Seattle Campus Shootings

[markw]

Knives can't kill 30-40 people in a matter of minutes like an assault rifle did at Sandy Hook. Really Give me a F'ing break. We really don't need to go there.

But how often does that happen? Here's your nbreak: That Sandy Hook kid was a sicko and everyone knew it but nobody did anything. You can blame his mummy for enabling him but ,fortunately, she got what she deserved. As a close second, I do recall is Ft. Hood where some crazed muslim took out a bunch of unarmed soldiers on a military base. Gotta thank Clinton for taking away the guns from our soldiers on base. Liberal logic. Isn't it their job to handle guns?

If you enable even the most sane person with the ultimate hardware they cannot be trusted. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

But you have no problem with soldiers and police having the latest hardware. Do you really think they are all sane? I trust everyone I know with guns to use them properly. That's more than I can say for a lot of cops. Wasn't that guy in that movie theatre shooting you just brought up a retired cop? Doesn't that sort of go against what you just said.

Now, if you're done, so am I.

 

[gene]

Cartagena Columbia? Really?

Yes really. If you've ever been there you'd likely agree. Beautiful place and very non threatening.

But how often does that happen? Here's your nbreak: That Sandy Hook kid was a sicko and everyone knew it but nobody did anything. You can blame his mummy for enabling him but ,fortunately, she got what she deserved. As a close second, I do recall is Ft. Hood where some crazed muslim took out a bunch of unarmed soldiers on a military base. Gotta thank Clinton for taking away the guns from our soldiers on base. Liberal logic. Isn't it their job to handle guns?

If the "crazy" kid didn't have access to such lethal weaponry in the first place, the severity of the tragedy would have been lessened. Private citizens should NOT be allowed to buy weapons of such destruction as they aren't needed for hunting and they go beyond private protection.

As for Clinton disarming military bases, that's more Fox news propaganda.

A change in U.S. Army regulations issued in March 1993 (just two months after President Clinton assumed office) did affect the issue of personnel carrying firearms on military bases, but that change in regulations was issued by the Department of the Army and was not implemented by President Clinton via an executive order. Moreover, that change in regulations came about in response to a U.S. Department of Defense directive issued in February 1992, during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, and not at the sole behest of President Clinton.

Read more at snopes.com: Clinton Disarmed Soldiers on Military Bases?

But you have no problem with soldiers and police having the latest hardware. Do you really think they are all sane? I trust everyone I know with guns to use them properly. That's more than I can say for a lot of cops. Wasn't that guy in that movie theatre shooting you just brought up a retired cop? Doesn't that sort of go against what you just said.

Now, if you're done, so am I.

Police aren't allowed to carry assault rifles and automatic guns. The retired cop should have relinquished his weapon and he should NOT have been allowed to bring it into a public place like a movie theater.

Yes I'm done as we can continue to agree to disagree on these points. I think its truly sad that some people can only feel safe if they are heavily armed with weapons and we basically want no regulations to limit the amount of fire power that is allowed but its the world we live in I suppose.

 

[Alex2507]

I'm going to use my unemployment money to buy a flame thrower.

 

[mike c]

I'm going to use my unemployment money to buy a flame thrower.

do something with that to get the "heat" off them "assault rifles".

back on topic though ...

if one bans the ar15 "assault rifle" (i still chuckle at that designation) which is basically a 1/4" projectile fired from a semi automatic rifle.
what's the difference with semi automatic pistols ... with 3/8" up to 1/2" projectiles?

you would need to ban ALL guns for this to be a solution to the shootings over there.
because as long as there's some sort of gunpowder based weapon out there, psychos will find them and use them.

it will work. but it's not really a good solution.

Spoiler

and you would be giving up the only advantage you have to stop a zombie apocalypse.

let's use another example:

a psycho using a car to run over dozens of people in a parade or something. (sure, there will be less deaths, but humor me)
if he didn't have ANY car, he would need to walk up to each person and use a hammer or something.

do we ban cars? because without the car, he'd get to about 2-3 people before he is overpowered by the crowd.

 

[Rickster71]

It's still civil, isn't it? I'm certainly not going to get worked up over this.

Wasn't referring to you or most in this thread.
Unfortunately one person has made a choice to bring in politics.

 

[GO-NAD!]

if one bans the ar15 "assault rifle" (i still chuckle at that designation) which is basically a 1/4" projectile fired from a semi automatic rifle.
what's the difference with semi automatic pistols ... with 3/8" up to 1/2" projectiles?

I would say that the difference is that the pistol does have a valid purpose when used for defence within the home environment. Any rifle - bolt action or semi-auto - is less useful because space limitations impede its deployment. The AR15 may not be a true assault rifle because it doesn't fire on full auto. But, that doesn't change the fact that it can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and use large capacity magazines. As far as I'm concerned, for valid civilian use, rifles of this type are a poor choice. For "varmint" shooting, a .22 is fine. For big game, there are superior bolt action rifles. And, if you feel you need a magazine that holds more than 5-6 rounds, you must be a terrible shot and shouldn't be allowed in the woods. None - IMO - should be carried around in public "just cuz I want to".

a psycho using a car to run over dozens of people in a parade or something. (sure, there will be less deaths, but humor me)
if he didn't have ANY car, he would need to walk up to each person and use a hammer or something.

do we ban cars? because without the car, he'd get to about 2-3 people before he is overpowered by the crowd.

Come on Mike, now you're engaging in reductio ad absurdum. Cars serve a practical use by the general public, in public. How about we ban pillows? You can use one to smother somebody.

I thought we were doing pretty good in keeping this thread civil, but sadly, we're starting to go off the rails over firearms....again.

 

[Rickster71]

Ahhhhh, we're talking about something different now. Armed, trained, auxiliary volunteer police - I'm down with that. It's random people who may possess the requisite permit(s) to go around armed in public, but might not necessarily have the appropriate training and judgment to act appropriately in a shooting incident, that I am leary of. And yes, we have volunteer first responders up here too.

No, not 'Armed, trained, auxiliary volunteer police.'
I was suggesting how average 'non-professional' citizens are trusted when lives are at stake every day.
Members of the volunteer fire service, first-Aid, etc. They aren't paid professionals.

So with that in mind; if we can trust them, we can also trust a law abiding, trained individual (I believe 'all' gun owners should be trained) to carry a concealed firearm.

Not all people people would or should carry, not all people would even own a gun.
No more than all people would own a violin or eat meat. It would be a personal choice, like voting.
A personal choice by a trained person.

 

[Rickster71]

There is no such thing as an Assault Rifle.
It's a made up name. Just more hyperbole made up by the media.

According to the FBI crime report for murders in 2011: FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 11

- 323 were committed with rifles
- 496 were committed with hammers or clubs
- 1,694 were committed with knives
(Anyone care to look up how many children die from accidental drowning every year?) Because were just concerned about human life right?
Not a political agenda?
Pursuing a ban on assault weapons is a charade to make politicians appear as if they are doing something to combat crime.

 

[markw]

for all the beeyotching, gun violence is actually down over the past years.

(CNN) -- Gun-related homicides and crime are "strikingly" down from 20 years ago, despite the American public's belief that firearm crime is on the upswing, a new study said Wednesday.

"Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago," the researchers say.

See linky here

Hopefully, this bit of reality will knock some sense into the alarmists out there, but I ain't holding my breath. I think it's truly sad that some people were the medias tied and bound beeyotch and they don't even know it.

 

[GO-NAD!]

No, not 'Armed, trained, auxiliary volunteer police.'
I was suggesting how average 'non-professional' citizens are trusted when lives are at stake every day.
Members of the volunteer fire service, first-Aid, etc. They aren't paid professionals.

So with that in mind; if we can trust them, we can also trust a law abiding, trained individual (I believe 'all' gun owners should be trained) to carry a concealed firearm.

Not all people people would or should carry, not all people would even own a gun.
No more than all people would own a violin or eat meat. It would be a personal choice, like voting.
A personal choice by a trained person.

But volunteer fire fighters/paramedics are acting in an official capacity, sanctioned by the jurisdiction they operate in. Jo six-pack carrying a gun is a different kettle of fish.

 

[Rickster71]

But volunteer fire fighters/paramedics are acting in an official capacity, sanctioned by the jurisdiction they operate in. Jo six-pack carrying a gun is a different kettle of fish.

True. However they all start out as ordinary citizens. Joe six-pack, if you will. That's my whole point.

Getting a background check and a State & Federal gun permit is being officially sanctioned.

Me thinks if a person chooses to own a weapon they must accept the training and responsibility that goes along with it.

It's simple for me.
I don't want my few rights & privileges diminished, because of a few bad, mentally ill people.

 

[GO-NAD!]

True. However they all start out as ordinary citizens. Joe six-pack, if you will. That's my whole point.

Getting a background check and a State & Federal gun permit is being officially sanctioned.

Me thinks if a person chooses to own a weapon they must accept the training and responsibility that goes along with it.

It's simple for me.
I don't want my few rights & privileges diminished, because of a few bad, mentally ill people.

Having all your gun permits isn't the same thing though. The volunteer firefighter has his qualifications - the equivalent-ish to the gun permit. Plus, he is a member of an official organization tasked to carry out their assigned duties. There is no equivalent organization for the gun-owner.

We endure many infringements on our rights for the common good. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one, which impacts your freedom of speech.

 

[Adam]

So, although I acknowledge how you and many others feel about the right to carry firearms in public, which could be helpful, depending on the circumstances, I have very deep reservations about it.

I wasn't actually talking about a right to carry firearms in public. Just pointing out the difference between the ease of closing the distance between you and someone else when they are both preoccupied and unable to fire than it is when they are actively filling the space between you and them with material flying at lethal speeds.

Thinking that this incident disproves the value of having a gun in a gun fight would be like thinking how crazy people must be for thinking that police should have motor vehicles if there was a case in which a police officer was able to catch a fleeing bank robber on foot a block from the bank because the robber had stopped at a gas station to fill up. "See, they don't need cars to catch someone in a car." And I'm going to stick with that analogy, because guns and cars have a few things in common - they are tools, and they require training to use effectively and to reduce the risk of collateral damage.

 

[Rickster71]

We endure many infringements on our rights for the common good. For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre if there isn't one, which impacts your freedom of speech.

True.
We don't infringe on the rights of illegal aliens when they commit crimes or even murder, by ending illegal imigration. Or even checking voter ID.
Yet the cry goes out to alter the Constitution and chip away at law abiding gun owners' rights when isolated and random acts with a gun take place.

 

[Rickster71]

Having all your gun permits isn't the same thing though. The volunteer firefighter has his qualifications - the equivalent-ish to the gun permit. Plus, he is a member of an official organization tasked to carry out their assigned duties. There is no equivalent organization for the gun-owner.

I think we both know that any examples we give aren't going to be perfect DNA matches to the exact perfect analogy.
Getting caught up in that is missing the spirit of the point and the discussion.

I tend to bristle when all citizens and all Joe Six-Packs get lumped together as too stupid or incompetent to safely own and us a gun.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I think we both know that any examples we give aren't going to be perfect DNA matches to the exact perfect analogy.
Getting caught up in that is missing the spirit of the point and the discussion.

I tend to bristle when all citizens and all Joe Six-Packs get lumped together as too stupid or incompetent to safely own and us a gun.

You're right and I did not mean to cast aspersions on all and every gun owner. Maybe it's just me - I just can't wrap my head around the desire/need to carry firearms around in public (law-enforcement excepted). All I know, is that if I and my family get caught up in an incident where a concerned citizen uses a gun to stop a criminal and shoots one of my family by accident, he had better have a round left for me, cause I'm coming after him - I won't care what his motivation was.

 

[markw]

You're right and I did not mean to cast aspersions on all and every gun owner. Maybe it's just me - I just can't wrap my head around the desire/need to carry firearms around in public (law-enforcement excepted). All I know, is that if I and my family get caught up in an incident where a concerned citizen uses a gun to stop a criminal and shoots one of my family by accident, he had better have a round left for me, cause I'm coming after him - I won't care what his motivation was.

I can't say I blame you for feeling that way but that situation doesn't seem to be too common.

If it was, you can bet your bippy that these incidents would be bandied about gladly by the media in an attempt tp make their point.

Just look at how they publicize every bad thing that happens with guns but totally ignore whenever they are responsible for stopping crimes. Look at how they actually lied about the details of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Truth has no bearing to the media any more.

 

[GO-NAD!]

I can't say I blame you for feeling that way but that situation doesn't seem to be too common.

If it was, you can bet your bippy that these incidents would be bandied about gladly by the media in an attempt tp make their point.

Just look at how they publicize every bad thing that happens with guns but totally ignore whenever they are responsible for stopping crimes. Look at how they actually lied about the details of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Truth has no bearing to the media any more.

Who lied about what? I haven't really paid any attention to that incident since it happened.

 

[Tomorrow]

I've seen it said that banning guns from ordinary people because of a few bad ones is a little like cutting off ordinary people's ***** because there are rapists.

Hey Gene, how do you suggest my 115 lb., 64 year old wife defend herself from an armed attack? BTW, she works for a law enforcement agency and ALL the cops there favor gun rights. They know they can't be everywhere all the time to protect citizens.

 

[markw]

Who lied about what? I haven't really paid any attention to that incident since it happened.

Well, there's a lot about on the web but this link is a perfect example about our government and it's lapdog, the main stream media, lying to us to try to make their case. There are many other out there that can corroborate it if you doubt it's veracity.