detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
The super right don't actually want "armed guards" in schools, that costs money. They want armed volunteers.
Shooting in Conn. School
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
[quote name='detectiveconan16']The super right don't actually want "armed guards" in schools, that costs money. They want armed volunteers.[/QUOTE]
So what happens when one of the volunteers turns out to be unstable and shoots up a school themselves? Volunteers to watch the volunteers?
So what happens when one of the volunteers turns out to be unstable and shoots up a school themselves? Volunteers to watch the volunteers?
[quote name='slickkill77']Don't feel like reading the whole thread but just thought I'd share. Hillsborough county in Florida (around Tampa) is putting an armed guard in every elementary school. Around 150 of them[/QUOTE]
[quote name='willardhaven']I love that "conservatives" want armed guards posted in schools. You can't make this shit up.[/QUOTE]
Quick search shows that Hillsborough County went for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I know that some of the far-left folks like to consider Obama to be conservative, but I'm not sure how many folks on here would go that far.
[quote name='willardhaven']I love that "conservatives" want armed guards posted in schools. You can't make this shit up.[/QUOTE]
Quick search shows that Hillsborough County went for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I know that some of the far-left folks like to consider Obama to be conservative, but I'm not sure how many folks on here would go that far.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Quick search shows that Hillsborough County went for Obama in 2008 and 2012. I know that some of the far-left folks like to consider Obama to be conservative, but I'm not sure how many folks on here would go that far.[/QUOTE]
It's a close split but Republicans outnumber Democrats there (41% to 33%). To your second point, it's pretty hard to differentiate Obama from the Republicans of just 20 years ago.
It's a close split but Republicans outnumber Democrats there (41% to 33%). To your second point, it's pretty hard to differentiate Obama from the Republicans of just 20 years ago.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Conservative ≠ Republican.[/QUOTE]
No kidding. I was just countering your point.
No kidding. I was just countering your point.
I'd actually argue that a conservative wouldn't have voted for Obama or Romney either one. But that's beyond the point.
To claim that a bunch of folks in an area that voted in favor of the least conservative of the two major candidates are "conservative" is a questionable claim at best.
To claim that a bunch of folks in an area that voted in favor of the least conservative of the two major candidates are "conservative" is a questionable claim at best.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I'd actually argue that a conservative wouldn't have voted for Obama or Romney either one. But that's beyond the point.[/QUOTE]
You are beyond the point my friend.
[quote name='UncleBob']
To claim that a bunch of folks in an area that voted in favor of the least conservative of the two major candidates are "conservative" is a questionable claim at best.[/QUOTE]
You zeroed in on the specific case after my generalization and I provided evidence to counter your point. You have a different definition of conservative, just as I do. However Republican enrollment and historical voting records are accepted means for testing how "conservative" a county is by popular definition. So I don't know what to tell you. I don't know why you are harping on this or why I'm indulging you.
You are beyond the point my friend.
[quote name='UncleBob']
To claim that a bunch of folks in an area that voted in favor of the least conservative of the two major candidates are "conservative" is a questionable claim at best.[/QUOTE]
You zeroed in on the specific case after my generalization and I provided evidence to counter your point. You have a different definition of conservative, just as I do. However Republican enrollment and historical voting records are accepted means for testing how "conservative" a county is by popular definition. So I don't know what to tell you. I don't know why you are harping on this or why I'm indulging you.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
I don't know why people are bashing armed guards so much. It would make me feel better sending my kids to a public school knowing there is one more safety barrier put in place.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='perdition(troy']I don't know why people are bashing armed guards so much. It would make me feel better sending my kids to a public school knowing there is one more safety barrier put in place.[/QUOTE]
Maybe I'm being presumptuous but you wouldn't want armed guards in your workplace or in the grocery store would you?
Maybe I'm being presumptuous but you wouldn't want armed guards in your workplace or in the grocery store would you?
[quote name='perdition(troy']I don't know why people are bashing armed guards so much. It would make me feel better sending my kids to a public school knowing there is one more safety barrier put in place.[/QUOTE]
So we should go ahead and put armed guards in shopping malls, amusement parks, hospitals, parks, etc. as well? Those are all places children would/could be.
Who regulates these armed guards? State, federal, freelance? If it's state or federal, isn't that just giving the government that much more military-type power that conservatives and republicans are so concerned about gun rights being preserved to protect against in the first place?
So we should go ahead and put armed guards in shopping malls, amusement parks, hospitals, parks, etc. as well? Those are all places children would/could be.
Who regulates these armed guards? State, federal, freelance? If it's state or federal, isn't that just giving the government that much more military-type power that conservatives and republicans are so concerned about gun rights being preserved to protect against in the first place?
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
I have armed security personal in my workplace, so that doesn't bother me (to the poster before RvB).
RvB, those private sector companies/businesses that you named can and many have put armed guards/security in place. I have no problem knowing that if I go to a mall chances are they have armed security in the building, or off duty LEO's. At local hospital's in my area there are armed security officers in the building, doesn't bug me at all. Parks usually have beat cops that routinely are in the area. The only amusement parks I've been (6 Flags, Disney on both coasts) have armed security on hand.
In a school, the same people regulate the guards and training they need that regulate the rest of the school, local communities and states. The military type power already exists.
RvB, those private sector companies/businesses that you named can and many have put armed guards/security in place. I have no problem knowing that if I go to a mall chances are they have armed security in the building, or off duty LEO's. At local hospital's in my area there are armed security officers in the building, doesn't bug me at all. Parks usually have beat cops that routinely are in the area. The only amusement parks I've been (6 Flags, Disney on both coasts) have armed security on hand.
In a school, the same people regulate the guards and training they need that regulate the rest of the school, local communities and states. The military type power already exists.
[quote name='perdition(troy']RvB, those private sector companies/businesses that you named can and many have put armed guards/security in place. I have no problem knowing that if I go to a mall chances are they have armed security in the building, or off duty LEO's. At local hospital's in my area there are armed security officers in the building, doesn't bug me at all. Parks usually have beat cops that routinely are in the area. The only amusement parks I've been (6 Flags, Disney on both coasts) have armed security on hand.[/QUOTE]
I know some folks are completely out of touch with reality, but do they really not know that hospitals, parks, private offices, large shopping complexes and amusement parks have, for years now, had private and public armed security and law enforcement officers on premises on a regular basis?
I can't even remember the last time I went into a hospital and didn't see a command post with an armed LEO near the main entrance. And I live in the midwest.
[quote name='willardhaven']You zeroed in on the specific case[...][/QUOTE]
...that was given in the post directly before yours. Weird how that works.
Beyond all that, you're the one who chose to use quotation marks around the word conservative, as if you were implying something regarding the definition or application of the word.
I know some folks are completely out of touch with reality, but do they really not know that hospitals, parks, private offices, large shopping complexes and amusement parks have, for years now, had private and public armed security and law enforcement officers on premises on a regular basis?
I can't even remember the last time I went into a hospital and didn't see a command post with an armed LEO near the main entrance. And I live in the midwest.
[quote name='willardhaven']You zeroed in on the specific case[...][/QUOTE]
...that was given in the post directly before yours. Weird how that works.
Beyond all that, you're the one who chose to use quotation marks around the word conservative, as if you were implying something regarding the definition or application of the word.
willardhaven
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']
...that was given in the post directly before yours. Weird how that works.
Beyond all that, you're the one who chose to use quotation marks around the word conservative, as if you were implying something regarding the definition or application of the word.[/QUOTE]
So what are you even arguing? I was asserting that they're not conservative despite the fact that they are classified as such. You argued that they leaned toward Obama so they weren't conservative. I proved that your argument was not in observation of voting records and party enrollment. You then went back to "well they're not really conservative". I agree as that was my original point. What do you want from my life?
...that was given in the post directly before yours. Weird how that works.
Beyond all that, you're the one who chose to use quotation marks around the word conservative, as if you were implying something regarding the definition or application of the word.[/QUOTE]
So what are you even arguing? I was asserting that they're not conservative despite the fact that they are classified as such. You argued that they leaned toward Obama so they weren't conservative. I proved that your argument was not in observation of voting records and party enrollment. You then went back to "well they're not really conservative". I agree as that was my original point. What do you want from my life?
[quote name='perdition(troy']I have armed security personal in my workplace, so that doesn't bother me (to the poster before RvB).
RvB, those private sector companies/businesses that you named can and many have put armed guards/security in place. I have no problem knowing that if I go to a mall chances are they have armed security in the building, or off duty LEO's. At local hospital's in my area there are armed security officers in the building, doesn't bug me at all. Parks usually have beat cops that routinely are in the area. The only amusement parks I've been (6 Flags, Disney on both coasts) have armed security on hand.
In a school, the same people regulate the guards and training they need that regulate the rest of the school, local communities and states. The military type power already exists.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea where you live but I don't think I've ever seen armed guards posted at the places I mention. I will admit there are many hospitals that have armed guards, but not all of them do. At any rate, many of the armed security you mentioned involved on/off duty police officers, who are government agents, once again begging the question, if you're increasing the number of government actors/agents in an area with guns isn't that the precise type of conduct which many conservatives/republicans point to as being the idea which the 2nd amendment is protecting from in the first place?
As for "beat cops routinely are in the area" how is that different than the protection afforded to schools. One could easily say that there are cops routinely in the area of a school at this point already, no?
RvB, those private sector companies/businesses that you named can and many have put armed guards/security in place. I have no problem knowing that if I go to a mall chances are they have armed security in the building, or off duty LEO's. At local hospital's in my area there are armed security officers in the building, doesn't bug me at all. Parks usually have beat cops that routinely are in the area. The only amusement parks I've been (6 Flags, Disney on both coasts) have armed security on hand.
In a school, the same people regulate the guards and training they need that regulate the rest of the school, local communities and states. The military type power already exists.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea where you live but I don't think I've ever seen armed guards posted at the places I mention. I will admit there are many hospitals that have armed guards, but not all of them do. At any rate, many of the armed security you mentioned involved on/off duty police officers, who are government agents, once again begging the question, if you're increasing the number of government actors/agents in an area with guns isn't that the precise type of conduct which many conservatives/republicans point to as being the idea which the 2nd amendment is protecting from in the first place?
As for "beat cops routinely are in the area" how is that different than the protection afforded to schools. One could easily say that there are cops routinely in the area of a school at this point already, no?
mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
[quote name='willardhaven']I love that "conservatives" want armed guards posted in schools. You can't make this shit up.[/QUOTE]
Why do you think it is a bad idea? Some schools already have police officers on the premises like colleges and universities. I do not agree nor disagree with the idea because I am not too familiar with it.
Why do you think it is a bad idea? Some schools already have police officers on the premises like colleges and universities. I do not agree nor disagree with the idea because I am not too familiar with it.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
Wow, saw the Daily Show segment on the ATF. I thought the USPS was 
ed so much by Congress, but this takes the cake. The government can't monitor sales of dangerous weapons, have sellers keep records, or even do routine inspections. And yet, the other agencies have been given the right to regulate everything not as lethal under the sun. Kinder EGGS!
And holy! If someone get stoned and drunk, they can still buy a gun!
ed so much by Congress, but this takes the cake. The government can't monitor sales of dangerous weapons, have sellers keep records, or even do routine inspections. And yet, the other agencies have been given the right to regulate everything not as lethal under the sun. Kinder EGGS!And holy
! If someone get stoned and drunk, they can still buy a gun!
ID2006
CAGiversary!
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Wow, saw the Daily Show segment on the ATF. I thought the USPS was ed so much by Congress, but this takes the cake. The government can't monitor sales of dangerous weapons, have sellers keep records, or even do routine inspections. And yet, the other agencies have been given the right to regulate everything not as lethal under the sun. Kinder EGGS!
And holy! If someone get stoned and drunk, they can still buy a gun![/QUOTE]
Yeah. That was one of the better Jon Stewart segments on the Daily Show in the past few months. Usually I don't find him humorous (I do like the other people of his team, though), but that was pretty interesting.
ed so much by Congress, but this takes the cake. The government can't monitor sales of dangerous weapons, have sellers keep records, or even do routine inspections. And yet, the other agencies have been given the right to regulate everything not as lethal under the sun. Kinder EGGS!And holy
! If someone get stoned and drunk, they can still buy a gun![/QUOTE]Yeah. That was one of the better Jon Stewart segments on the Daily Show in the past few months. Usually I don't find him humorous (I do like the other people of his team, though), but that was pretty interesting.
[quote name='detectiveconan16']Wow, saw the Daily Show segment on the ATF. I thought the USPS was ed so much by Congress, but this takes the cake. The government can't monitor sales of dangerous weapons, have sellers keep records, or even do routine inspections. And yet, the other agencies have been given the right to regulate everything not as lethal under the sun. Kinder EGGS!
And holy! If someone get stoned and drunk, they can still buy a gun![/QUOTE]
And thanks to the NRA and their republican lackeys, the director of the ATF now has to be confirmed by the senate. That's why there hasn't been one for years.
ed so much by Congress, but this takes the cake. The government can't monitor sales of dangerous weapons, have sellers keep records, or even do routine inspections. And yet, the other agencies have been given the right to regulate everything not as lethal under the sun. Kinder EGGS!And holy
! If someone get stoned and drunk, they can still buy a gun![/QUOTE]And thanks to the NRA and their republican lackeys, the director of the ATF now has to be confirmed by the senate. That's why there hasn't been one for years.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=8958116
I love that they realize that the law will do nothing to stop criminals from getting the weapons they want even though the mags are banned and still pass it, taking the magazines away from law abiding citizens.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Part of this "arms race" mentality doesn't help matters, though.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ing-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html
I'm sure most of us remember this incident - a focus on firearm training (improving aim at the very least) would certainly be more useful for officers than more bullets. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with officers with that kind of poor accuracy having more bullets.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ing-nypd-bullets-shot-all-nine_n_1830007.html
I'm sure most of us remember this incident - a focus on firearm training (improving aim at the very least) would certainly be more useful for officers than more bullets. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with officers with that kind of poor accuracy having more bullets.
Finger_Shocker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
LOL..... giving the cops more ammo then the citizens..
Well our dystopian police state society is coming pretty soon.
Last I heard in the news there was hundreds of police abuse/brutality cases
and in many parts of America, cops actually can get away with robbery on some people
Well our dystopian police state society is coming pretty soon.
Last I heard in the news there was hundreds of police abuse/brutality cases
and in many parts of America, cops actually can get away with robbery on some people
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
If the cops could barely operate in a situation in a crowded city like New York, I'm supposed to believe that a "responsible gun owner" could save innocent civilians in a crisis. Life isn't a movie or video game, life is hell. I do agree that the cops could do better with more firearms training, but they may need more in other areas like unarmed combat and conflict resolution, among many things.
Temporaryscars
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 38 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']Half the gun owners (half is being kind) in this country seem to think they're Wyatt Earp and they're going to stop the bad guys. If people with extensive firearms training still make mistakes, you think I want some random gun owner trying to be a hero? Fuuuuuck no.[/QUOTE]
Extensive firearms training? Most departments train just twice a year. Give me a break. I know civilians who train way more than that.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-9835.html
Extensive firearms training? Most departments train just twice a year. Give me a break. I know civilians who train way more than that.
http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-9835.html
You know, we're completely failing to address another aspect of these shootings which more guns or armed guards won't solve. There's the simple fact that most of these people committing these mass shootings want to die anyway. A person with nothing left to live for, actually desiring death is not going to be deterred by an armed guard.
ID2006
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You know, we're completely failing to address another aspect of these shootings which more guns or armed guards won't solve. There's the simple fact that most of these people committing these mass shootings want to die anyway. A person with nothing left to live for, actually desiring death is not going to be deterred by an armed guard.[/QUOTE]
Well, mass shootings shouldn't be the emphasis of new legislature anyway. Much of the gun violence is not from mass shootings. Mass shootings get disproportionate attention, which would be fine as a forceful reminder of the actual problems if people would step back and view gun violence as a whole instead of focusing on these much rarer instances.
Well, mass shootings shouldn't be the emphasis of new legislature anyway. Much of the gun violence is not from mass shootings. Mass shootings get disproportionate attention, which would be fine as a forceful reminder of the actual problems if people would step back and view gun violence as a whole instead of focusing on these much rarer instances.
[quote name='ID2006']Well, mass shootings shouldn't be the emphasis of new legislature anyway. Much of the gun violence is not from mass shootings. Mass shootings get disproportionate attention, which would be fine as a forceful reminder of the actual problems if people would step back and view gun violence as a whole instead of focusing on these much rarer instances.[/QUOTE]
The same disproportionate attention that the news media gives to it creating in the minds of troubled individuals that they can become infamous by staging their own mass shooting...
The same disproportionate attention that the news media gives to it creating in the minds of troubled individuals that they can become infamous by staging their own mass shooting...
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
I hope this becomes a regular media focus. Not that I think it necessarily means much but rather I would be interested in knowing how often these things happen.
Gun Show Shootings: At Least 5 Hurt In Accidental Incidents In Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/gun-show-shootings_n_2513057.html
"At the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance, injuring three people, state Agriculture Department spokesman Brian Long said.
Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.
The shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer, Long said. Sheriff Donnie Harrison said that it was too early to know whether Wilson might be charged but that it appeared to be an accident."
Accident or not you show up with a loaded gun and someone gets shot I think some type of endangerment charge needs to be levied. If we want to be serious about responsible gun ownership people who mess up like this should be charged.
Gun Show Shootings: At Least 5 Hurt In Accidental Incidents In Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/gun-show-shootings_n_2513057.html
"At the Dixie Gun and Knife Show in Raleigh, a 12-gauge shotgun discharged as its owner unzipped its case for a law enforcement officer to check at a security entrance, injuring three people, state Agriculture Department spokesman Brian Long said.
Two bystanders were hit by shotgun pellets and taken to a hospital. A retired deputy sheriff suffered a slight hand injury.
The shotgun's owner, 36-year-old Gary Lynn Wilson, brought the weapon to the show to find a private buyer, Long said. Sheriff Donnie Harrison said that it was too early to know whether Wilson might be charged but that it appeared to be an accident."
Accident or not you show up with a loaded gun and someone gets shot I think some type of endangerment charge needs to be levied. If we want to be serious about responsible gun ownership people who mess up like this should be charged.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
You can't, anything that gives us any liability regarding guns is a violation of the second amendment, according to the NRA. Some idiot's going to argue that it could be an accident, or that the gun discharged because of that out of control Sheriff who decided to do a gun inspection instead of leaving that "responsible gun owner" alone.
If people can't even do common sense things like not bringing a loaded gun to a convention, or keep firearms out of schools, it makes one wonder if they even deserve to complain that such laws violates their rights.
If people can't even do common sense things like not bringing a loaded gun to a convention, or keep firearms out of schools, it makes one wonder if they even deserve to complain that such laws violates their rights.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Knoell']Really? This is very revealing of you guys. It's pretty scary actually.[/QUOTE]
And exactly what does it reveal?
And exactly what does it reveal?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
at IRHari's updated location.Bill Maher made a good point on the last episode of Real Time, why are people so proud to be gun owners? What is it about owning a gun that should make one proud? If you feel like you need one to be safe, is that something to be proud of? Wouldn't it make a hell of a lot more sense to be proud that you live in a place where you don't feel the need to be armed?
It seems to me that most gun owners are proud simply because they feel like they're sticking it to "the gubment" in some small way. I just don't get it.
It seems to me that most gun owners are proud simply because they feel like they're sticking it to "the gubment" in some small way. I just don't get it.
Finger_Shocker
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/girl-halloween-costume-mistaken-skunk-shot-cousin/story?id=17536625
Hey don't forget about this case.... making your home safer by one less skunk at a time...
Hey don't forget about this case.... making your home safer by one less skunk at a time...
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='cancerman1120']And exactly what does it reveal?[/QUOTE]
Way I see it, Knoell reads "People are good guys with guns until they aren't." as "People are terrible and we always need outside protection from ourselves and each-other." An admission of statist something something something.
Now, my reading of it would be, "The talking point of 'good guy with a gun' vs 'bad guy with a gun' (or, if you prefer, 'criminal' and 'non-criminal') is naive and childish and you can't divide the country's population into those two camps.
You idiots."
Way I see it, Knoell reads "People are good guys with guns until they aren't." as "People are terrible and we always need outside protection from ourselves and each-other." An admission of statist something something something.
Now, my reading of it would be, "The talking point of 'good guy with a gun' vs 'bad guy with a gun' (or, if you prefer, 'criminal' and 'non-criminal') is naive and childish and you can't divide the country's population into those two camps.
You idiots."
[quote name='The Crotch']Way I see it, Knoell reads "People are good guys with guns until they aren't." as "People are terrible and we always need outside protection from ourselves and each-other." An admission of statist something something something.
Now, my reading of it would be, "The talking point of 'good guy with a gun' vs 'bad guy with a gun' (or, if you prefer, 'criminal' and 'non-criminal') is naive and childish and you can't divide the country's population into those two camps.
You idiots."[/QUOTE]
You can't possibly give the government the power to predetermine that everyone will be a criminal with ANYTHING in the world.
Want to buy a saw? How do we know you won't be chopping somebody up later? Hmmm, we are going to have to look into this.
Want to buy a car? Wellll you may end up killing someone so let's investigate whether you are worthy.
Want to buy a set of knives? Well, you may stab someone, so let the government cut your meat for you.
The problem is that you guys know nothing about guns, and yet you see the big scary black military looking assault rifle and think OMG! that thing is dangerous! Let's ban it. Yet you don't even look into the statistics of gun violence in America. It clearly points to pistols being the gun with the most blood on it (four times over), and you guys act like you won't try and disarm them next. You also act as if you won't be flipping out when a psycho walks into a school with a pistol. You guys are looking for solutions that will minimize casualties rather than protecting our children. It is a ridiculous way to think.
There are millions upon millions of guns in the US. There is not a gun violence epidemic. Just look at the statistics, and stop having knee jerk reactions to tragedies. Stop being the paranoid freaks you portray gun owners to be and live your lives. I love how home invasions where gun owners protect themselves are outliers but these school shootings are the norm.ing BS.
Now, my reading of it would be, "The talking point of 'good guy with a gun' vs 'bad guy with a gun' (or, if you prefer, 'criminal' and 'non-criminal') is naive and childish and you can't divide the country's population into those two camps.
You idiots."[/QUOTE]
You can't possibly give the government the power to predetermine that everyone will be a criminal with ANYTHING in the world.
Want to buy a saw? How do we know you won't be chopping somebody up later? Hmmm, we are going to have to look into this.
Want to buy a car? Wellll you may end up killing someone so let's investigate whether you are worthy.
Want to buy a set of knives? Well, you may stab someone, so let the government cut your meat for you.
The problem is that you guys know nothing about guns, and yet you see the big scary black military looking assault rifle and think OMG! that thing is dangerous! Let's ban it. Yet you don't even look into the statistics of gun violence in America. It clearly points to pistols being the gun with the most blood on it (four times over), and you guys act like you won't try and disarm them next. You also act as if you won't be flipping out when a psycho walks into a school with a pistol. You guys are looking for solutions that will minimize casualties rather than protecting our children. It is a ridiculous way to think.
There are millions upon millions of guns in the US. There is not a gun violence epidemic. Just look at the statistics, and stop having knee jerk reactions to tragedies. Stop being the paranoid freaks you portray gun owners to be and live your lives. I love how home invasions where gun owners protect themselves are outliers but these school shootings are the norm.
ing BS.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
So I'm gonna give my interpretation of your interpretation about a 7.5/10.
[quote name='The Crotch']So I'm gonna give my interpretation of your interpretation about a 7.5/10.[/QUOTE]
You give yourself too much credit. You clearly have predetermined assumptions about gun owners. Like I said, stop being the paranoid freak you portray gun owners to be. You complain about them being paranoid as putting you in danger. It is laughable because you are the one being paranoid. A gun owner isn't a paranoid person camping out in the woods. I know many normal people who own a variety of different weapons, and they are just like you and I, and they use them for a variety of different reasons. You and the government have no business trying to predict what law abiding citizens are going to do with those weapons, unless you have just cause. The government assuming out of the 300,000,000 weapons in the US, someone is going to use one wrongly is not just cause to take away the 300,000,000 weapons, anymore than assuming that out of the 254,000,000 cars, someone is going to drunk drive.
Think about this. More people die in car accidents every year than from firearms. Maybe we should have Uncle Sam drive us from now on. It will save lives right?
You give yourself too much credit. You clearly have predetermined assumptions about gun owners. Like I said, stop being the paranoid freak you portray gun owners to be. You complain about them being paranoid as putting you in danger. It is laughable because you are the one being paranoid. A gun owner isn't a paranoid person camping out in the woods. I know many normal people who own a variety of different weapons, and they are just like you and I, and they use them for a variety of different reasons. You and the government have no business trying to predict what law abiding citizens are going to do with those weapons, unless you have just cause. The government assuming out of the 300,000,000 weapons in the US, someone is going to use one wrongly is not just cause to take away the 300,000,000 weapons, anymore than assuming that out of the 254,000,000 cars, someone is going to drunk drive.
Think about this. More people die in car accidents every year than from firearms. Maybe we should have Uncle Sam drive us from now on. It will save lives right?
[quote name='Clak']Knoell is expert on firearms now, that's good to know.[/QUOTE]
I am by no means an expert and never claimed to be. I do know that the statistics show that you are all attacking the wrong type of gun and the wrong person. If you disagree, show me statistics that prove that wrong.
I do know that most people would go by sight when looking at guns.
I am by no means an expert and never claimed to be. I do know that the statistics show that you are all attacking the wrong type of gun and the wrong person. If you disagree, show me statistics that prove that wrong.
I do know that most people would go by sight when looking at guns.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
All I was saying is if you want to protect those who treat guns properly you need to make sure those who do not are punished. Saying a guy who brings a loaded shotgun to a gun show that ends up hurting 3 people should not be punished because it is an "accident" gives the wrong impression about how serious we are about responsible gun ownership. I feel the same about drinking and driving. It pisses me off to no end when I read about people who are pulled over with their 5th, 6th, or 12th DUI. Those people belong in jail more than someone caught with a joint.
[quote name='cancerman1120']All I was saying is if you want to protect those who treat guns properly you need to make sure those who do not are punished. Saying a guy who brings a loaded shotgun to a gun show that ends up hurting 3 people should not be punished because it is an "accident" gives the wrong impression about how serious we are about responsible gun ownership. I feel the same about drinking and driving. It pisses me off to no end when I read about people who are pulled over with their 5th, 6th, or 12th DUI. Those people belong in jail more than someone caught with a joint.[/QUOTE]
Noone says someone shouldn't be punished for doing something that affects another individual. If this was a real story, I would like to read about it, as situations are vastly different beyond the headlines. However, I don't see how this relates to banning certain types of weapons, such as in New Yorks case where they push through half assed gun control legislation, that doesn't make sense.
Noone says someone shouldn't be punished for doing something that affects another individual. If this was a real story, I would like to read about it, as situations are vastly different beyond the headlines. However, I don't see how this relates to banning certain types of weapons, such as in New Yorks case where they push through half assed gun control legislation, that doesn't make sense.
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']You give yourself too much credit. You clearly have predetermined assumptions about gun owners. Like I said, stop being the paranoid freak you portray gun owners to be. You complain about them being paranoid as putting you in danger.[/QUOTE]
...
What the?
...
What the
?
The Crotch
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']what the is right.
I wasn't dividing the world into those two camps. Idiot.[/QUOTE]
No, but apparently you know me far better than I know myself, and are able to ascribe to me positions, opinions, and a history that I have never posted about.
is right.I wasn't dividing the world into those two camps. Idiot.[/QUOTE]
No, but apparently you know me far better than I know myself, and are able to ascribe to me positions, opinions, and a history that I have never posted about.
bread's done