it's just bullshit, you're a greaser right, you come from an area that fits the fuckin' prejudiced idea of what a psycho American nutjob is, profile-wise, perfectly, owns a gun, right fuckin' location, listens to Metal, there you go, exactly the kinda person you'd wanna keep shooters from and you got shooters and how many massacres you committed? Fucking none, simple as that, and the reason for that is you're a sweetheart just like 500 million other metallers are sweethearts, it REALLY aint that fuckin' complicated, what makes the idea of freedom to express oneself and be oneself beautiful is that when you can you dont want or need to harm anyone else, these are beautiful ideals, reach and grasp for them, thats the fuckin' advancement of the human race right there, we are not defined by the lunatics that make us look bad, you can either approach this with a restrictive fascist mindset or you can let people be free and from that standpoint seek to address the issue that trouble us that are a result of our evolution but if you want to take the restrictive path and see it through to it's logical conclusion then thats fuckin' easy, just lock up everybody on this earth that exists in state sponsored camps until they can prove themselves innocent, make the world into a fuckin' guilty until proven innocent type thing and we'll just roll from there, see how far it gets us.

We're gonna try and work out whoose lethal now based on social prejudice, thats basically what it is right? Cuz I'm fuckin' brown skinned from the crazy part of the world and you're a metalhead from middle America, we got our own kinda psycho profile, so far we ain't killed nary-a homeless person It's intellectual indolence is what it is.

exactly

[Strange Broue]

Meanwhile in London

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/05/europe/london-tube-stabbings/index.html

[bran]

Meanwhile in London

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/05/europe/london-tube-stabbings/index.html

yeah that is horrible. china had a terrorist attack last year where 29 people were stabbed to death and over 100 wounded. people are fucking nuts everywhere.

[Patience 4 Axl]

I think most people are smart enough to realize that the majority of deaths and injuries involving guns aren't caused by psychos at all. About 100 people die in the US every day from firearms, whether it's suicide, homicide, or accidental - with many of those in particular involving children. So no, it's not just the psycho with the assault weapons breaking lose in a movie theater, a school, a shopping mall, or a workplace holiday party, the problem is that it's anyone with access to a gun. Any gun.

And as for living in a free society, well that has become a bit of misnomer at this point. When I can no longer walk into an office building for a meeting without first have to pass thru a metal detector and have my purse xrayed, or go to a concert without being frisked, or see a kid with a backpack on his way to school randomly stopped in the subway to have it searched by a police officer carrying an automatic rifle, it just doesn't feel all that 'free'.

I know people who own guns. And yeah, I've heard them ever so proudly explain how diligent they are with locking it away in one place, and locking the ammunition away in another. Protection? Because if someone breaks into your home they'll wait for you to grab the key, get the gun, grab the other key, get the bullets, load it up, aim. Unless it's all bullshit and they sleep with the loaded pistol uner their pillow. Whatever it is, sorry but I just don't get it. The ability to own a gun and the thought that I could potentially end a life with it just isn't the definition of freedom for me. I've got an alarm system in my home. I even have one of those little signs near the door proclaiming I've got this alarm system. All I can say is, so far so good.

[Len Cnut]

I was using psycho as a broader term to denote someone that would shoot someone pointlessly. As far as accidental well shit, Americas a big place, i bet at least 20 a day die from slipping and falling or something. How many are saved by a gun though? How many police officers are on the scene with a firearm to save someones life across America every day? 9/11 was done by guys with boxcutters right? Imagine if the Captain had had a shooter in the cockpit, what then, they'd still be fishing bits of hollow tip out of Mohammed Attas arse is what. They coulda landed the plane, cracked open the doors and kicked the fuckin' stretcher with his body on it under the next oncoming plane.

And for some people its essential, like farmers and that, farmers got to have a rifle.

[shades]

Whatever it is, sorry but I just don't get it.

finally, something we can all agree on.

I don't think, at least from personal experience that a gun owner that chooses to keep his gun "safe" meaning unloaded has the illusion you pointed out of being able to respond in a nano second to a home intruder.

but,

what he does find solace in is that he has a weapon, some sort of reaction to the threat.

Maybe it's just "someone on the loose in the area", or a "noise from the basement".

And before anyone says the odds are long, remember it still is a right, and yes a right written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago.

And there is a democratic process, written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago to change that right, should one be able to garner majority opinion.

But it aint gonna happen here.

Work on the problem if it so bothers you, the real problem.

your liberal leaders refusing to violate their voting bloc screaming "rights to privacy", "racial profiling", "give me your tired, your poor....."

[classicrawker]

Interesting people here are ranting about the second amendment and depriving people of their rights to own as many assault rifles as they want yet have no problem giving the government the power to read and listen into our communications and target certain religious and ethnic groups for profiling and depriving them of their rights. Weird.......

[Patience 4 Axl]

Whatever it is, sorry but I just don't get it.

finally, something we can all agree on.

I don't think, at least from personal experience that a gun owner that chooses to keep his gun "safe" meaning unloaded has the illusion you pointed out of being able to respond in a nano second to a home intruder.

but,

what he does find solace in is that he has a weapon, some sort of reaction to the threat.

Maybe it's just "someone on the loose in the area", or a "noise from the basement".

And before anyone says the odds are long, remember it still is a right, and yes a right written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago.

And there is a democratic process, written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago to change that right, should one be able to garner majority opinion.

But it aint gonna happen here.

Work on the problem if it so bothers you, the real problem.

your liberal leaders refusing to violate their voting bloc screaming "rights to privacy", "racial profiling", "give me your tired, your poor....."

It's true, I don't get it, and I have no issue with even wanting to. I personally don't see how someone could take solace with owning a gun, because from my perspective it reeks more of fear than comfort. If I heard a noise, my immediate reaction would be to reach for a phone, not a firearm. I'm not a soldier, I'm not a police officer, so that's not a mentality I would ever want to exist in. As I said, I have no doubt my alarm system, and a dog that will bark at a leaf that flutters outside the window, is more of a deterrent than the thought of a homeowner, most likely in the middle of a deep sleep, may or may not have a gun tucked away in a safe place somewhere. There are safer ways to protect your home, and those in it you love. It's a fact that studies have shown a home with a gun is more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. But 'stuff happens' Jeb Bush.

Yeah yeah, I know, those big bad liberals trying to infringe upon your rights.. Sucks, don't it. Your kind seems to forget that others have been granted rights as well. And while they may not have been concocted by men in white wigs now turned to dust, they too are law. You know, the one where women were given the right to choose. That's right, I went there.

There's a lot of preaching going on, and a lot of restrictions being imposed, and way too many debates just on this very forum, but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's a whole different story. Would be funny if it wasn't so fucking hypocritical. It's a shame the right to life isn't an important issue for conservatives after it leaves the womb. (paraphrasing a point made by Trevor Noah there). But not surprising, I've never been given a real proposal on what should happen after the birth of an unwanted child, instead, you guys just fast forward 18 years and make sure he has a gun if he wants one. Bravo. So keep touting the democratic process, especially when it only serves your own agenda.

[bran]

http://realestate.aol.com/blog/videos/real-estate/517452124/

[Patience 4 Axl]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/mackeon-schulte-shooting_n_7337046.html

[Dazey]

Whatever it is, sorry but I just don't get it.

finally, something we can all agree on.

I don't think, at least from personal experience that a gun owner that chooses to keep his gun "safe" meaning unloaded has the illusion you pointed out of being able to respond in a nano second to a home intruder.

but,

what he does find solace in is that he has a weapon, some sort of reaction to the threat.

Maybe it's just "someone on the loose in the area", or a "noise from the basement".

And before anyone says the odds are long, remember it still is a right, and yes a right written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago.

And there is a democratic process, written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago to change that right, should one be able to garner majority opinion.

But it aint gonna happen here.

Work on the problem if it so bothers you, the real problem.

your liberal leaders refusing to violate their voting bloc screaming "rights to privacy", "racial profiling", "give me your tired, your poor....."

It's true, I don't get it, and I have no issue with even wanting to. I personally don't see how someone could take solace with owning a gun, because from my perspective it reeks more of fear than comfort. If I heard a noise, my immediate reaction would be to reach for a phone, not a firearm. I'm not a soldier, I'm not a police officer, so that's not a mentality I would ever want to exist in. As I said, I have no doubt my alarm system, and a dog that will bark at a leaf that flutters outside the window, is more of a deterrent than the thought of a homeowner, most likely in the middle of a deep sleep, may or may not have a gun tucked away in a safe place somewhere. There are safer ways to protect your home, and those in it you love. It's a fact that studies have shown a home with a gun is more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. But 'stuff happens' Jeb Bush.

Yeah yeah, I know, those big bad liberals trying to infringe upon your rights.. Sucks, don't it. Your kind seems to forget that others have been granted rights as well. And while they may not have been concocted by men in white wigs now turned to dust, they too are law. You know, the one where women were given the right to choose. That's right, I went there.

There's a lot of preaching going on, and a lot of restrictions being imposed, and way too many debates just on this very forum, but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's a whole different story. Would be funny if it wasn't so fucking hypocritical. It's a shame the right to life isn't an important issue for conservatives after it leaves the womb. (paraphrasing a point made by Trevor Noah there). But not surprising, I've never been given a real proposal on what should happen after the birth of an unwanted child, instead, you guys just fast forward 18 years and make sure he has a gun if he wants one. Bravo. So keep touting the democratic process, especially when it only serves your own agenda.

Boom!!!! *drops mic*

[Len Cnut]

Whatever it is, sorry but I just don't get it.

finally, something we can all agree on.

I don't think, at least from personal experience that a gun owner that chooses to keep his gun "safe" meaning unloaded has the illusion you pointed out of being able to respond in a nano second to a home intruder.

but,

what he does find solace in is that he has a weapon, some sort of reaction to the threat.

Maybe it's just "someone on the loose in the area", or a "noise from the basement".

And before anyone says the odds are long, remember it still is a right, and yes a right written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago.

And there is a democratic process, written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago to change that right, should one be able to garner majority opinion.

But it aint gonna happen here.

Work on the problem if it so bothers you, the real problem.

your liberal leaders refusing to violate their voting bloc screaming "rights to privacy", "racial profiling", "give me your tired, your poor....."

It's true, I don't get it, and I have no issue with even wanting to. I personally don't see how someone could take solace with owning a gun, because from my perspective it reeks more of fear than comfort. If I heard a noise, my immediate reaction would be to reach for a phone, not a firearm. I'm not a soldier, I'm not a police officer, so that's not a mentality I would ever want to exist in. As I said, I have no doubt my alarm system, and a dog that will bark at a leaf that flutters outside the window, is more of a deterrent than the thought of a homeowner, most likely in the middle of a deep sleep, may or may not have a gun tucked away in a safe place somewhere. There are safer ways to protect your home, and those in it you love. It's a fact that studies have shown a home with a gun is more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. But 'stuff happens' Jeb Bush.

Yeah yeah, I know, those big bad liberals trying to infringe upon your rights.. Sucks, don't it. Your kind seems to forget that others have been granted rights as well. And while they may not have been concocted by men in white wigs now turned to dust, they too are law. You know, the one where women were given the right to choose. That's right, I went there.

There's a lot of preaching going on, and a lot of restrictions being imposed, and way too many debates just on this very forum, but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's a whole different story. Would be funny if it wasn't so fucking hypocritical. It's a shame the right to life isn't an important issue for conservatives after it leaves the womb. (paraphrasing a point made by Trevor Noah there). But not surprising, I've never been given a real proposal on what should happen after the birth of an unwanted child, instead, you guys just fast forward 18 years and make sure he has a gun if he wants one. Bravo. So keep touting the democratic process, especially when it only serves your own agenda.

Boom!!!! *drops mic*

You hypocritical vat of dripping, you was on holiday in the states and got your hands on shooters

[Apollo]

3,500 people die every year from drowning.

Let's ban swimming pools!!!!

Democrats and people who don't like guns will politicize events like SB to bash republicans and gun owners. As soon as this topic went up you already knew what 4-5 posters would specifically say in it.

Len has won this topic.

Dude isn't begging his own political agenda into the topic and is just speaking FACTS.

Thank you Len. It's refreshing to see posts from people who are able to put aside their own political bias and just post on the actual topic.

Guns are the side issue. Nobody thinks people need to possess assault rifles and thousands of bullets. Nobody wants it to be easy for people to obtain guns.

The issue is the people carrying out these attacks. Remind me how many people Timothy McVeigh killed and how many guns were used? How many guns were use on the 9/11 attacks?

I would love for the liberals to use these tragedies to come up with solutions instead of just using them as another opportunity to tell us how evil republicans and gun owners are.

Len - you are The Man.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Apollo

[Dazey]

Whatever it is, sorry but I just don't get it.

finally, something we can all agree on.

I don't think, at least from personal experience that a gun owner that chooses to keep his gun "safe" meaning unloaded has the illusion you pointed out of being able to respond in a nano second to a home intruder.

but,

what he does find solace in is that he has a weapon, some sort of reaction to the threat.

Maybe it's just "someone on the loose in the area", or a "noise from the basement".

And before anyone says the odds are long, remember it still is a right, and yes a right written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago.

And there is a democratic process, written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago to change that right, should one be able to garner majority opinion.

But it aint gonna happen here.

Work on the problem if it so bothers you, the real problem.

your liberal leaders refusing to violate their voting bloc screaming "rights to privacy", "racial profiling", "give me your tired, your poor....."

It's true, I don't get it, and I have no issue with even wanting to. I personally don't see how someone could take solace with owning a gun, because from my perspective it reeks more of fear than comfort. If I heard a noise, my immediate reaction would be to reach for a phone, not a firearm. I'm not a soldier, I'm not a police officer, so that's not a mentality I would ever want to exist in. As I said, I have no doubt my alarm system, and a dog that will bark at a leaf that flutters outside the window, is more of a deterrent than the thought of a homeowner, most likely in the middle of a deep sleep, may or may not have a gun tucked away in a safe place somewhere. There are safer ways to protect your home, and those in it you love. It's a fact that studies have shown a home with a gun is more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. But 'stuff happens' Jeb Bush.

Yeah yeah, I know, those big bad liberals trying to infringe upon your rights.. Sucks, don't it. Your kind seems to forget that others have been granted rights as well. And while they may not have been concocted by men in white wigs now turned to dust, they too are law. You know, the one where women were given the right to choose. That's right, I went there.

There's a lot of preaching going on, and a lot of restrictions being imposed, and way too many debates just on this very forum, but when the shoe is on the other foot, it's a whole different story. Would be funny if it wasn't so fucking hypocritical. It's a shame the right to life isn't an important issue for conservatives after it leaves the womb. (paraphrasing a point made by Trevor Noah there). But not surprising, I've never been given a real proposal on what should happen after the birth of an unwanted child, instead, you guys just fast forward 18 years and make sure he has a gun if he wants one. Bravo. So keep touting the democratic process, especially when it only serves your own agenda.

Boom!!!! *drops mic*

You hypocritical vat of dripping, you was on holiday in the states and got your hands on shooters

Doesn't mean she wasn't 100% correct in every single syllable.

[MB.]

Doesn't mean she wasn't 100% correct in every single syllable.

She almost always is. So great to read her quality posts again, I missed her ♥️

[SoulMonster]

I would love for the liberals to use these tragedies to come up with solutions instead of just using them as another opportunity to tell us how evil republicans and gun owners are.

Reducing the amounts of guns in circulation IS a solution because it WILL lower the amounts of gun casualties.

[downzy]

I don't know, maybe it's just some sort of weird coincidence, but all the victims of these shootings are never carrying their own arsenal of weapons to fight back. Poor bastards. Perhaps we're looking at this all wrong. Too many restrictions and not enough guns is the real problem. Now there's a thought, right? Or, we can just keep things the way they are because nothing will ever stop these massacres, and besides, a piece of paper over 2 centuries old and a lot of money says we don't really have to change a thing anyways.

I hesitate to take this conversation any further at the risk of sounding like I am for more guns in society, or even that I am happy as the laws allowing them currently stand, because the truth is I am neither.

that being said, my original point is, imho a valid one.

And in agreement with most gun owners, and that is, with the amount of weapons out there now there is not a piece of legislation that could be passed that can prevent what happened in San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech or any of these mass shootings. There just isn't.

If it would make you feel good if we suddenly "banned" gun possession, or even just banned assault rifles, mega magazines and military style ammo, that is certainly a persons choice.

But again, imho, that would be like handing out placebos to the disillusioned. But I would certainly offer you the glass of water to wash it down.

I don't personally agree with anyone owning an assault rifle and mega ammo, I just don't see the point of the second amendment supporting that.

But the duck has crossed the road on keeping these things out of people who will use whatever resources available to obtain them.

And I believe if I am not mistaken the shooter in the South Carolina church used only a handgun and killed 9 people in less than 40 seconds.

So unless you can find a way to gather up all the handguns in this country, your point is moot.

well fuck that, i'm happy as they stand, shooters don't kill people, psychos with shooters do, all America is doing is presenting the rest of the world with an example of what a free society entails, don't ever lose that, it ain't a bad thing it's just the hard way, I like to think I'm as humanitarian as they come but restriction is just pussying out, 'if there was less guns they'd be less able', fuck that, attack what makes them wanna, not what makes them able, thats my thinking. I mean you go for the root of the cause right, not just the cause cuz then they could just go find a knife or a big stone or a fuckin' car or something, just wait outdoors and mow em down. I wish we had your gun laws over here personally, a lump of metal don't make people wanna go kill people, thats something fucked up in their head, thats what you need to address, nevermind trimming down the efficency with which they can do the shit, thats just pussying out of the real problem and trying to bring rates down so you got as much of an issue as the next country, that ain't solving the problem thats just settling, 'we're down to the local overage now so it's OK cuz only 5 died', well I'd hate to be the fuckin' 5, i'll say that much.

That ain't humanitarian, it's political. These people are fuckin' psychos, do you understand that, psychos? (not you Shades, generally). As in a fuckin' lunatic, you wanna make it so Grandpa Cunningham can't duck hunt in case someone finds his rifle and wants to rip a kids school up, fuck that, go for the psycho not the fuckin' iron he used.

Your argument seems to be that a "free society" and the right to own any style or firearm are two mutually inclusive propositions. They're not. It's a value judgement that you yourself and others of like mind are making. It's no more a truism than stating that owning a Mercedes equals happiness.

This idealized and romantic notion that rights enumerated under the U.S. constitution can't be curtailed or limited without sacrificing their de jure spirit is baseless. Context, de facto application, and nuance all plays a part in how rights are applied and exercised. The U.S. constitution demands for freedom of speech and due process, but in practice those rights find themselves limited when and where necessary. What I find odd is that the nuanced application of the first and fourth amendments relating to free speech and due process becomes lost when it comes to the second amendment for gun advocates. Why do most NRA members support the Patriot Act that greatly curtailed a person's right to privacy and their right to due process but limiting ammunition clip size is violation of the Constitution and a threat to freedom and liberty? It's arbitrary bullshit and complete nonsense.

The other fallacy common place, particularly in your post, is gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the opposing argument. Most gun regulations proposed by lawmakers in the United States would still allow grandpa to own his hunting rifle. That's not what the discussion is about. The greater concern is limiting the access to those who shouldn't have guns (and to a lesser extent, limiting the destructive power of certain types of guns). But you can't even have that conversation in the U.S. without the NRA threatening the political careers of current legislators. It's all fear-based demagoguery that's utterly devoid of reason or reality.

Moreover, it's divorced of what's feasible or realistic. The suggestion that more time and energy should be focused on addressing the mentally ill is all fine and good, but it's an impractical solution to a straight forward problem (one that doesn't present itself in other nations like it does in the United States). Here is the reality: 40 percent of gun purchases in the United States occur in the secondary market where there is no background check. 80 percent of former inmates obtain their guns through these secondary markets. But when you propose changing the laws to close this loophole, you have the usual suspects argue that it wouldn't do anything and would lead to the eventual ban of all gun sales and ownership in the United States. These are not reasonable or grounded arguments and frankly, those who make those arguments shouldn't be taken seriously or have their opinions considered. They're not being genuine, do not care about facts and figures, and are speaking from a place of fear.

Furthermore, let's drill down on the concept of "psychos." One in every two women killed with a gun is killed by an intimate partner. Some times the "psycho" doesn't present itself until certain conditions arise. Interestingly, in the few states that do require a background check in the secondary market, the number of women who are killed by former partners drops by 40 percent. That's a real difference where real lives were saved. Your argument, at best, dismisses this reality or at worse, fails to imply any sense of concern for the women saved as a result of a very sensible gun law. And for what? Some fantasize notion of "freedom?" You often hear that a bad guy will get a gun regardless, but here's a clear example of where the data doesn't support that notion.

Again, this idealized notion of freedom and its association to firearm possession has real world consequences. You can't argue that you are a humanitarian while suggesting a free society is one that allows unhindered access to guns. That's a contradiction in terms if I've ever heard one. The United States, with the most liberal gun regulations in the world, is the world leader by a wide margin of death as a result of gun violence:

It's not a matter of the U.S. being a bigger country. Granted, it's a more violent country, and even if all proposed gun laws were enacted the nation would still likely lead in that category on a per-capita basis. But the occurrence of gun death in the U.S. when compared to other countries underscores how much of an outlier the nation is. To suggest that there's not a causal relation between the most lax gun laws in the developed world and the most gun-related deaths in the developed world is absurd. If you're fine with such high human costs required for your concept of freedom, how in God's name do you call yourself a humanitarian?

[AxlisOld]

Damn, Finland stabs as many people as Americans.

[SoulMonster]

The fact that people are seriously arguing whether less guns would result in less gun violence, is positivelly absurd. It is perfectly fine for people to go, "It is more important for me to collect guns than to prevent the 84,000 gun injuries that happen here in USA every year" or "I am willing to sacrifice 11,000 of my fellow citizens for me to be able to feel slightly more protected". I mean, these are all valid opinions. But just be honest about being a selfish prick who is willing to sacrifice thousands for your own for a warped sense of "freedom" or "safety". Man up to it. This ridiculous "guns don't kill people", "it's freedom", "it's the American way", and references to outdated laws and other similar excuses are nothing but diversions from the very simple fact that if US implemented stricter guns laws, like not allowing Joe and Jill to easily get their hands on assault weapons, then the amount of gun violence in that country would significantly drop. That is the issue here.

[classicrawker]

I don't know, maybe it's just some sort of weird coincidence, but all the victims of these shootings are never carrying their own arsenal of weapons to fight back. Poor bastards. Perhaps we're looking at this all wrong. Too many restrictions and not enough guns is the real problem. Now there's a thought, right? Or, we can just keep things the way they are because nothing will ever stop these massacres, and besides, a piece of paper over 2 centuries old and a lot of money says we don't really have to change a thing anyways.

I hesitate to take this conversation any further at the risk of sounding like I am for more guns in society, or even that I am happy as the laws allowing them currently stand, because the truth is I am neither.

that being said, my original point is, imho a valid one.

And in agreement with most gun owners, and that is, with the amount of weapons out there now there is not a piece of legislation that could be passed that can prevent what happened in San Bernadino, or Sandy Hook, or Virginia Tech or any of these mass shootings. There just isn't.

If it would make you feel good if we suddenly "banned" gun possession, or even just banned assault rifles, mega magazines and military style ammo, that is certainly a persons choice.

But again, imho, that would be like handing out placebos to the disillusioned. But I would certainly offer you the glass of water to wash it down.

I don't personally agree with anyone owning an assault rifle and mega ammo, I just don't see the point of the second amendment supporting that.

But the duck has crossed the road on keeping these things out of people who will use whatever resources available to obtain them.

And I believe if I am not mistaken the shooter in the South Carolina church used only a handgun and killed 9 people in less than 40 seconds.

So unless you can find a way to gather up all the handguns in this country, your point is moot.

well fuck that, i'm happy as they stand, shooters don't kill people, psychos with shooters do, all America is doing is presenting the rest of the world with an example of what a free society entails, don't ever lose that, it ain't a bad thing it's just the hard way, I like to think I'm as humanitarian as they come but restriction is just pussying out, 'if there was less guns they'd be less able', fuck that, attack what makes them wanna, not what makes them able, thats my thinking. I mean you go for the root of the cause right, not just the cause cuz then they could just go find a knife or a big stone or a fuckin' car or something, just wait outdoors and mow em down. I wish we had your gun laws over here personally, a lump of metal don't make people wanna go kill people, thats something fucked up in their head, thats what you need to address, nevermind trimming down the efficency with which they can do the shit, thats just pussying out of the real problem and trying to bring rates down so you got as much of an issue as the next country, that ain't solving the problem thats just settling, 'we're down to the local overage now so it's OK cuz only 5 died', well I'd hate to be the fuckin' 5, i'll say that much.

That ain't humanitarian, it's political. These people are fuckin' psychos, do you understand that, psychos? (not you Shades, generally). As in a fuckin' lunatic, you wanna make it so Grandpa Cunningham can't duck hunt in case someone finds his rifle and wants to rip a kids school up, fuck that, go for the psycho not the fuckin' iron he used.

Your argument seems to be that a "free society" and the right to own any style or firearm are two mutually inclusive propositions. They're not. It's a value judgement that you yourself and others of like mind are making. It's no more a truism than stating that owning a Mercedes equals happiness.

This idealized and romantic notion that rights enumerated under the U.S. constitution can't be curtailed or limited without sacrificing their de jure spirit is baseless. Context, de facto application, and nuance all plays a part in how rights are applied and exercised. The U.S. constitution demands for freedom of speech and due process, but in practice those rights find themselves limited when and where necessary. What I find odd is that the nuanced application of the first and fourth amendments relating to free speech and due process becomes lost when it comes to the second amendment for gun advocates. Why do most NRA members support the Patriot Act that greatly curtailed a person's right to privacy and their right to due process but limiting ammunition clip size is violation of the Constitution and a threat to freedom and liberty? It's arbitrary bullshit and complete nonsense.

The other fallacy common place, particularly in your post, is gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of the opposing argument. Most gun regulations proposed by lawmakers in the United States would still allow grandpa to own his hunting rifle. That's not what the discussion is about. The greater concern is limiting the access to those who shouldn't have guns (and to a lesser extent, limiting the destructive power of certain types of guns). But you can't even have that conversation in the U.S. without the NRA threatening the political careers of current legislators. It's all fear-based demagoguery that's utterly devoid of reason or reality.

Moreover, it's divorced of what's feasible or realistic. The suggestion that more time and energy should be focused on addressing the mentally ill is all fine and good, but it's an impractical solution to a straight forward problem (one that doesn't present itself in other nations like it does in the United States). Here is the reality: 40 percent of gun purchases in the United States occur in the secondary market where there is no background check. 80 percent of former inmates obtain their guns through these secondary markets. But when you propose changing the laws to close this loophole, you have the usual suspects argue that it wouldn't do anything and would lead to the eventual ban of all gun sales and ownership in the United States. These are not reasonable or grounded arguments and frankly, those who make those arguments shouldn't be taken seriously or have their opinions considered. They're not being genuine, do not care about facts and figures, and are speaking from a place of fear.

Furthermore, let's drill down on the concept of "psychos." One in every two women killed with a gun is killed by an intimate partner. Some times the "psycho" doesn't present itself until certain conditions arise. Interestingly, in the few states that do require a background check in the secondary market, the number of women who are killed by former partners drops by 40 percent. That's a real difference where real lives were saved. Your argument, at best, dismisses this reality or at worse, fails to imply any sense of concern for the women saved as a result of a very sensible gun law. And for what? Some fantasize notion of "freedom?" You often hear that a bad guy will get a gun regardless, but here's a clear example of where the data doesn't support that notion.

Again, this idealized notion of freedom and its association to firearm possession has real world consequences. You can't argue that you are a humanitarian while suggesting a free society is one that allows unhindered access to guns. That's a contradiction in terms if I've ever heard one. The United States, with the most liberal gun regulations in the world, is the world leader by a wide margin of death as a result of gun violence:

It's not a matter of the U.S. being a bigger country. Granted, it's a more violent country, and even if all proposed gun laws were enacted the nation would still likely lead in that category on a per-capita basis. But the occurrence of gun death in the U.S. when compared to other countries underscores how much of an outlier the nation is. To suggest that there's not a causal relation between the most lax gun laws in the developed world and the most gun-related deaths in the developed world is absurd. If you're fine with such high human costs required for your concept of freedom, how in God's name do you call yourself a humanitarian?

Great post Downzy.......I certainly agree that the U.S. healthcare systems handling of mental illness and clinical depression in general is lacking but IMHO that is only one facet of the challenge. My questions would be how do you identify someone who has mental health issues and how would you prevent them from obtaining a firearm? Do you put anyone on depression medication on a watch list which prevents them from purchasing a firearm? I am pretty sure this would breach the strong confidentiality laws we have here in the U.S. so not sure how you could identify a person with a mental instability and then somehow prevent them from obtaining a gun.

Your point about the NRA resisting any changes in gun regulation is spot on as it seems there is a fear that if they allow the door to crack open with any kind of regulation it will open the flood gates to more stringent gun control regulations. Is the fear justified? Considering the lack of faith we have in our government here it is not totally irrational I think.

I can see the argument on both sides of the fence. On one hand I don't think anyone outside of the military or law enforcement needs an assault rifle but on the other hand I can understand the NRA and guns owners fear of government regulation.

It is a tough nut to crack and I don't think we will see effective gun regulation reform here in the U.S. in my lifetime