Another one-Georgia school shooter released alongside image of him posing with AK-47

[Snobike Mike]

Forum Sponsor

You did still not answer my basic question that was bold instead you went of on some convoluted tantrum.

I went on a tantrum?? I'm not the one using superlatives such as WTF, OMFG, seriously what is wrong with you, etc. etc.

So, is the question you want answered "Can you tell me why a civilian requires a firearm that can disperse 100 bullets a minute and to further add why do those bullets have to be armour piercing?"

Aside from getting into some of the semantic arguments that seem to so quickly erupt the answer is because they legally can. Just because you don't feel that someone should, doesn't mean they shouldn't. That is how both of our rights get eroded into nothing.

Back to a question for you, if 80+ million firearms owners who own 300+ million firearms of all legally available types didn't kill anyone this week, can you tell me why they can't have them?

 

[backmarkerducati]

If the US wants to change this they need to think outside the box a little more. Look at what has happened to smoking over the last two decades as maybe at least a data point. An outright ban will not work, just like smoking.

For civilian concealed carry (in this case hand guns which is not entirely related to the issue but it is all part of the culture), first do not allow it in any government building, schools. If you are caught you lose your weapon(s) and your permit. Now move that ban forward to office buildings, stores, etc. Then eventually any public place. As part of this make storage laws tighter, if your weapon is not on your person it must be stored in a safe at home, not in your car etc. Concealed carry becomes a pain in the arse since if you are you cannot walk in any building and have to go home to store it.... it becomes a PITA just like smoking and people will be motivated to quit... Key to above is civilian/personal not security, police, brinks etc. Also they seem to have no issue getting a drug test to work min wage jobs so make a drug test part of CCW, look at the results, any narcotics or mental health drugs no CCW permit for you.

Next is the assault weapons, again proper home storage etc. to make it a bit of a PITA. The novelty will wear off. IMO the area to start is the CCW no long guns.

Anyways, the approach should never be a ban, just make it a PITA (which BTW works pretty good here) and do not expect immediate results, if they choose to go down this road it is a 20 year exercise... But in all this the most important thing other than to feel like a big man is why do they feel they need to have all these guns? Address the social, crime, mental health, etc. issues to start to take that off the table BEFORE any regulations--it goes hand in hand.

 

[Snobike Mike]

If the US wants to change this they need to think outside the box a little more. Look at what has happened to smoking over the last two decades as maybe at least a data point. An outright ban will not work, just like smoking.

For civilian concealed carry (in this case hand guns which is not entirely related to the issue but it is all part of the culture), first do not allow it in any government building, schools. If you are caught you lose your weapon(s) and your permit. Now move that ban forward to office buildings, stores, etc. Then eventually any public place. As part of this make storage laws tighter, if your weapon is not on your person it must be stored in a safe at home, not in your car etc. Concealed carry becomes a pain in the arse since if you are you cannot walk in any building and have to go home to store it.... it becomes a PITA just like smoking and people will be motivated to quit... Key to above is civilian/personal not security, police, brinks etc. Also they seem to have no issue getting a drug test to work min wage jobs so make a drug test part of CCW, look at the results, any narcotics or mental health drugs no CCW permit for you.

Next is the assault weapons, again proper home storage etc. to make it a bit of a PITA. The novelty will wear off. IMO the area to start is the CCW no long guns.

Anyways, the approach should never be a ban, just make it a PITA (which BTW works pretty good here) and do not expect immediate results, if they choose to go down this road it is a 20 year exercise... But in all this the most important thing other than to feel like a big man is why do they feel they need to have all these guns? Address the social, crime, mental health, etc. issues to start to take that off the table BEFORE any regulations--it goes hand in hand.

You just perfectly described the way that those who wish to erode your rights (doesn't matter which rights) boil the frog slowly in the pot.

Be very very very careful what you ask for/condone because once they finish with guns which you may not care about, they may come after something that is indeed close to your heart.

And btw, smoking related deaths are approx. 443 000 per year in the US which is 40 times higher than gun homicides and 201 times higher for homicides by "legally" owned guns. Guns are used safely each and every day whereas smoking has no safe usage level (first or second hand smoke). Also, there is no constitutional amendment relating to smoking....

 

[-D-]

I went on a tantrum?? I'm not the one using superlatives such as WTF, OMFG, seriously what is wrong with you, etc. etc.

So, is the question you want answered "Can you tell me why a civilian requires a firearm that can disperse 100 bullets a minute and to further add why do those bullets have to be armour piercing?"

Aside from getting into some of the semantic arguments that seem to so quickly erupt the answer is because they legally can. Just because you don't feel that someone should, doesn't mean they shouldn't. That is how both of our rights get eroded into nothing.

Back to a question for you, if 80+ million firearms owners who own 300+ million firearms of all legally available types didn't kill anyone this week, can you tell me why they can't have them?

That's not an answer. My question garners a yes or no answer.
Once again with your logic then I should be allowed to own a lion and keep it on my property (regular 5ft chain link fence).
According to you, if I can not have a lion then what else are they going to take away from me, my pet cobra.

 

[-D-]

If the US wants to change this they need to think outside the box a little more. Look at what has happened to smoking over the last two decades as maybe at least a data point. An outright ban will not work, just like smoking.

For civilian concealed carry (in this case hand guns which is not entirely related to the issue but it is all part of the culture), first do not allow it in any government building, schools. If you are caught you lose your weapon(s) and your permit. Now move that ban forward to office buildings, stores, etc. Then eventually any public place. As part of this make storage laws tighter, if your weapon is not on your person it must be stored in a safe at home, not in your car etc. Concealed carry becomes a pain in the arse since if you are you cannot walk in any building and have to go home to store it.... it becomes a PITA just like smoking and people will be motivated to quit... Key to above is civilian/personal not security, police, brinks etc. Also they seem to have no issue getting a drug test to work min wage jobs so make a drug test part of CCW, look at the results, any narcotics or mental health drugs no CCW permit for you.

Next is the assault weapons, again proper home storage etc. to make it a bit of a PITA. The novelty will wear off. IMO the area to start is the CCW no long guns.

Anyways, the approach should never be a ban, just make it a PITA (which BTW works pretty good here) and do not expect immediate results, if they choose to go down this road it is a 20 year exercise... But in all this the most important thing other than to feel like a big man is why do they feel they need to have all these guns? Address the social, crime, mental health, etc. issues to start to take that off the table BEFORE any regulations--it goes hand in hand.

This will NEVER happen.
There is just too much money involved.
Guns are part of their DNA and they will use the outdated Constitution to keep it that way. They might even amend it to be more inclusive. The gun groups just have to buy a few more politicians but the way it stands now the ambiguity of the 2nd amendment is all they require.

There is that saying, the point of no return. It's like pancreatic cancer that has consumed 80%+ of your pancreas, game over.

What can happen is a few states with like minded people passing state laws to mitigate the situation but then you get into the illegal trafficking and once again big money being made by adjacent states with laxer controls smuggling guns into states with tighter controls as it happens now.

They will acquire more guns with the new fear and shock campaign. When you do not live free when you live in fear.
The news cycle right now is laughable. Their top law and military officials are not tv telling them there will be a terrorist attack at some point soon somewhere in the world, we don't know when or where but there will be.
hmm in a few days it will be September.

I can only hope the US crap stays out of this country and does not pull us in further.

 

[Snobike Mike]

That's not an answer. My question garners a yes or no answer.
Once again with your logic then I should be allowed to own a lion and keep it on my property (regular 5ft chain link fence).
According to you, if I can not have a lion then what else are they going to take away from me, my pet cobra.

How can a "why" question be answered with a "yes" or a "no"?

If you meant to ask should a civilian be able to own such a firearm my answer is YES. The "why" is because a law abiding citizen, protected by the 2nd amendment in the US, owning an inanimate object (not a lion which has it's own will) is no more dangerous than you are owning something like gasoline.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Guns are part of their DNA and they will use the outdated Constitution to keep it that way.

Can you tell me how the constitution is "outdated"?

 

[-D-]

Can you tell me how the constitution is "outdated"?

The same way it once had the entry for the right to own slaves.

My discussion with you must cease now. It's like having a conversation with someone who believes the earth is flat.
Perhaps you should consider moving to Arkansas or another state that is more aligned with your ideology.

 

[Snobike Mike]

The same way it once had the entry for the right to own slaves.

Because slaves are actually people and thus by definition of the constitution it was unconstitutional.

How does owning a inanimate object the purpose of which was to protect against the tyranny of government cause you any harm?

So you'd like to toss 2A, what about 1A?

 

[D23]

And btw, smoking related deaths are approx. 443 000 per year in the US which is 40 times higher than gun homicides and 201 times higher for homicides by "legally" owned guns.

When a normal person reads this, they read.....

It's OK that 12 000 people were killed by guns in the US last year because smoking killed more. As if 12 000 deaths that would not have happened and were not by the victims choice (like smoking is) don't count.

I bet every family member that lost one of those 12 000 don't write the loss off as a minor statistic as easily as you do.

Are you a sociopath?

Don't cry (again) if that hurts you since you seem very thin skinned for someone who likes to argue on the internet. It's just a question.

 

[Snobike Mike]

When a normal person reads this, they read.....

It's OK that 12 000 people were killed by guns in the US last year because smoking killed more. As if 12 000 deaths that would not have happened and were not by the victims choice (like smoking is) don't count.

I bet every family member that lost one of those 12 000 don't write the loss off as a minor statistic as easily as you do.

Are you a sociopath?

Don't cry (again) if that hurts you since you seem very thin skinned for someone who likes to argue on the internet. It's just a question.

There you go again with the name calling and condescending statements.

Anyways, all deaths are terrible, but death is a fact of life. I think anybody that is killed by any non-natural means is horrific. But it is ridiculous to punish law abiding citizens for someone else's criminal act.

If you believe that gun control is valid because "if it saves just one life" then the same logic should hold true for virtually every other inanimate object because most of the tools/equipment/stuff around anyone's house has been used at some point in history to kill someone. Do you wish to ban everything?

And if we're about saving lives, why not start with the big offenders (which is why I posted the stats on smoking deaths)? The question still remains, relative to smoking, vehicular accidents, drunk driving deaths, stabbing, etc, guns are statistically the minority. Why is Obama not pushing to ban vehicles, alcohol, knives and the like? If you want to ban guns to save 12000 (80% whom are criminals), they why not ban the vehicles, smoking and knives because you'd save hundreds of thousands more annually?

 

[daught]

Because slaves are actually people and thus by definition of the constitution it was unconstitutional.

How does owning a inanimate object the purpose of which was to protect against the tyranny of government cause you any harm?

So you'd like to toss 2A, what about 1A?

There's been plenty of revolutions against tyranny without the public being armed. Look at every country in Europe east of Berlin. Everyone in the US could own a tank and as long as they have Kardashians their government can do whatever they please. Guns play a small role in rising against the government. Poor excuse. Everyone in the US cries their rights are being eroded. Is it because they don't have enough guns? Please...

 

[-D-]

When a normal person reads this, they read.....

It's OK that 12 000 people were killed by guns in the US last year because smoking killed more. As if 12 000 deaths that would not have happened and were not by the victims choice (like smoking is) don't count.

I bet every family member that lost one of those 12 000 don't write the loss off as a minor statistic as easily as you do.

Are you a sociopath?

Don't cry (again) if that hurts you since you seem very thin skinned for someone who likes to argue on the internet. It's just a question.

Thanks for that simple and poignant explanation.
Well said. He will not get it, he is on the one way express.

 

[D23]

If you believe that gun control is valid because "if it saves just one life" then the same logic should hold true for virtually every other inanimate object because most of the tools/equipment/stuff around anyone's house has been used at some point in history to kill someone. Do you wish to ban everything?

No, I don't wish to ban anything. I would suggest the US do something about the asymmetrical death rate by firearms by at least controlling them.

You see, we aren't talking about "just one life" as default gun wacko argument #4 states. We are talking about, on average, 12 000 a year. That's TWELVE THOUSAND A YEAR.

Also, the second amendment doesn't say anything about tyranny in government. Nothing. It was added to the constitution when there was an eminent threat of British invasion and the need for a militia to be formed. The second amendment is about defense of the person and defense by a militia against the British.

1875, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."


1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "protects arms that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".



2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[SUP] [/SUP][SUP][/SUP]but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[SUP][/SUP]


2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[SUP][/SUP]

If someone asked me if I was a sociopath I would say, no, I'm not. I don't think murder has to be a fact of life. It isn't such a factor in the rest of the world where there is gun control. Like here in Canada for example.

 

[stevex]

If someone asked me if I was a sociopath I would say, no, I'm not. I don't think murder has to be a fact of life. It isn't such a factor in the rest of the world where there is gun control. Like here in Canada for example.

lol, prepare for another bombardment of numbers and statistics and percentages because Canada is a fraction of the size of the US... I mean, c'mon, 12000 deaths a year is insignificant for a population of over 300 million!

 

[Snobike Mike]

No, I don't wish to ban anything. I would suggest the US do something about the asymmetrical death rate by firearms by at least controlling them.

You see, we aren't talking about "just one life" as default gun wacko argument #4 states. We are talking about, on average, 12 000 a year. That's TWELVE THOUSAND A YEAR.

Also, the second amendment doesn't say anything about tyranny in government. Nothing. It was added to the constitution when there was an eminent threat of British invasion and the need for a militia to be formed. The second amendment is about defense of the person and defense by a militia against the British.

1875, the Supreme Court ruled that "the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."


1939, the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "protects arms that had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".



2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[SUP] [/SUP][SUP][/SUP]but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[SUP][/SUP]


2010, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[SUP][/SUP]

If someone asked me if I was a sociopath I would say, no, I'm not. I don't think murder has to be a fact of life. It isn't such a factor in the rest of the world where there is gun control. Like here in Canada for example.

Why do you think gun control would stop 12000 deaths per year? The US had an AWB under Clinton and guess what happened in April 1999?

What else do you want to "control" to save lives? I ask again, there are so many other things that have much higher death rates related to them but I have yet to see anybody here advocating other types of controls.....

 

[Snobike Mike]

lol, prepare for another bombardment of numbers and statistics and percentages because Canada is a fraction of the size of the US... I mean, c'mon, 12000 deaths a year is insignificant for a population of over 300 million!

Nothing like facts and logic to get in the way of a good argument right?

And at 0.00004 percent it is in fact quite a small percentage........

 

[Snobike Mike]

If someone asked me if I was a sociopath I would say, no, I'm not. I don't think murder has to be a fact of life. It isn't such a factor in the rest of the world where there is gun control. Like here in Canada for example.

So you actually think that it is possible to have a society in which murder could be non-existent?

And actually, gun control tends to have either no effect, or the inverse effect on crime around the world.

 

[D23]

So you actually think that it is possible to have a society in which murder could be non-existent?

And actually, gun control tends to have either no effect, or the inverse effect on crime around the world.

I think gun control could have an effect on the murder rate in the US yes.

Gun control in Canada has an inverse rate to that of the US?

Please elaborate.

 

[Snobike Mike]

I think gun control could have an effect on the murder rate in the US yes.

.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08/24/harvard-study-proves-gun-grabbers-argument-dead-wrong-82127

Harvard study proves gun-grabbers’ argument dead wrong

August 24, 2013 by Joe Saunders


Will a Harvard man listen to Harvard research?

Probably not, if the Harvard man is Barack Obama, and what Harvard’s saying flies in the face of liberal pieties – and misconceptions and lies – about gun ownership, gun violence and gun control in the United States.

Like the recently reported CDC study about gun violence Obama commissioned himself, the message to gun grabbers is clear:

They’re wrong.

A Harvard study released in the spring – to virtually no media attention – focused on the prevalence of gun ownership in the United States versus those strict gun-control countries in Europe the left is so fond of talking about.

It was called, with disarming bluntness, “Would banning firearms reduce murder and suicide?”

Its answer was: “No.”

Looking at historical patterns in the United States from the colonial and post-colonial days, and in Europe going back to the time before guns were even invented, two Harvard researchers came to a clear conclusion:

“Nations with higher gun ownership rates … do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership.”

That’s just a fact, even in those European countries the U.S. left is so fond of citing.

Heavily armed Norwegians, where gun ownership is highest in Western Europe, have the continent’s lowest homicide rate, researchers Don Kates and Gary Mauser wrote.

Russia, where the civilian population was virtually disarmed by the communist government for 80 years, has one of the highest homicide rates in Europe – and one four times higher than in the United States.

In the United States, homicide rates were relatively low, despite periods when firearms were widely available – the colonial era, when Americans were the world’s most heavily armed population, the post-Civil War years, when the country was awash in surplus guns and filled with men trained to use them.

Homicide rates in the United States didn’t increase dramatically until the 1960s and ‘70s, which correlated with a rise in gun purchases, but Kates and Mauser point out that fear of crime could just as easily have sparked a rise in gun purchases, rather than more guns causing more crime.

And today?

Communities where gun-ownership rates are highest are where the homicide rates are lowest, Kates and Mauser wrote:

“Where firearms are most dense violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense violent crime rates are highest.”

That’s not what the gun grabbers want to hear.

And the two researchers know it. In their conclusion, they launched a pre-emptive defense, quoting another researcher who found similarly unwelcome (to the left) results when he studied crime in the United States versus gun-restrictive Canada:

“If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to ‘exonerate’ hand‐ guns, but there it is — a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.”

The study takes up 45 pages in the spring issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

This description of it takes up up 541 words.

But when it comes to gun-grabbers, the whole thing can be summed up in two:

You’re. Wrong.

Forum Sponsor