Viewing 129 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Bucman

      Participant
      Post count: 1118

      FOX Carolina 21The family of an armed robber is speaking out after surveillance video was released of their family member committing an armed robbery.On the video Dante Williams is clearly seen entering a South Carolina Waffle House, pointing a gun at employees and customers and attempting to rob the restaurant.Justin Harrison was eating at the bar. Harrison, a concealed carry permit holder, was armed. He waited for an opportunity, shot Williams, and attempted to detain the second suspect.The family of Williams says that Harrison didn’t need to shoot and shouldn’t have felt threatened. They want to change South Carolina’s carry permit laws to require more training in order to get a permit. Many gun rights activists consider time consuming and costly training requirements to be a burden on their Second Amendment rights.According to Fox Carolina,“It still puzzles us as to why he would do something so crazy,” said McSwain…“…He was always sharp, always goofy, loved to dance, he was a respectable boy,” McSwain said.McSwain said her family was disappointed that Harrison wasn’t charged in the shooting and says her family is still considering pursuing other legal action against him.The second suspect was eventually caught and is now in prison, serving out a 30 year sentence.We already documented this incident back when it originally happened, so we won’t add this post to the defensive gun use database.http://gunssavelives.net/blog/family-of-dead-armed-robber-speaks-out-against-ccp-holder-who-shot-him-calls-for-stricter-gun-laws/Stories like this are great. Cleaning up the streets. Family is dumb as hell though, no shocker the kid is dead.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8044

      the Waffle House patrons shouldnt have felt threatened as an armed robbery attempt was taking place?  c’mon!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1125

      Someone needs to shoot the rest of that family.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2275

      the Waffle House patrons shouldnt have felt threatened as an armed robbery attempt was taking place?  c'mon!

      But he was a good kid!Stupid broad, your son wasn't a good kid or he wouldn't be out robbing stores.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6677

      If only guns were illegal this tragedy could have been avoided. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      Trying…..hard…..to…..find….any….level….of….sympathy……………………nope, none here.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 13

      That punks family keeps proving the adage of how it’s better to be silent and thought to be a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1125

      the Waffle House patrons shouldnt have felt threatened as an armed robbery attempt was taking place?  c'mon!

      But he was a good kid!Stupid broad, your son wasn't a good kid or he wouldn't be out robbing stores.

      He was good when he was asleep.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2275

      the Waffle House patrons shouldnt have felt threatened as an armed robbery attempt was taking place?  c'mon!

      But he was a good kid!Stupid broad, your son wasn't a good kid or he wouldn't be out robbing stores.

      He was good when he was asleep.

      Well this guy did her a favor and put him to sleep for good  ;D

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Trying.....hard.....to.....find....any....level....of....sympathy........................nope, none here.

      Exactly! Kudos to the person exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Trying.....hard.....to.....find....any....level....of....sympathy........................nope, none here.

      Exactly! Kudos to the person exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

      kudos to the person for killing the bad guy, but thats not "exercising their 2nd amendment rights".  See Heller . . . . well, unless the 2nd amendment doesnt exist in NJ, as one examplehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-review-new-jerseys-handgun-permit-law/2014/05/05/25f0fcd6-d457-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      “The right to keep and bear arms”

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      "The right to keep and bear arms"

      just like nearly every other phrase in the Constitution,  meaningless in the real world unless you add . . .  . "as interpreted by the Court" That guy would've been violating the law in several states  ;)and the most conservative Court in recent memory is okay with that

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1125

      If this happened more often, robberies would drop drastically.  Those idiots would think twice about robbing a place if they thought there was a chance someone in there had a gun and would use it on them.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      If this happened more often, robberies would drop drastically.  Those idiots would think twice about robbing a place if they thought there was a chance someone in there had a gun and would use it on them.

      As much as I hate to agree with this clown, Java makes a good point. Criminals prey on the weak.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      If this happened more often, robberies would drop drastically.  Those idiots would think twice about robbing a place if they thought there was a chance someone in there had a gun and would use it on them.

      As much as I hate to agree with this clown, Java makes a good point. Criminals prey on the weak.

      well, as is probably to be expected Java makes an incomplete point . . to have it happen more often means to have more people armed. more people armed may have the intended impact on crime, but not without a corresponding increase in crimes of passion, accidental shootings, suicides and more armed crimes . . . . that is why the NRA position makes no sense, we will always be a less than perfectly armed society . .  and there are already 30,000 gun deaths a year

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      btw, maybe the solution is to have a professional armed guard at all public businesses . . . we could tax guns to pay for that . . . call it the Wayne Plan

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      If this happened more often, robberies would drop drastically.  Those idiots would think twice about robbing a place if they thought there was a chance someone in there had a gun and would use it on them.

      As much as I hate to agree with this clown, Java makes a good point. Criminals prey on the weak.

      well, as is probably to be expected Java makes an incomplete point . . to have it happen more often means to have more people armed. more people armed may have the intended impact on crime, but not without a corresponding increase in crimes of passion, accidental shootings, suicides and more armed crimes . . . . that is why the NRA position makes no sense, we will always be a less than perfectly armed society . .  and there are already 30,000 gun deaths a year

      So what would the ratio be?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings.- - - - - - - - - -  -- - - -The study goes on to say:    …the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      btw, maybe the solution is to have a professional armed guard at all public businesses . . . we could tax guns to pay for that . . . call it the Wayne Plan

      There is no need to tax guns or ammo.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      btw, maybe the solution is to have a professional armed guard at all public businesses . . . we could tax guns to pay for that . . . call it the Wayne Plan

      There is no need to tax guns or ammo.

      I agree but that would be the logical extension of Wayne's alternative to universal background checks

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings.- - - - - - - - - -  -- - - -The study goes on to say:    …the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

      read the 2007 report.  the equation is a common one for gun proponents but based on a logical fallacy and not a rebuttal to the notion that "more guns = more gun violence" see the part in bold.  By the way, in the 1960s and 1970s was the US like Russia and Estonia?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      btw, maybe the solution is to have a professional armed guard at all public businesses . . . we could tax guns to pay for that . . . call it the Wayne Plan

      There is no need to tax guns or ammo.

      I agree but that would be the logical extension of Wayne's alternative to universal background checks

      And again, I believe there should be universal background checks. However, I believe that there should also be an LEO or a "contracted" security guard at all schools.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      btw, maybe the solution is to have a professional armed guard at all public businesses . . . we could tax guns to pay for that . . . call it the Wayne Plan

      There is no need to tax guns or ammo.

      I agree but that would be the logical extension of Wayne's alternative to universal background checks

      And again, I believe there should be universal background checks. However, I believe that there should also be an LEO or a "contracted" security guard at all schools.

      I agree about the LEO/security guard and I think most people would . . . but you have to pay for them.  Should ALL taxpayers foot the bill?  Not sure that is fair . .  especially where the threat is linked largley to guns

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I agree about the LEO/security guard and I think most people would . . . but you have to pay for them.  Should ALL taxpayers foot the bill?  Not sure that is fair . .  especially where the threat is linked largley to guns

      Not fair? Protecting the children of this country. So, let me get this straight. Gun control activist, who wants to protect school-children; wants the gun owners to foot the bill in order to do so.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      There are a couple of traits linked to the violence at schools.  And yes, access to guns is one.  The other is the shooters have been … wackos.. Seems there are far more guns than wackos – perhaps focus on a more manageable number should be considered. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      There are a couple of traits linked to the violence at schools.  And yes, access to guns is one.  The other is the shooters have been ... wackos.. Seems there are far more guns than wackos - perhaps focus on a more manageable number should be considered.

      Wouldn't that result in some sort of ban?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      The focus would be on folks who are known to be treated for mental issues. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The focus would be on folks who are known to be treated for mental issues.

      Oh, I see what you meant. I agree.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      There are a couple of traits linked to the violence at schools.  And yes, access to guns is one.  The other is the shooters have been ... wackos.. Seems there are far more guns than wackos - perhaps focus on a more manageable number should be considered.

      those two concepts are not mutually exclusive but more importantly just think about what you posted . .  "more manageable"  I know you were coparing nuber of guns to nuber of whackos and using that to suggest it was easier to "anage" whackos . . .  but that is siply wrong if you think about it . . .access to guns is much more manageable than doing something that to this day escapes the ability of man: accurately identifying violent whackos BEFORE they act. Some of the recent mass murders were obvious whackos in hindsight, but not identified as such BEFORE.  We should spend a tremendous amount of effort/money trying to improve our ability to do what we presently cannot -- identify whackos before they act  ---BUT simple logic says its easier to institute universal background checks . . .  as one example. . . it is ACTUALLYvuch easier to manage access to guns then it is to figure out when a person has crossed some mental threshold

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I agree about the LEO/security guard and I think most people would . . . but you have to pay for them.  Should ALL taxpayers foot the bill?  Not sure that is fair . .  especially where the threat is linked largley to guns

      Not fair? Protecting the children of this country. So, let me get this straight. Gun control activist, who wants to protect school-children; wants the gun owners to foot the bill in order to do so.

      ??

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The focus would be on folks who are known to be treated for mental issues.

      out of the recent mass murderers who used guns . . . name as many as you can that were "known to be treated for mental issues" BEFORE they killed a bunch of people? Is there even one? The Sandy Hook killer might be the best example and he was not identified and in fact his mother was buying guns left and right. The Denver theater shooter is asserting an insanity defense now . .  before he was a near genius student. The Santa monica shooter spent weeks building an assault rifle in his home from parts . .  . not identified before.It is much easier to reasonably limit access to guns than it is to revolutionize our mental health abilities.  Work on the latter like crazy, but why do that ONLY to the exclusion of limiting access to guns?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1125

      The focus should be on folks who have mental issues.

      So the focus should be on guys like Vin.  Agreed.  That guy has a screw loose.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I agree about the LEO/security guard and I think most people would . . . but you have to pay for them.  Should ALL taxpayers foot the bill?  Not sure that is fair . .  especially where the threat is linked largley to guns

      Not fair? Protecting the children of this country. So, let me get this straight. Gun control activist, who wants to protect school-children; wants the gun owners to foot the bill in order to do so.

      ??

      no, I want universal background checks etc, but the gun lobby says "no, the better option is to arm the schools"  I am fine with that approach BUT as an alternative to something like universal background checks . . . well, you (the gun lobby) are the one asking for the consideration . .  so. . . .  I say we do BOTH and I would gladly pay my share

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I agree about the LEO/security guard and I think most people would . . . but you have to pay for them.  Should ALL taxpayers foot the bill?  Not sure that is fair . .  especially where the threat is linked largley to guns

      Not fair? Protecting the children of this country. So, let me get this straight. Gun control activist, who wants to protect school-children; wants the gun owners to foot the bill in order to do so.

      ??

      no, I want universal background checks etc, but the gun lobby says "no, the better option is to arm the schools"  I am fine with that approach BUT as an alternative to something like universal background checks . . . well, you (the gun lobby) are the one asking for the consideration . .  so. . . .  I say we do BOTH and I would gladly pay my share

      We ALL should do both and we ALL should pay for it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I agree about the LEO/security guard and I think most people would . . . but you have to pay for them.  Should ALL taxpayers foot the bill?  Not sure that is fair . .  especially where the threat is linked largley to guns

      Not fair? Protecting the children of this country. So, let me get this straight. Gun control activist, who wants to protect school-children; wants the gun owners to foot the bill in order to do so.

      ??

      no, I want universal background checks etc, but the gun lobby says "no, the better option is to arm the schools"  I am fine with that approach BUT as an alternative to something like universal background checks . . . well, you (the gun lobby) are the one asking for the consideration . .  so. . . .  I say we do BOTH and I would gladly pay my share

      We ALL should do both and we ALL should pay for it.

      agreed, talk to Wayne :-) or join Bloomberg . . . .  just kidding, although "Everytown" and the moms likely agree with you and me

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      The focus would be on folks who are known to be treated for mental issues.

      out of the recent mass murderers who used guns . . . name as many as you can that were "known to be treated for mental issues" BEFORE they killed a bunch of people? Is there even one? The Sandy Hook killer might be the best example and he was not identified and in fact his mother was buying guns left and right. The Denver theater shooter is asserting an insanity defense now . .  before he was a near genius student. The Santa monica shooter spent weeks building an assault rifle in his home from parts . .  . not identified before.It is much easier to reasonably limit access to guns than it is to revolutionize our mental health abilities.  Work on the latter like crazy, but why do that ONLY to the exclusion of limiting access to guns?

      Ok, so how would any of those guys' "access to guns" be limited by anything you have proposed?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      agreed, talk to Wayne :-) or join Bloomberg . . . .  just kidding, although "Everytown" and the moms likely agree with you and me

      Maybe with you.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The focus would be on folks who are known to be treated for mental issues.

      out of the recent mass murderers who used guns . . . name as many as you can that were "known to be treated for mental issues" BEFORE they killed a bunch of people? Is there even one? The Sandy Hook killer might be the best example and he was not identified and in fact his mother was buying guns left and right. The Denver theater shooter is asserting an insanity defense now . .  before he was a near genius student. The Santa monica shooter spent weeks building an assault rifle in his home from parts . .  . not identified before.It is much easier to reasonably limit access to guns than it is to revolutionize our mental health abilities.  Work on the latter like crazy, but why do that ONLY to the exclusion of limiting access to guns?

      Ok, so how would any of those guys' "access to guns" be limited by anything you have proposed?

      many ways but a couple examples:the Denver theater shooter probably doesnt injure/kill as many without the 100 round drum clip. he got off 45 rounds before it jammed (thankfully)but for a loophole that allows AR parts to be sold through the mail the Santa monica shooter likely cant build an AR at home.  Another gun law prevented him from buying one outrightIf Adam Lanza only has handguns he probably still kills a lot of kids, but probably not as many (he used a rifle to kills his mom and get to the assault rifle, right?)BUT, my point was not that something like universal background checks would stop people like these guys - hyper motivated crazy people -- it was that it would stop others (so long as uniformly applied) and more importantly that it makes no sense to say "focus on mental health" if you mean:1) to the exclusion of other reasonable gun measures and2) if you recognize that we as a society cannot meaningfully PREDICT when someone is crazy to the point of being a mass murderer. (only a tiny tiny % of crazy people are ADJUDICATED incompetent)How about if you flip it around: IF it makes sense to conduct background checks in a brick and mortar building then why would it not make sense to conduct background checks just because you're under a tent?.. . . other than for gun makers to make more money?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      agreed, talk to Wayne :-) or join Bloomberg . . . .  just kidding, although "Everytown" and the moms likely agree with you and me on the very narrow point that we should do both

      Maybe with you.

      haha I should have added the edit above

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      If this happened more often, robberies would drop drastically.  Those idiots would think twice about robbing a place if they thought there was a chance someone in there had a gun and would use it on them.

      But how about the idiots like the movie theater guy.  For every great story there's one that the gun owner went too far...retarded guy at Taco Bell?  Many of these stories cancel each other out or do you pretend to ignore the gross misconduct of many gun owners?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      If this happened more often, robberies would drop drastically.  Those idiots would think twice about robbing a place if they thought there was a chance someone in there had a gun and would use it on them.

      But how about the idiots like the movie theater guy.  For every great story there's one that the gun owner went too far...retarded guy at Taco Bell?  Many of these stories cancel each other out or do you pretend to ignore the gross misconduct of many gun owners?

      and then add in the accidental injuries and death, the cries of passion, the suicides . . .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Let’s ban them.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Let's ban them.

      unconstitutional and unnecessary

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Let's ban them.

      unconstitutional and unnecessary

      I was joking Vin. Lol.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      The focus would be on folks who are known to be treated for mental issues.

      out of the recent mass murderers who used guns . . . name as many as you can that were "known to be treated for mental issues" BEFORE they killed a bunch of people? Is there even one? The Sandy Hook killer might be the best example and he was not identified and in fact his mother was buying guns left and right. The Denver theater shooter is asserting an insanity defense now . .  before he was a near genius student. The Santa monica shooter spent weeks building an assault rifle in his home from parts . .  . not identified before.It is much easier to reasonably limit access to guns than it is to revolutionize our mental health abilities.  Work on the latter like crazy, but why do that ONLY to the exclusion of limiting access to guns?

      Ok, so how would any of those guys' "access to guns" be limited by anything you have proposed?

      many ways but a couple examples:the Denver theater shooter probably doesnt injure/kill as many without the 100 round drum clip. he got off 45 rounds before it jammed (thankfully)but for a loophole that allows AR parts to be sold through the mail the Santa monica shooter likely cant build an AR at home.  Another gun law prevented him from buying one outrightIf Adam Lanza only has handguns he probably still kills a lot of kids, but probably not as many (he used a rifle to kills his mom and get to the assault rifle, right?)

      many ways?  It looks like it doesn't stop "access to guns" in any of the cases you mentioned.  I'll take that as an "it doesn't".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The focus would be on folks who are known to be treated for mental issues.

      out of the recent mass murderers who used guns . . . name as many as you can that were "known to be treated for mental issues" BEFORE they killed a bunch of people? Is there even one? The Sandy Hook killer might be the best example and he was not identified and in fact his mother was buying guns left and right. The Denver theater shooter is asserting an insanity defense now . .  before he was a near genius student. The Santa monica shooter spent weeks building an assault rifle in his home from parts . .  . not identified before.It is much easier to reasonably limit access to guns than it is to revolutionize our mental health abilities.  Work on the latter like crazy, but why do that ONLY to the exclusion of limiting access to guns?

      Ok, so how would any of those guys' "access to guns" be limited by anything you have proposed?

      many ways but a couple examples:the Denver theater shooter probably doesnt injure/kill as many without the 100 round drum clip. he got off 45 rounds before it jammed (thankfully)but for a loophole that allows AR parts to be sold through the mail the Santa monica shooter likely cant build an AR at home.  Another gun law prevented him from buying one outrightIf Adam Lanza only has handguns he probably still kills a lot of kids, but probably not as many (he used a rifle to kills his mom and get to the assault rifle, right?)

      many ways?  It looks like it doesn't stop "access to guns" in any of the cases you mentioned.  I'll take that as an "it doesn't".

      Hey, it's a free world ;-)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      Just perhaps I was thinking and have thought about what I was saying, and just perhaps, maybe, possibly, you could as well.  Check and see how many were under treatment, whose parents knew of dark sides, if not scary sides, or their kids, but did not or could not, or didn’t know how or when get help.  Just maybe the actual operator of the dangerous instrument is the target.  Kind of like checking out drivers, as opposed to the rear view mirrors if you will.So, while some actually believe it is easier or better to try to control 300,000,000 inert but not readily known instruments as opposed to having doctors, parents, adults even, trying to identify and address those who jeopardize society is a viable contributor if not goal.  Thanks for listening - And talk to the father of the Sandy Creek murderer - he knew his kid... That is just a for instance.  Others were under care - just being right once in a while would be huge.  As opposed to taking the right weapon off the street - you know the one of 88 guns per person purported held by one of the 330 million Americans (and don't get caught up in the numbers - I picked random sources - some I would trust and some I would not.)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      while some actually believe it is easier or better to try to control 300,000,000 inert but not readily known instruments as opposed to having doctors, parents, adults even, trying to identify and address those who jeopardize society is a viable contributor if not goal.

      1. see the part in bold  -- you are the only one I have seen making the choice mutually exclusive, right?  In other words, what is your opposition to doing BOTH?2. You realize the examples you mentioned were all examples of failure, right? So that means that if we use your "as opposed " language (i.e., make it the mutually exclusive choice you seem to be) then you are essentially saying it is EASIER to do one thing (identify people with mental health issues before violence) based on your examples of failing to do so, than it is to do another (e.g. universal background checks) when there is a demonstrated record of some measure of success?  To use a hypothetical, that is like saying we should not try to cure cancer here because scientist just discovered an element on Mars that would cure the illness.  Of course, we cant yet get to Mars, but we should still cease efforts here?Again, just a really simple question -- what is the opposition to doing BOTH?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      while some actually believe it is easier or better to try to control 300,000,000 inert but not readily known instruments as opposed to having doctors, parents, adults even, trying to identify and address those who jeopardize society is a viable contributor if not goal.

      1. see the part in bold  -- you are the only one I have seen making the choice mutually exclusive, right?  In other words, what is your opposition to doing BOTH?2. You realize the examples you mentioned were all examples of failure, right? So that means that if we use your "as opposed " language (i.e., make it the mutually exclusive choice you seem to be) then you are essentially saying it is EASIER to do one thing (identify people with mental health issues before violence) based on your examples of failing to do so, than it is to do another (e.g. universal background checks) when there is a demonstrated record of some measure of success?  To use a hypothetical, that is like saying we should not try to cure cancer here because scientist just discovered an element on Mars that would cure the illness.  Of course, we cant yet get to Mars, but we should still cease efforts here?Again, just a really simple question -- what is the opposition to doing BOTH?

      See the part out of bold.  Note the failures to date.  Note the huge amount of opposition your idea has encountered.  Find someone who is adverse to better mental health care, encouragement for parents and others to identify and help those headed down a dark path.  Note nearly as fancy and dramatic as taking rights from innocents/non-offenders but rather targeting those with the propensity for such vile actions.The simple answer is to first grab the low hanging fruit.  If that resolves a major portion or heaven forbid the entire issue perhaps that will sate the need for some Americans to tell other Americans how their lives should be led.  Naw, that isn't going to happen - went too far with that last thought...  Hell, that would be like not sending enough tax money to provide politicians the ability to buy votes.. lost my head.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      no, I want universal background checks etc, but the gun lobby says "no, the better option is to arm the schools"  I am fine with that approach BUT as an alternative to something like universal background checks . . . well, you (the gun lobby) are the one asking for the consideration . .  so. . . .  I say we do BOTH and I would gladly pay my share

      So if all these "wackos" you highlighted were not identified until after they went on their murder spree, just how is universal background checks going to help?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The simple answer is to first grab the low hanging fruit. 

      well, then you would have to explain to me and many others the thought process that says identifying violent mental health risks before they act is "low hanging fruit"? Even better, you'd have to explain how identifying violent mental health risks before they act is fruit that hangs lower than background checks WE ALREADY USE with some measure of success?  Universal background checks ARE THE LOW HANGING FRUIT . . . identifying violent mental health risks before they act . .  is at the top of the tree . .  and we don't even have a ladder yet. See Adam Lanza, Santa Monica killer, Atlanta guy who walked into a school with an AR only to put it down, Denver Theater shooter, FedEx shooter, Columbine kids . . . etc. etc. etc.I am not sure which one you are saying, but saying that we should focus on mental health is a truism.  Obviously, we should focus on mental health, I am all for it. However, saying we should NOT focus on guns, but instead ONLY mental health is . . . well . .  deflection.  It is the equivalent of a bad kid caught with his hand in a cookie jar saying "oh yeah, well look at my sister . . she never does what you say" because obviously each of the examples included at least two parts: A CRAZY PERSON + GUN. .  so to say we should ONLY look at one side of that  plus sign is .. . .  well . . . odd.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      no, I want universal background checks etc, but the gun lobby says "no, the better option is to arm the schools"  I am fine with that approach BUT as an alternative to something like universal background checks . . . well, you (the gun lobby) are the one asking for the consideration . .  so. . . .  I say we do BOTH and I would gladly pay my share

      So if all these "wackos" you highlighted were not identified until after they went on their murder spree, just how is universal background checks going to help?

      I just said above that universal background checks will not necessarily stop a highly motivated whacko, but as one example . . the Santa Monica killer was prevented from buying an AR because of a gun law (enter insane gun lobby loophole . . and boom . .  he can just build an AR). . .  that said though, the discussion going is not about stopping just these whackos (who account for a rather small number of 30,000+ deaths) its is about the argument that apparently says universal background checks (and other reasonable restrictions ) should not be done because identifying killers before they act is the "low hanging fruit".  How can that be the case?(note that I said I was for BOTH approaches in BOTH discussions.  In other words, I am all for mental health efforts and even for arming schools, but also measures like Universal background checks.  Three gun guys in this discussion with me . .  are any of you for BOTH or all three?)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Btw, here is the current state of “low hanging fruit” when it comes to gun control.Scenario #1 - you walk into a store, fill out a form, wait a couple days . .  get your gunScenario #2 - some of your friends or loved ones try to commit you to a mental institution and/or have you "adjudicated as a mental defective," which means you are not competent to stand trial or not guilty due to mental disease or defect (what trial though -- oh you would've had to have been tried for an offense before)yeah, I think there's no reason to require a background check in a tent . . .even though we require them in a building . . . because Scenario #2 is the "low hanging fruit" of gun control???It goes without saying that families like the Lanza family need more help and more education and more option for dealing with a son like that, but: a) 30,000 people per year are not just killed by Adam Lanzas and b) it makes no sense to say its easier to deal with Adama Lanzas than close a gun maker's loophole

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      The simple answer is to first grab the low hanging fruit. 

      well, then you would have to explain to me and many others the thought process that says identifying violent mental health risks before they act is "low hanging fruit"? r does what you say" because obviously each of the examples included at least two parts: A CRAZY PERSON + GUN. .  so to say we should ONLY look at one side of that  plus sign is .. . .  well . . . odd.

      Actually I don't, but I will.  I already provided one example, and would allow you to review the terrible incidents and determine who knew of the shooters propensities and what they did about it.  I choose to allow you to do your own review  to avoid dispute.  Then you can check the dates for the change in Mental Health hospitals availability - I believe it began with the Reagan administration... Insofar as passing background checks - I have no issue with enforcing that element.  ADDED - but I do have concerns about the creation of a database outlining the number and type of guns one owns.  Pass or fail is fine.  And now I have exceeded my interest in the argument you bring to the boards so regularly. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      I like the part when the family says they want SC to make carry and conceal weapon permits harder to get. Didn’t read the story, but i’m going to go a head and assume that the men robbing the waffle house weren’t properly registered and permitted to have their own guns. I know my son was pointing a gun at you  but is that really reason enough to shoot him?I'm a believer that having or not having a gun doesn't make or not make you a killer. Either you're a bad person who will do bad things throughout the course of your life or your a good person and won't do those things. Having a gun, a knife, brass knuckles doesn't change who you are. If you're the type of person who considers robbing a waffle house, you're going figure out a way to attempt it. Bad people are bad people.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The simple answer is to first grab the low hanging fruit. 

      well, then you would have to explain to me and many others the thought process that says identifying violent mental health risks before they act is "low hanging fruit"? r does what you say" because obviously each of the examples included at least two parts: A CRAZY PERSON + GUN. .  so to say we should ONLY look at one side of that  plus sign is .. . .  well . . . odd.

      Actually I don't, but I will.  I already provided one example, and would allow you to review the terrible incidents and determine who knew of the shooters propensities and what they did about it.  I choose to allow you to do your own review  to avoid dispute.  Then you can check the dates for the change in Mental Health hospitals availability - I believe it began with the Reagan administration... Insofar as passing background checks - I have no issue with enforcing that element.  ADDED - but I do have concerns about the creation of a database outlining the number and type of guns one owns.  Pass or fail is fine.  And now I have exceeded my interest in the argument you bring to the boards so regularly.

      To the part in bold - I did not force you to enter the conversation nor can I hold you back from leaving, but thanks for the announcement.  ???To the rest - it appears now that we actually agree more than we disagree; that is, you seem to be accepting of universal background checks AND mental health efforts.  As for the research, I don't even contest that having more mental health hospitals would be a good thing I only took issue, so to speak, with the notion that doing so to the exclusion of background checks would make sense because identifying potentially violent people pre-shoot up is the "low hanging fruit" of gun control or lower hanging fruit than filling out a form and waiting a couple days, but we agree it seems . .  so that's good.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And now I have exceeded my interest in the argument you bring to the boards so regularly.

      Trying.....hard.....to.....find....any....level....of....sympathy........................nope, none here.

      Exactly! Kudos to the person exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

      kudos to the person for killing the bad guy, but thats not "exercising their 2nd amendment rights".  See Heller . . . . well, unless the 2nd amendment doesnt exist in NJ, as one examplehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-review-new-jerseys-handgun-permit-law/2014/05/05/25f0fcd6-d457-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html

      ;)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And now I have exceeded my interest in the argument you bring to the boards so regularly.

      Trying.....hard.....to.....find....any....level....of....sympathy........................nope, none here.

      Exactly! Kudos to the person exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

      kudos to the person for killing the bad guy, but thats not "exercising their 2nd amendment rights".  See Heller . . . . well, unless the 2nd amendment doesnt exist in NJ, as one examplehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-review-new-jerseys-handgun-permit-law/2014/05/05/25f0fcd6-d457-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html

      ;)

      You started the thread Vin.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3341

      I must say I am stunned at how this thread has unfolded once a certain poster got involved.  Stunned, I tell you.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And now I have exceeded my interest in the argument you bring to the boards so regularly.

      Trying.....hard.....to.....find....any....level....of....sympathy........................nope, none here.

      Exactly! Kudos to the person exercising their 2nd amendment rights.

      kudos to the person for killing the bad guy, but thats not "exercising their 2nd amendment rights".  See Heller . . . . well, unless the 2nd amendment doesnt exist in NJ, as one examplehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-declines-to-review-new-jerseys-handgun-permit-law/2014/05/05/25f0fcd6-d457-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html

      ;)

      You started the thread Vin.

      I know, I have several accounts

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I must say I am stunned at how this thread has unfolded once a certain poster got involved.  Stunned, I tell you.

      as am I stunned that you are here doing what you do . . . posting ABOUT ME . . . .  lol . . .. . oh . . . and that you're wrong AGAIN . .  . as usual.  Buggsy, do you have any thoughts about the event that is the subject of this thread or about whether we should hold off on universal background checks in favor of more effort on mental health?(any bets?)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      To the rest - it appears now that we actually agree more than we disagree; that is, you seem to be accepting of universal background checks AND mental health efforts.  As for the research, I don't even contest that having more mental health hospitals would be a good thing I only took issue, so to speak, with the notion that doing so to the exclusion of background checks would make sense because identifying potentially violent people pre-shoot up is the "low hanging fruit" of gun control or lower hanging fruit than filling out a form and waiting a couple days, but we agree it seems . .  so that's good.

      No, Vin. It's "WE". WE are accepting of universal background checks and mental health efforts. WE meaning both sides, not just pro-gun. I've been all aboard this idea from the beginning. THIS is what will help, not ridiculous restrictions.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      To the rest - it appears now that we actually agree more than we disagree; that is, you seem to be accepting of universal background checks AND mental health efforts.  As for the research, I don't even contest that having more mental health hospitals would be a good thing I only took issue, so to speak, with the notion that doing so to the exclusion of background checks would make sense because identifying potentially violent people pre-shoot up is the "low hanging fruit" of gun control or lower hanging fruit than filling out a form and waiting a couple days, but we agree it seems . .  so that's good.

      No, Vin. It's "WE". WE are accepting of universal background checks and mental health efforts. WE meaning both sides, not just pro-gun. I've been all aboard this idea from the beginning. THIS is what will help, not ridiculous restrictions.

      well, I hope that is true.  I have never seen a gun control proponent say we should ignore mental health issues (maybe it happens, who knows) but I have seen a pro-gun person say universal background checks are not part of the "solution." In fact, I think that is the official position of the gun lobby, but maybe this is the way things change . . grass roots

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Sure, I’ll start it. Lol.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1875

      Just checked – I did say argument as opposed to thread….

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Just checked - I did say argument as opposed to thread....

      lol

        And now I have exceeded my interest in the argument you bring to the boards so regularly.

      ;)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      Well what do we have here?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2626480/Teen-planned-Columbine-style-massacre-denies-charges.html

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2626480/Teen-planned-Columbine-style-massacre-denies-charges.html

      Is this just a link to an article or are you trying to make a point?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2626480/Teen-planned-Columbine-style-massacre-denies-charges.html

      Is this just a link to an article or are you trying to make a point?

      2 points actually:1. Not realistic to expect people to identify a dangerous "insane" person before event. More likely the person is coddled by a family that can't cope (see Lanza, FedEx killer etc)  This guys dad enabled him. Only caught because of lucky and vigilant citizen2. Assault rifles - mass murders if this type are copy car killers so this kid was copying Columbine and Boston Marathon so he had pressure cooker bombs and the assault rifle, lots of ammo and multiple gun. Pretty typical mo.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      2 points actually:

      1. Not realistic to expect people to identify a dangerous "insane" person before event. More likely the person is coddled by a family that can't cope (see Lanza, FedEx killer etc)  This guys dad enabled him. Only caught because of lucky and vigilant citizen

      Okay. I'm not going to agree that the Dad enabled him. However, I'm not saying that what the Dad did was right. But, if it's not realistic to expect people to identify a dangerous person; then what's YOUR solution to this?

      2. Assault rifles - mass murders if this type are copy car killers so this kid was copying Columbine and Boston Marathon so he had pressure cooker bombs and the assault rifle, lots of ammo and multiple gun. Pretty typical mo.

      Assault rifles? Are you serious? Let's see, unless you can find the complete inventory of what this kid had; we can conclude that the SKS was the only semi-automatic rifle that he had. Along with a 9mm (you know, one of those handguns that are more responsible for mass shootings than semi-automatic rifles), and a .22 gun. The SKS isn't even an assault rifle! Typical MO? This kid had designed and built 6 homemade CLAYMORE BOMBS! I'll give you credit for your stance and arguments in favor of the Gun Control Agenda, but this is ridiculous! It's a complete and total biased view that reveals your disdain toward "Assault Rifles". The kid had f*cking bombs (claymores...which are designed to maim) and was going to set them off in a playground. Yet you, along with the gun-control crowd, look past this and point to the big, bad assault rifle he had (which wasn't an assault rifle). I can't help but to simply shake my head in disbelief.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      2 points actually:

      1. Not realistic to expect people to identify a dangerous "insane" person before event. More likely the person is coddled by a family that can't cope (see Lanza, FedEx killer etc)  This guys dad enabled him. Only caught because of lucky and vigilant citizen

      Okay. I'm not going to agree that the Dad enabled him. However, I'm not saying that what the Dad did was right. But, if it's not realistic to expect people to identify a dangerous person; then what's YOUR solution to this?

      2. Assault rifles - mass murders if this type are copy car killers so this kid was copying Columbine and Boston Marathon so he had pressure cooker bombs and the assault rifle, lots of ammo and multiple gun. Pretty typical mo.

      Assault rifles? Are you serious? Let's see, unless you can find the complete inventory of what this kid had; we can conclude that the SKS was the only semi-automatic rifle that he had. Along with a 9mm (you know, one of those handguns that are more responsible for mass shootings than semi-automatic rifles), and a .22 gun. The SKS isn't even an assault rifle! Typical MO? This kid had designed and built 6 homemade CLAYMORE BOMBS! I'll give you credit for your stance and arguments in favor of the Gun Control Agenda, but this is ridiculous! It's a complete and total biased view that reveals your disdain toward "Assault Rifles". The kid had f*cking bombs (claymores...which are designed to maim) and was going to set them off in a playground. Yet you, along with the gun-control crowd, look past this and point to the big, bad assault rifle he had (which wasn't an assault rifle). I can't help but to simply shake my head in disbelief.

      On #2, sorry but that is a discussion I also have with Spartan.  When I say "assault rifles" I mean it in the broadest, non-gun owner's sense, not the technical distinction you are making. The kid had bombs because bombs were used at Columbine and specifically pressure cooker bombs because they were used at the Boston Marathon (i.e., what the kid saw on tv).  My point was that a kid like this is doing what kids do today . .  he is watching television and then copying what he sees.  Handguns guns do kill more people BUT it is beyond doubt that today, in this world, if you are a kid and you want to commit suicide because you are bullied or lonely or just crazy, you no longer drive your car off a cliff (like the 1950s) or overdose (like the 1960s or 1970s)  today you go out in a blaze of glory . .  .and if that is your plan . .  you do NOT first think handgun . . . you think about dressing up in body armor, getting a lot of ammo, maybe some homemade bombs and  . . .an "assault rifle." Here's an example, post Sandy Hook"Michael Brandon Hill, 20, walked into Ronald E. McNair Discovery Learning Academy in Decatur, Ga., outside Atlanta with an AK-47 type assault rifle, along with bags containing hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a couple of magazines on Tuesday, DeKalb County officials announced at a press conference on Wednesday. ""He walked in with 498 rounds of ammunition. Fortunately this came to an end quietly, without incident," Alexander said. "I think we can all make a reasonable assumption he came here to do some harm." Hill "did not have anything else in the bag that would harm people," Davis told reporters. Only one weapon was recovered, authorities said Wednesday, contradicting earlier reports that he had multiple firearms.Before he left he took a "selfie":A photo of Hill holding a rifle, believed to be the same one used in Tuesday's shooting, was found on Hill's cellphone, Davis said. Turning back to this event, this is from the article:LaDue was arrested on April 29 after a concerned citizen saw him enter a southern Minnesota storage unit. LaDue reportedly admitted his intricate plans after being arrested, with police seizing an SKS assault rifle with 400 rounds of ammunition, a 9mm handgun with ammo and a gun safe with five more firearms, all in his bedroom at the family home.Perhaps its just poor writing, but that reads to me like he had 400 rounds FOR THE SKS, right?Is this an SKS?Tapco_Intrafuse_SKS_Rifle_System_Rail-DE.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      This is an SKS. 10615480443_4e33a0281c_z.jpg[img]http://forum.gon.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=189244&stc=1&d=1222471033[/img]^^^^^^^This is not an assault rifle. 416.jpgHK.jpgTHIS is an HK416. THIS is an assault rifle. This was my weapon during the last few years of my service. One that I purchased after getting my Class 3 license (and fortunately know someone at HK, so I got somewhat of a discount).And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      I would imagine that my definition is the same as the non-gun-owner definition and that would be a military style rifle.  I think the difference lies in that you are a professional, so to speak, and so you define the guns by their capability.  I doubt most of these kids define the guns by their capabilities as much as by the look, other than perhaps the ability to hold ammunition or clips. In other words, the Denver Theater shooter likely chose a military style assault rifle in part because of the 100 round clip, but also because it fit the "fantasy,"  Same thing probably with Adam Lanza and definitely with the Santa Monica killer and the Atlanta guy seemed to not know much about guns and still chose an "assault rifle," which suggest the copy cat MO I mentioned and supports the point I was making.  I realize its not a perfect concept (none are) because the VTech guy used handguns, some of these guys had other weapons and the FedEx guy had a shotgun, but it is still pretty hard to argue that the military-style rifle does not fit with the "blaze of glory", school/work/crowded venue shooting . . . not even sure that is surprising when one looks at how the weapons are marketed and at video games etc.(Columbine guys and Lanza were big gamers).I have said that military-style weapons like these are the "low hanging fruit" of gun control not because of the number of people killed by them but because: 1) they are often brought to the wider population's attention through media event killings and  2) have so little value to most of the population.  Because that is the way most non-gun owners see and hear about these types of weapons they don't really care about the technical/capabilities distinction that I am sure you correctly make. That is not meant in any way as a criticism. In fact, its meant as an acknowledgement that I am not a gun expert, but with the caveat that the expertise is not really the issue, at least from the majority of the public's perspective.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3341

      And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      If it looks scary, it's an assault rifle.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      I would imagine that my definition is the same as the non-gun-owner definition and that would be a military style rifle.  I think the difference lies in that you are a professional, so to speak, and so you define the guns by their capability.  I doubt most of these kids define the guns by their capabilities as much as by the look, other than perhaps the ability to hold ammunition or clips. In other words, the Denver Theater shooter likely chose a military style assault rifle in part because of the 100 round clip, but also because it fit the "fantasy,"  Same thing probably with Adam Lanza and definitely with the Santa Monica killer and the Atlanta guy seemed to not know much about guns and still chose an "assault rifle," which suggest the copy cat MO I mentioned and supports the point I was making.  I realize its not a perfect concept (none are) because the VTech guy used handguns, some of these guys had other weapons and the FedEx guy had a shotgun, but it is still pretty hard to argue that the military-style rifle does not fit with the "blaze of glory", school/work/crowded venue shooting . . . not even sure that is surprising when one looks at how the weapons are marketed and at video games etc.(Columbine guys and Lanza were big gamers).I have said that military-style weapons like these are the "low hanging fruit" of gun control not because of the number of people killed by them but because: 1) they are often brought to the wider population's attention through media event killings and  2) have so little value to most of the population.  Because that is the way most non-gun owners see and hear about these types of weapons they don't really care about the technical/capabilities distinction that I am sure you correctly make. That is not meant in any way as a criticism. In fact, its meant as an acknowledgement that I am not a gun expert, but with the caveat that the expertise is not really the issue, at least from the majority of the public's perspective.

      I will respond more in depth later this afternoon. And I acknowledge that you aren't criticizing me. But, it seems to me, the problem (more than anything else); is the media's glorification of mass shootings and semi-automatic rifles. The extreme pro gun-control side of the argument are made up of a majority of people who don't own guns. Nor are they educated in the least bit about anything that involves firearms. Maybe the REAL solution is to educate and stop glorifying mass shooters and the carnage.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      If it looks scary, it's an assault rifle.

      Unfortunately, this does seem to be the liberal, gun-control, view on firearms.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      If it looks scary, it's an assault rifle.

      well, I think the real answer is if it looks military-style it is an assault rifle, at least to the majority of Americans, but there is some truth in your jab at all who disagree because many parents probably think of someone gunning down their kids as "scary," as one example, and recently that event has been with "assault rifles." The part that gun owners/enthusiasts seem to leave out always is that that style of gun, whatever you want to call it, serves almost no purpose to most Americans, so that makes it an easy . . .and understandable (even if you disagree) . . .  target

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      If it looks scary, it's an assault rifle.

      well, I think the real answer is if it looks military-style it is an assault rifle, at least to the majority of Americans, but there is some truth in your jab at all who disagree because many parents probably think of someone gunning down their kids as "scary," as one example, and recently that event has been with "assault rifles." The part that gun owners/enthusiasts seem to leave out always is that that style of gun, whatever you want to call it, serves almost no purpose to most Americans, so that makes it an easy . . .and understandable (even if you disagree) . . .  target

      Then if that's the case, why aren't the pushing for a ban of ALL semi-automatic rifles? They all serve the same essential purpose.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      I would imagine that my definition is the same as the non-gun-owner definition and that would be a military style rifle.  I think the difference lies in that you are a professional, so to speak, and so you define the guns by their capability.  I doubt most of these kids define the guns by their capabilities as much as by the look, other than perhaps the ability to hold ammunition or clips. In other words, the Denver Theater shooter likely chose a military style assault rifle in part because of the 100 round clip, but also because it fit the "fantasy,"  Same thing probably with Adam Lanza and definitely with the Santa Monica killer and the Atlanta guy seemed to not know much about guns and still chose an "assault rifle," which suggest the copy cat MO I mentioned and supports the point I was making.  I realize its not a perfect concept (none are) because the VTech guy used handguns, some of these guys had other weapons and the FedEx guy had a shotgun, but it is still pretty hard to argue that the military-style rifle does not fit with the "blaze of glory", school/work/crowded venue shooting . . . not even sure that is surprising when one looks at how the weapons are marketed and at video games etc.(Columbine guys and Lanza were big gamers).I have said that military-style weapons like these are the "low hanging fruit" of gun control not because of the number of people killed by them but because: 1) they are often brought to the wider population's attention through media event killings and  2) have so little value to most of the population.  Because that is the way most non-gun owners see and hear about these types of weapons they don't really care about the technical/capabilities distinction that I am sure you correctly make. That is not meant in any way as a criticism. In fact, its meant as an acknowledgement that I am not a gun expert, but with the caveat that the expertise is not really the issue, at least from the majority of the public's perspective.

      I will respond more in depth later this afternoon. And I acknowledge that you aren't criticizing me. But, it seems to me, the problem (more than anything else); is the media's glorification of mass shootings and semi-automatic rifles. The extreme pro gun-control side of the argument are made up of a majority of people who don't own guns. Nor are they educated in the least bit about anything that involves firearms. Maybe the REAL solution is to educate and stop glorifying mass shooters and the carnage.

      well, I have no doubt that educating people is a good thing and OF COURSE the "extreme pro gun-control side of the argument are made up of a majority of people who don't own guns" but its not just the media glorifying mass shooters and carnage, the manufacturers SELL the guns for that reason . . . in other words, the guns are specifically sold for the fact that they are very much like MILITARY weapons (i.e., very effective for killing).  I am not going to pretend to be a shrink, but if you look at many of the kids that turn into mass killers they are people who seemed to be lacking power (i.e., they were outcasts, bullied etc), so its probably not a surprise they are drawn to powerful weapons, particularly when the video games they play glorify them.There's plenty of blame to go around and that includes the lack of gun knowledge of many gun control advocates, but all the knowledge in the world doesn't mean much to many when the imagery is often of mass deaths by "assault rifles." For example, when someone says "well the FedEx killer didn't use an assault rifle, he used a shotgun," many anti-gun people would just respond with "okay, get rid of those too" and that's because guns simply have no value to them.  That is unfair, but its not an incorrect assessment of the way humans work

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      And again, I ask you, what's YOUR definition of an "assault rifle"? And I'd also like to know what the non-gun owner's definition of an "assault rifle".

      If it looks scary, it's an assault rifle.

      well, I think the real answer is if it looks military-style it is an assault rifle, at least to the majority of Americans, but there is some truth in your jab at all who disagree because many parents probably think of someone gunning down their kids as "scary," as one example, and recently that event has been with "assault rifles." The part that gun owners/enthusiasts seem to leave out always is that that style of gun, whatever you want to call it, serves almost no purpose to most Americans, so that makes it an easy . . .and understandable (even if you disagree) . . .  target

      Then if that's the case, why aren't the pushing for a ban of ALL semi-automatic rifles? They all serve the same essential purpose.

      well, they are, aren't they? That has been one of my points.  We had an "assault rifle" ban, but then looking at it in hindsight the gun used by Adam Lanza (I think) and many other military-style weapons don't even fit within that old ban? That is because of the technical distinctions you make AND because of the gun lobby.  Most non-gun owning Americans don't care about those distinctions so most who voted for an "assault weapons" ban were probably expecting an actual ban of  ALL military style weapons.when you (gun enthusiasts/professionals) see the holes in legislation like the former assault weapons ban, you see valid distinctions based on capabilitieswhen non-gun owners see legislation like the former assault weapons ban, they see scared politicians drafting meaningless laws for the appearance of caring about voters more than NRA money

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8044

      Who had the assault rifle at the Waffle House?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      well, I think the real answer is if it looks military-style it is an assault rifle, at least to the majority of Americans, but there is some truth in your jab at all who disagree because many parents probably think of someone gunning down their kids as "scary," as one example, and recently that event has been with "assault rifles."

      Recently it's been with semi-automatic rifles. Statistics and history show the opposite. But, a Beretta 9mm or a Glock .40 just isn't as "scary looking" as a Smith and Wesson M&P sport. So, yes, the anti-gun crowd is basically wanting bans to anything that "looks scary". Forget actually doing research on the history or functionality of the weapon.

      The part that gun owners/enthusiasts seem to leave out always is that that style of gun, whatever you want to call it, serves almost no purpose to most Americans, so that makes it an easy . . .and understandable (even if you disagree) . . .  target

      No. It serves almost no purpose to the "gun-control crowd". It is the "gun-control crowd's" OPINION on what purpose it serves. When they are too ignorant to actually do research on the weapon, who in the hell are they to question or argue it's purpose? I'm willing to bet, that if I questioned 10 random "gun-control" advocates about the difference between a .22 cartridge and a .223 cartridge, maybe two of them would know. What's a stock? What's a flash suppressor? What's a vertical grip? I'm sure the normal response would be...."Well, I don't like guns. They serve no purpose to me and I don't own them. You, on the other hand, do and of course you'd know what all that stuff is".---- My response,  "Well, explain to me how you know that these things don't serve a purpose to the majority of the population when you have no idea what you're talking about".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      well, I think the real answer is if it looks military-style it is an assault rifle, at least to the majority of Americans, but there is some truth in your jab at all who disagree because many parents probably think of someone gunning down their kids as "scary," as one example, and recently that event has been with "assault rifles."

      Recently it's been with semi-automatic rifles. Statistics and history show the opposite. But, a Beretta 9mm or a Glock .40 just isn't as "scary looking" as a Smith and Wesson M&P sport. So, yes, the anti-gun crowd is basically wanting bans to anything that "looks scary". Forget actually doing research on the history or functionality of the weapon.

      I think it is just like speaking two different languages.  Given your expertise it makes perfect sense for you to distinguish weapons by  "the history or functionality of the weapon," but  most Americans dont care about the "history or functionality of the weapon" because they are not gun enthusiasts.  So, it is not just that the handgun is less scary looking, its that many equate military style rifles (of all stripes) with  mass murder and UNLIKE A HANDGUN .. (key point here) . . .. they dont see any real reason to have military style rifles anyway. Even hard core gun enthusiasts have a tough time justifying a military-style rifle over a handgun, at least in a way that would mean anything to someone who doesnt really care about guns anyway beyond, at best, basic self defense i.e., the majority of Americans.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      well, I think the real answer is if it looks military-style it is an assault rifle, at least to the majority of Americans, but there is some truth in your jab at all who disagree because many parents probably think of someone gunning down their kids as "scary," as one example, and recently that event has been with "assault rifles."

      Recently it's been with semi-automatic rifles. Statistics and history show the opposite. But, a Beretta 9mm or a Glock .40 just isn't as "scary looking" as a Smith and Wesson M&P sport. So, yes, the anti-gun crowd is basically wanting bans to anything that "looks scary". Forget actually doing research on the history or functionality of the weapon.

      I think it is just like speaking two different languages.  Given your expertise it makes perfect sense for you to distinguish weapons by  "the history or functionality of the weapon," but  most Americans dont care about the "history or functionality of the weapon" because they are not gun enthusiasts.  So, it is not just that the handgun is less scary looking, its that many equate military style rifles (of all stripes) with  mass murder and UNLIKE A HANDGUN .. (key point here) . . .. they dont see any real reason to have military style rifles anyway. Even hard core gun enthusiasts have a tough time justifying a military-style rifle over a handgun, at least in a way that would mean anything to someone who doesnt really care about guns anyway beyond, at best, basic self defense i.e., the majority of Americans.

      So the pro-gun group need to justify their reasons for owning and purchasing these weapons to a group that know NOTHING about the functionality or purpose of the weapon, just because they look scary? Okay... ::) ::) ::)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      The part that gun owners/enthusiasts seem to leave out always is that that style of gun, whatever you want to call it, serves almost no purpose to most Americans, so that makes it an easy . . .and understandable (even if you disagree) . . .  target

      No. It serves almost no purpose to the "gun-control crowd". It is the "gun-control crowd's" OPINION on what purpose it serves. When they are too ignorant to actually do research on the weapon, who in the hell are they to question or argue it's purpose? I'm willing to bet, that if I questioned 10 random "gun-control" advocates about the difference between a .22 cartridge and a .223 cartridge, maybe two of them would know. What's a stock? What's a flash suppressor? What's a vertical grip? I'm sure the normal response would be...."Well, I don't like guns. They serve no purpose to me and I don't own them. You, on the other hand, do and of course you'd know what all that stuff is".---- My response,  "Well, explain to me how you know that these things don't serve a purpose to the majority of the population when you have no idea what you're talking about".

      DH, its not that complicated. most Americans can understand (even if they dont agree) that a handgun can be useful for the TYPICAL self-defense scenarios that they can imagine potentially happening in their life such as theft, domestic violence etc.  They dont see the reason that one would need a military style rifle for those same scenarios.Even if you disagree, it shouldn't be hard to understand that point of view because even people like you have a tough time articulating a meaningful justification for military-style weapons beyond sport (very small # of Americans), fear of the governent (smaller #) or prepping (even smaller #). I mean, just using your words, when it comes to military style rifles what is their unique "purpose to the majority of the population?"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      well, I think the real answer is if it looks military-style it is an assault rifle, at least to the majority of Americans, but there is some truth in your jab at all who disagree because many parents probably think of someone gunning down their kids as "scary," as one example, and recently that event has been with "assault rifles."

      Recently it's been with semi-automatic rifles. Statistics and history show the opposite. But, a Beretta 9mm or a Glock .40 just isn't as "scary looking" as a Smith and Wesson M&P sport. So, yes, the anti-gun crowd is basically wanting bans to anything that "looks scary". Forget actually doing research on the history or functionality of the weapon.

      I think it is just like speaking two different languages.  Given your expertise it makes perfect sense for you to distinguish weapons by  "the history or functionality of the weapon," but  most Americans dont care about the "history or functionality of the weapon" because they are not gun enthusiasts.  So, it is not just that the handgun is less scary looking, its that many equate military style rifles (of all stripes) with  mass murder and UNLIKE A HANDGUN .. (key point here) . . .. they dont see any real reason to have military style rifles anyway. Even hard core gun enthusiasts have a tough time justifying a military-style rifle over a handgun, at least in a way that would mean anything to someone who doesnt really care about guns anyway beyond, at best, basic self defense i.e., the majority of Americans.

      So the pro-gun group need to justify their reasons for owning and purchasing these weapons to a group that know NOTHING about the functionality or purpose of the weapon, just because they look scary? Okay... ::) ::) ::)

      no, nobody has to justify anything .. but we do live in a democracy (or a republic, depending on your definition)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      this article on the Nevada school shooter illustrates that at least for now its not really a reasonable approach to say we should just focus on mental health:"A 12-year-old Nevada boy who went on a deadly shooting rampage at his school nearly seven months ago had been teased by his classmates and was taking a prescription antidepressant, police said Tuesday.Seventh-grader Jose Reyes opened fire Oct. 21 at Sparks Middle School, killing a teacher and wounding two classmates before committing suicide.Sparks Police Chief Brian Allen said at a news conference Tuesday that Reyes had told a psychotherapist that other students made fun of him and called him names. Allen said an investigation into the shootings found signs that classmates did mistreat Reyes, but there wasn't enough evidence to merit charges.For instance, he said, police learned one of the students shot during the rampage had teased Reyes about not having muscles during a physical education class. Other students called Reyes names and accused him of wetting the bed, the police chief said.Allen said other key findings from the probe were that Reyes had been showing signs of autism, and had searched online for videos about the Columbine High School massacre and other school shootings.There were no overt signals that Reyes would commit the acts, the police chief said, "but there were signs that he was in crisis."Allen also included a message to students during the news conference: "Be nice. Be kind. Treat your fellow students with respect. We're all a little different. It matters.According to a report on the investigation's findings, three days before the shooting, Reyes' father took him to a psychotherapist, who said the boy showed signs of a depressive disorder. Reyes had an antidepressant in his system at the time of his death."The article also touches on a potential gun control issue, which would be strict liability for gun owners:"Allen said authorities determined during the investigation that no charges were warranted against Reyes' parents.Police earlier said the parents could be charged if they knowingly made the semi-automatic handgun available to the boy. But Allen said Tuesday the investigation turned up no evidence that Jose and Liliana Reyes were aware that their son knew where the 9 mm pistol was kept above the refrigerator. Under Nevada law, no crime is committed if the gun was stored in a place a "reasonable person would have believed to be secure."of course, the article also illustrates that access to guns matters

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      More epic fail.  Isn’t there a “gun thread” or something?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      More epic fail.  Isn't there a "gun thread" or something?

      I can start one if where the conversation takes place matters? Btw, if I post "more epic success" does that mean anything? What's the citation? See VinBucfan?  "VinBucfan's articles are wrong . . because I said so!"Really?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      DH, its not that complicated.

      most Americans can understand (even if they dont agree) that a handgun can be useful for the TYPICAL self-defense scenarios that they can imagine potentially happening in their life such as theft, domestic violence etc.  They dont see the reason that one would need a military style rifle for those same scenarios.

      Just because they "don't see the reason to need one", doesn't justify banning them. I don't see the need to own a Ferrari. But, just because I don't see the purpose of having one, I don't think they should be banned.

      Even if you disagree, it shouldn't be hard to understand that point of view because even people like you have a tough time articulating a meaningful justification for military-style weapons beyond sport (very small # of Americans), fear of the governent (smaller #) or prepping (even smaller #). I mean, just using your words, when it comes to military style rifles what is their unique "purpose to the majority of the population?"

      Other than concealed and carry purposes, they are just as useful if not more for home defense and property protection. I've already stated this. I would like to see you (or the gun-control crowd) disprove that notion. It simply comes down (and pretty much always has) to the gun-control and anti-gun lobbyists wanting to ban something that they know nothing about. And based on the appearance of certain guns "looking scary".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      DH, its not that complicated.

      most Americans can understand (even if they dont agree) that a handgun can be useful for the TYPICAL self-defense scenarios that they can imagine potentially happening in their life such as theft, domestic violence etc.  They dont see the reason that one would need a military style rifle for those same scenarios.

      Just because they "don't see the reason to need one", doesn't justify banning them. I don't see the need to own a Ferrari. But, just because I don't see the purpose of having one, I don't think they should be banned.

      keep in mind that my point on gun control has been that obscene resistance to even reasonable gun restrictions would lead to an OVERREACTION that would bring about tougher gun laws than necessary and that "assault rifles" would probably be a focus because they offer almost no social utility and are often associated with high profile mass murders . Your comment above is the perfect platform to illustrate that point because a Ferrari is a car and cars have a very high social utility because they are needed for transportation and they are owned by nearly every adult in the country, but even with that high social utility and wide use by citizens, think of the things you have to do to use/own a car:1. you have to have a license2. you have to register the car3. you have to carry unique liability insurance4. you have to pay taxes on the car and the fuel, in part because of their impact on society5. you have to carry a tag on it that clearly identifies you as the owner6. you have to operate the vehicle under a fairly strict set of guidelines7. if you fail to do any of the above, the car can easily and legally be taken from you8. the sales transaction is recorded by a deed, its a matter of public record . . EVEN IF IT IS A PRIVATE SALECompare that to a military-style rifle and you will see that even though it has very limited social utility and very limited usage in society:1. no licence required2. no registration3. no insurance4. no social taxes on guns or bullets (are there any other than sales tax?)5. no tag linking you to the gun6. only limited restrictions on use7. presumably the only way you lose a military-style rifle is by force8. well  . .see my comment belowon #8, even though a military-style rifle is made SOLELY to kill people and has no other real purpose, you can buy one anonymously today.  As one example:http://www.armslist.com/posts/2617698/macon-georgia-rifles-for-sale--hesse-model-h91--308-7-62mm-assault-rifleIt is PRECISELY that logical disconnect in the laws  that will lead to the overreaction. Nobody is saying you have to justify its use, I am saying that you probably dont get the chance because the logical disconnect that says you use a KILLING machine anonymoulsy and without any meaningful restriction when there are all kinds of restrictions on an essential part of society: cars

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      they are just as useful if not more for home defense and property protection. I've already stated this. I would like to see you (or the gun-control crowd) disprove that notion. It simply comes down (and pretty much always has) to the gun-control and anti-gun lobbyists wanting to ban something that they know nothing about. And based on the appearance of certain guns "looking scary".

      the second comment is at odds with the first.  In other words, you are an "expert" so to speak and your comment is that military-style rifles are "just as useful if not more [then a handgun] for home defense and property protection."  If we start with "just as useful" then there really is no justification for taking on the heightened risk associated with military-style weapons when a handgun will suffice. If we step up to "if not more," I presume that if a military-style rifle was more essential to "home defense and property protection" we wouldn't even be having the discussion. That was really my point: most people can understand, even if they disagree, that hand guns serve a personal and property protection role, they dont feel the same way about military-style weapons and what they see are those military-style weapons being used to gun down multiple people at once.  That's probably unfair, but that is reality, so its not just that they look scary, its that most people dont see the point of having them . . unlike handguns

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      the second comment is at odds with the first.  In other words, you are an "expert" so to speak and your comment is that military-style rifles are "just as useful if not more [then a handgun] for home defense and property protection."  If we start with "just as useful" then there really is no justification for taking on the heightened risk associated with military-style weapons when a handgun will suffice. If we step up to "if not more," I presume that if a military-style rifle was more essential to "home defense and property protection" we wouldn't even be having the discussion.

      Explain "taking on a heightened risk".

      That was really my point: most people can understand, even if they disagree, that hand guns serve a personal and property protection role, they dont feel the same way about military-style weapons

      They don't feel the same way, because they have no idea what they're talking about. And rather than doing research, they take the easy way out; and try to ban something that they're "afraid of".

      and what they see are those military-style weapons being used to gun down multiple people at once.

      Ironic, considering history and statistics PROVE UNDOUBTEDLY that hand guns do the same thing and have been involved in more mass shooting and resulted in more casualties.

      That's probably unfair, but that is reality, so its not just that they look scary, its that most people dont see the point of having them . . unlike handguns

      It's because they look scary to them. So, the gun-control side of the argument, sees no point in owning them. But, they understand the point of handguns. Well, considering that handguns have been responsible for FAR MORE mass shootings and FAR MORE deaths related to mass shootings; why do they get a pass?Beretta-92FS-1.jpgcx4-storm-left.jpgBoth of these guns are made by Beretta. Both of these guns are chambered and fire 9mm parabellum rounds. What's the difference? One looks A LOT more scary than the other.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3341

      One a scary looking “assault” rifle and other is not.Fear.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      the second comment is at odds with the first.  In other words, you are an "expert" so to speak and your comment is that military-style rifles are "just as useful if not more [then a handgun] for home defense and property protection."  If we start with "just as useful" then there really is no justification for taking on the heightened risk associated with military-style weapons when a handgun will suffice. If we step up to "if not more," I presume that if a military-style rifle was more essential to "home defense and property protection" we wouldn't even be having the discussion.

      Explain "taking on a heightened risk".

      Really?Keeping in mind I am no expert . .  .I would think that generally speaking most (not all) military style rifles are thought to be more deadly per event than most (not all) handguns. I know you like to say that handguns are involved in more mass murders and that is true statistically going back to 1982 but that should be true given their wide availability. But more importantly, the issue when it comes to "heightened risk" is not in the aggregate. In other words, when I am speaking of heightened risk I mean what one would expect from the weapon per event. From your same 1982 statistics comes this:maiganalysis.jpgMore bullets fired faster . . . usually equals more damage, right? There are obviously exceptions, but generally speaking military style rifles do exactly what one would think they would do relative to handguns; that is, they shoot rounds at greater velocity and they general shoot more rounds (handgun 10-15 rounds or less, typically, standard AR mag is 30, I think) and are capable of firing reliably from further distances. These differences make them more deadly in the hands of pros and amateurs. So, the Beltway Sniper (a pro) chose a Bushmaster X-15 (I think) over a 9mm because it reliably shoots further, right? the Denver theater shooter chose an AR because he could attach a 100 round drum clip etc.  Add to that what I have pointed out before, that the "military style rifle" fits the fantasy profile for many of these killers . . . the thought is to unload as many bullets as as possible before going out themselves. It shouldn't be surprising that given the choice people like that would choose bigger gun over smaller often, military look and feel over non military look and feel, more firepower over less. Btw, here's the Media Matters article knocking down the NRA's effort to claim that assault rifles were not more deadly per event.  If you read it you will see the NRA suggested, as one example, that because a handgun round created a bigger hole in a target it must be deadlier . . .  ugh.http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/10/08/how-nra-news-downplays-assault-weapons-capabili/196344More people carry handguns for self-defense. I am guessing that given the choice they would rather square off against someone with handgun then someone with a military-style rifle.  Obviously there are exceptions (close quarters etc) but there is a reason people prefer more firepower over less. As the Media Matters article points out the simple difference in need to reload has an impact, obviously. (30 shots to your 10)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      More epic fail.  Isn't there a "gun thread" or something?

      I can start one if where the conversation takes place matters? Btw, if I post "more epic success" does that mean anything? What's the citation? See VinBucfan?  "VinBucfan's articles are wrong . . because I said so!"Really?

      You don't have to start one it already exists:  https://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1315895.0.htmlYou can post what you want, it wouldn't be the first falsehood you've posted and it won't be the last.  Your epic fails are well documented peanut butter boy, this one just joins the long list.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Ironic, considering history and statistics PROVE UNDOUBTEDLY that hand guns do the same thing and have been involved in more mass shooting and resulted in more casualties. ***So, the gun-control side of the argument, sees no point in owning them. But, they understand the point of handguns. Well, considering that handguns have been responsible for FAR MORE mass shootings and FAR MORE deaths related to mass shootings; why do they get a pass?

      I think you are a very good advocate for the gun side and I certain defer to you on your expertise on guns, but I don't think that ^^^ argument (bold)is very compelling for a few reasons, some of which I already mentioned, but here you go1. that stat you use is back to 1982, so obviously its skewed to handguns when there are more handguns around, more people have them and the "assault rifle" popularity is more recent and even included a ban period. From NBC in a 2013 article:"The Colt AR-15, often known as the assault rifle, has captured the imagination of gun enthusiasts who are drawn to its sleek form, portability and ease of use, as well as a mystique born of its connection to the M-16, its combat cousin from the Vietnam War. Part of the appeal of the firearm stems, as one gun aficionado told NBC News, from the ability to “accessorize it like a Barbie doll," given extras like interchangeable optics systems and gun barrels. Its military pedigree and appeal to hobbyists has helped spur sales of 5 million AR-15s in the last two decades, with most of those buys coming in just the past six years. According to industry figures, nearly one of five guns sold in the U.S. is now a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle.2. another is the definition of mass shootings used in the study you cite. It is relatively small number to qualify and the argument against "assault rifles" is really  the ability to kill/wound more per event (see chart in last post) not how many people have dies from them over history.  In other words, I don't think anyone would say a club is more dealy than an AR-15 (such that they would choose the club over the AR-15 in a fight) just because more people have died by clubs since the start of time3. If you leave the distant past and talk about now, is there even any debate that now it is "popular" for people to dress up as miliarty guys or video game icons and go out in a blaze of glory? This about how many notable killers fit this descriptions4.  if the question is what class of weapon has been used in more "mass shootings" since 1982 the answer is handguns. But, what if the question is which has the highest potential to be the most deadly if used in a crowded space? That  . . and the fact they cannot envisionusing them for self defense .  . is why they are vulnerable to gun control types.5. Lastly, your last comment about is why do handguns get a pass? They don't. In fact, most anti-gun people would simply respond by saying "get rid of them too."  But, like I said even marginal gun people see the self-defense value to handgun and there is the Constitution, so people on the other side of you obviously argue "sure there is a right to bear arms, so let's limit the types of arms." The US Supreme Court agreesAnyway, we disagree obviously, but interesting discussion anyway

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      More epic fail.  Isn't there a "gun thread" or something?

      I can start one if where the conversation takes place matters? Btw, if I post "more epic success" does that mean anything? What's the citation? See VinBucfan?  "VinBucfan's articles are wrong . . because I said so!"Really?

      You don't have to start one it already exists:  https://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1315895.0.htmlYou can post what you want, it wouldn't be the first falsehood you've posted and it won't be the last.  Your epic fails are well documented peanut butter boy, this one just joins the long list.

      hey Olaf how are you?  Are you talking to me when you say "you" and when you made that first comment . .  or were you also talking to DH or Game Time or Buggsy or DBuc or Olafberserker? Hey wait, that's you . .. what are you doing posting about guns in this thread?

      http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/“International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative,” the researchers wrote in their introduction of their findings.- - - - - - - - - -  -- - - -The study goes on to say:    …the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

      ::)aw, who am I kidding we all know you are talking only to me . . . because ya know . .  I am alone in this threadnow quit you're kidding around funny guy and join the discussion  . . ya know, the discussion that is NOT about me. .  do you think  handguns are more deadly per event than military style rifles?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      I’m talking to the guy that has been involved in every “discussion” about guns on this board for the past year+ (and getting “pwned” repeatedly) and who posted another link in this thread that has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread. I don't care, you already admitted that banning AR's wasn't going to make the "kids" significantly safer, which is what your whole argument was for banning them to begin with.  More people die by hand/feet etc. each year than AR's.    You're just arguing to to argue so you can try and fill that void in your life.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I'm talking to the guy that has been involved in every "discussion" about guns on this board for the past year+ (and getting "pwned" repeatedly) and who posted another link in this thread that has nothing to do with the original topic of the thread. I don't care, you already admitted that banning AR's wasn't going to make the "kids" significantly safer, which is what your whole argument was for banning them to begin with.  More people die by hand/feet etc. each year than AR's.    You're just arguing to to argue so you can try and fill that void in your life.

      For what its worth . . .  . I feel better knowing you're not focused on me . . .  (I might have to think about whether to change that to blue font) . . .  and based on the part in bold  . . . .that you don't see this as some weird sort of competition (definitely blue font) . . . . and good luck with your self-appointed job as thread police, although you seem to be missing a few "suspects" to the "crime" of posting about a topic that is different than the original topic of the thread (yourself included, ouch)Kidding aside, thanks for trying to talk about the subject of the discussion you interrupted (gun control) even if only briefly and even though you totally misstated my "argument," but thanks anyway.p.s. . . am I suppose to close with "epic success" or something like that?  Haha, I kid . . I kid

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      “We have to ban ARs to save the children” —- vinbot

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      "We have to ban ARs to save the children" ---- vinbot

      Hey, they changed the quote feature?Well played Olaf, impressive find. Wish I had your command of the search feature.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      "We have to ban ARs to save the children" ---- vinbot

      Vin, Is this a serious quote from you?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2412

      maiganalysis.jpg

      Curious, since many handguns can also have high capacity clips, which category would they fall into? For example, the gunman in Tucson, Arizona who killed six people and injured 13 others, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, in a supermarket parking lot in 2011, used a handgun equipped with a 33-round magazine. Which column does that go into or does it fall into both?  Putting such handguns solely into the 63% killed column kind of distorts the numbers doesn't it?  BTW, I don't expect an answer to this as we probably do not know the numbers or basis behind that poll.  Just like other polls though, using selective information or the proper manipulation of real data can "fashion" facts for almost any cause.  I think a key here is the term "Assault Weapon".  Many are trying to make that a dirty dirty term.  If the above poll simple said weapons with or without high capacity magazines, it would lack the 'umph'.  I agree, there probably isn't a 'need' for massive magazines.  But there isn't a 'need' for alcoholic beverages (unless you're married and she just won't shut up) or many other items.  I do think there should be certain requirements, much like driving or even drinking, but I also understand the case against it.  Both sides are scared to death, and rightly so in my opinion, that the other side simply won't stop with what they want. Ban "Assault Rifles" now, then "Assault Hand Guns", then whatever scary phrase they can think until  they have removed every gun from private owners.    Or the flip side, its to the point where every 4 year is loaded for bear every time he steps onto the school bus.  Neither is realistic but where the actual lines fall, is very very unclear and worse, there is zero trust between the two sides about what each wants.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1357

      Trying…..hard…..to…..find….any….level….of….sympathy……………………nope, none here.

      + 1

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      maiganalysis.jpg

      Curious, since many handguns can also have high capacity clips, which category would they fall into? For example, the gunman in Tucson, Arizona who killed six people and injured 13 others, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, in a supermarket parking lot in 2011, used a handgun equipped with a 33-round magazine. Which column does that go into or does it fall into both?  Putting such handguns solely into the 63% killed column kind of distorts the numbers doesn't it?  BTW, I don't expect an answer to this as we probably do not know the numbers or basis behind that poll.  Just like other polls though, using selective information or the proper manipulation of real data can "fashion" facts for almost any cause.  I think a key here is the term "Assault Weapon".  Many are trying to make that a dirty dirty term.  If the above poll simple said weapons with or without high capacity magazines, it would lack the 'umph'.  I agree, there probably isn't a 'need' for massive magazines.  But there isn't a 'need' for alcoholic beverages (unless you're married and she just won't shut up) or many other items.  I do think there should be certain requirements, much like driving or even drinking, but I also understand the case against it.  Both sides are scared to death, and rightly so in my opinion, that the other side simply won't stop with what they want. Ban "Assault Rifles" now, then "Assault Hand Guns", then whatever scary phrase they can think until  they have removed every gun from private owners.    Or the flip side, its to the point where every 4 year is loaded for bear every time he steps onto the school bus.  Neither is realistic but where the actual lines fall, is very very unclear and worse, there is zero trust between the two sides about what each wants.

      Freddy, I think I might actually be able to find your answer and its a good questions so I will have a look. MY initial thought is that the chart groups together "assault weapons" and "high capacity"  magazines and a 33 round magazine on a handgun sounds like  a "high capacity" magazine. If that is accurate (I will look) I don't know that it is a distortion though because the chart is focused on the two.  I get your point though, so let me check.  I agree that the term "assault weapon" is used as a "dirty term," but its also used as shorthand.  If you spoke to people who are against "assault weapons" you would probably fund out that their thoughts are much more aligned with the chart, meaning that they are actually against  military-style rifles and high capacity magazines, two things that they see is outside the norm from a self defense perspective (something you seem to pick up on in your second paragraph), but that make it easier for mass murder.I think my views are actually pretty close to yours and right on point when it comes to this comment by you:"Both sides are scared to death, and rightly so in my opinion, that the other side simply won't stop with what they want. Ban "Assault Rifles" now, then "Assault Hand Guns", then whatever scary phrase they can think until  they have removed every gun from private owners.    Or the flip side, its to the point where every 4 year is loaded for bear every time he steps onto the school bus.  Neither is realistic but where the actual lines fall, is very very unclear and worse, there is zero trust between the two sides about what each wants."Now, both side are to blame for the distrust, let me make that point abundantly clear.  That said though, for good or bad, the non-gun owners are the majority and they view themselves as a majority ignored at the behest of gun PROFITS, not the Constitution.  The best example of that is having Wayne say he supports universal background checks a few years ago (when his position was weaker) and then saying he is against them in the wake of Sandy Hook.  Like ir or not, that was a defining moment in the gun control debate. That moment is what led to Bloomberg and $50 million and Mothers etc.  They might lose their battle against the NRA, but if they win . . .  and they win by force and not by negotiation . . . you will be proven a prophet because they will not stop with universal background checks . . they will do what the NRA has done for years which is double down on their success and go for more.  That is the modern day pendulum of American politics where all interest are represented by fringe groups and the middle is squeezed out.Let me see what I can find on the chart.  You raise good points, very good points

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      "We have to ban ARs to save the children" ---- vinbot

      Vin, Is this a serious quote from you?

      of course not, that is why it is not a quote. Here is an actual discussion from 2013 with Spartan (my comment is at the bottom (in blue now):Quote from: spartan on September 16, 2013, 10:43:20 PMQuote from: VinBucFan on September 16, 2013, 10:16:32 PMincluding a military-style assault rifleVery nice use of terminology to instill fear. Now explain to me the difference between a military style assault rifle and a civilian style assault rifle?And for the record the definition of an assault rifle is one that has selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire)  that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Care to post a link where I can buy one?Spartan, you are perfectly illustrating the point I have been making.  The overwhelming majority of people in this country don't care about the distinction you are making and "fear" is exactly what politicians who want to take your rights away will rely on to SELL a simple story to voters about, as one example, "military-style assault rifles" and why they should be BANNED.  That is a very simple sell because those weapon have almost ZERO social utility, but the sell is made easier by Wayne's approach. The Wayne Model, which is to fight EVERY gun measure, will backfire and you will lose rights or have them severely curtailed in a backlashNow, does anyone else around here use the phrase "social utility?" That is 2013 My view on "assault weapons" is informed by long discussions with Spartan, also an experienced gun enthusiast and prepper (I think). Among other things, I learned from Spartan just how rare the weapon use was and also the technical distinctions you and I have been discussing. My position is that they don't need to be banned, but they were already banned (at least in spirit) because they have so little social utility, so I could easily see them banned again.  Now look at the fake quote above, do you se the phrase "social utility"? I mean, if there is a phrase that you will see me use over and over again  for the past year or so it is social utility . . . the odd things about these discussions is that the true gun enthusiasts are willing to discuss the issues and the others spend most of their time just trying to stop me from posting

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Curious, since many handguns can also have high capacity clips, which category would they fall into?

      Freddy, here is the actual report.  http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/56/4/1242/1/analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings.pdfAs the graphic states the 63% is not just "assault weapons" it is "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" so there are handguns included.  The data is using the FBI standard that "mass murder" is any even involving 4 or more fatalities.Its actually an interesting report in that it includes summaries of the events

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2412

      Curious, since many handguns can also have high capacity clips, which category would they fall into?

      Freddy, here is the actual report.  http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/9/56/4/1242/1/analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings.pdfAs the graphic states the 63% is not just "assault weapons" it is "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" so there are handguns included.  The data is using the FBI standard that "mass murder" is any even involving 4 or more fatalities.Its actually an interesting report in that it includes summaries of the events

      So, those numbers are a little distorted then.  As per the data, the ability to achieve "Mass Killing" status (4 or more fatalities) is more closely related to the number of rounds available to the shooter than it is to the actual weapon used.But I also found other interesting items in the study:1) There was a noteworthy connection between mass shooting incidents and domestic or family violence. In at least 53 of the cases (57%), the shooter killed a current or former spouse or intimate partner or other family member, and in at least 17 incidents the shooter had a prior domestic violence charge.2) 43% of the "mass Shooting" events involved shooters who were already prohibited by federal law from possessing guns.  Thus no law except the complete elimination of all weapons world wide would stop that.I think we might find better results addressing domestic violence and actually enforcing the current gun laws. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I agree that we should focus more effort in domestic violence..and mental health, just not to the exclusion of closing obvious loopholes and flaws on the system. As I have said, it does not really mean a lot to say we should put a bigger patch on the bucket (ie enforce existing laws) while we ignore the intentional holes in the other side of the bucket. Can you prevent every “bad guy” from getting guns? No, but neither should you have the current nonsensical and profit-driven system.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I think you are a very good advocate for the gun side and I certain defer to you on your expertise on guns

      Thank you Vin. I appreciate the compliment. I know that there are plenty of gun advocates, including ones in the NRA, who are simply not being reasonable in an effort to compromise. I am simply pushing for, what I feel are, meaningful and reasonable measures. I think that you are a good advocate for gun-control. You have extremely solid points. And, at the same time, aren't acting extreme.

      1. that stat you use is back to 1982, so obviously its skewed to handguns when there are more handguns around, more people have them and the "assault rifle" popularity is more recent and even included a ban period.

      I will concede to this.

      "The Colt AR-15, often known as the assault rifle, has captured the imagination of gun enthusiasts who are drawn to its sleek form, portability and ease of use, as well as a mystique born of its connection to the M-16, its combat cousin from the Vietnam War. Part of the appeal of the firearm stems, as one gun aficionado told NBC News, from the ability to “accessorize it like a Barbie doll," given extras like interchangeable optics systems and gun barrels. Its military pedigree and appeal to hobbyists has helped spur sales of 5 million AR-15s in the last two decades, with most of those buys coming in just the past six years. According to industry figures, nearly one of five guns sold in the U.S. is now a semi-automatic AR-15-style rifle.

      Here's the problem with that. Almost all guns can be accessorized. 600px-MossbergComparisonMain.jpgMossberg-500KGI-pkg1.jpgThis is an example of a Mossberg 500. Arguably, the most popular shotgun in the United States. Glock1.jpg491464_01_custom_glock_22_competition_ra_640.jpgGlock%20Roni%20G2.jpgglock22.jpgThese are examples of a Glock 22. It's a full-sized .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol. Clearly, you can "doll" these up quite a bit. However, the last picture is what is probably most common. A simple tactical light/laser sight combination.

      2. another is the definition of mass shootings used in the study you cite. It is relatively small number to qualify and the argument against "assault rifles" is really  the ability to kill/wound more per event (see chart in last post) not how many people have dies from them over history.  In other words, I don't think anyone would say a club is more dealy than an AR-15 (such that they would choose the club over the AR-15 in a fight) just because more people have died by clubs since the start of time

      I believe the number is 3 or more. Or it could be 4 or more. I think it is the later, defined by the FBI and ATF. I feel the only thing that backs up this argument is the ammunition capacity that the AR has. Now, compared to a pistol, revolver, or shotgun; the AR has a more likelihood to malfunction. That likelihood is increased when firing multiple rounds in succession in a short amount of time. Which seemed to be the case in the Aurora shooting and quite possibly the Sandy Hook shooting.

      3. If you leave the distant past and talk about now, is there even any debate that now it is "popular" for people to dress up as miliarty guys or video game icons and go out in a blaze of glory? This about how many notable killers fit this descriptions

      That is a problem that, in my opinion, has nothing to do with gun control. That falls solely on the media. The glorification of carnage, violence, and death. The fact that they spend far more time, coverage, and exposure to the shooter than to the victims. If you take away the "15 minutes of fame" aspect of it, there's a chance that you can help eliminate the desire.

      4.  if the question is what class of weapon has been used in more "mass shootings" since 1982 the answer is handguns. But, what if the question is which has the highest potential to be the most deadly if used in a crowded space? That  . . and the fact they cannot envisionusing them for self defense .  . is why they are vulnerable to gun control types.

      This is where the anti-gun crowd would fail. If they used this, or similar scenarios, as a basis to ban AR's; they will lose. A semi-automatic pistol in many cases has a higher cyclic rate of fire than a semi-automatic rifle. They are quicker to holster, aim, and redirect. If you move on from the pistol to a shotgun, you change things all together. While the shotgun's rate of fire is significantly less than the previously mentioned firearms, the damage it can inflict is significant. Especially, from a tactical standpoint. In a crowded space, there is no need to aim. You can "hip fire" and cause significant damage due to the ballistics of a "buckshot" shell. [img width=359 height=400]http://www.gunsumerreports.com/Caldwell_Orange_Peel_Targets/Caldwell_Orange_Peel_Targets_03.JPG[/img]buckshot-8.jpgThe top target is one from a .223 caliber rifle. The most common used round in AR-15's. The second is a standard 7 to 9 pellet buckshot round. See what ONE SINGLE SHOT from a shotgun could do in a crowded place?

      5. Lastly, your last comment about is why do handguns get a pass? They don't. In fact, most anti-gun people would simply respond by saying "get rid of them too." But, like I said even marginal gun people see the self-defense value to handgun and there is the Constitution, so people on the other side of you obviously argue "sure there is a right to bear arms, so let's limit the types of arms." The US Supreme Court agrees

      I just think that they should educate themselves on the "weapons", rather than scream for their ouster because what they don't know scares the hell out of them.

      Anyway, we disagree obviously, but interesting discussion anyway

      I believe that you and I are far closer to a middle ground than Wayne and Bloomberg. That's the problem.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      DH, that is the problem, as I mentioned to Spartan in 2013. The current approach to politics us to run over the opposition, not compromise.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Thanks for all the info DH. On the part about people going out by dress up in battle gear, I agree that is not the guns fault. That is the media and video games etc. but my point was just that it becomes a gun control issue because the perps seem to choose the AR style rifle to fill out the costume. In other words, there is an external factor that makes use of that type of weapon more likely. That could change and who know how much greater the chance is but right now it’s a way to end it a, unfortunately.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      "We have to ban ARs to save the children" ---- vinbot

      Vin, Is this a serious quote from you?

      This was his original premise in the argument.    People who did not agree with him loved guns more than children

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      "We have to ban ARs to save the children" ---- vinbot

      Vin, Is this a serious quote from you?

      This was his original premise in the argument.    People who did not agree with him loved guns more than children

      Am I the only one noticing the shift in the story?Lol. Olaf, it's a good thing you're no longer obsessed with me (definitely blue font).

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Thanks for all the info DH. On the part about people going out by dress up in battle gear, I agree that is not the guns fault. That is the media and video games etc. but my point was just that it becomes a gun control issue because the perps seem to choose the AR style rifle to fill out the costume. In other words, there is an external factor that makes use of that type of weapon more likely. That could change and who know how much greater the chance is but right now it's a way to end it a, unfortunately.

      But, that's what video games and the media shows. That's your external factor.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      "We have to ban ARs to save the children" ---- vinbot

      Vin, Is this a serious quote from you?

      This was his original premise in the argument.    People who did not agree with him loved guns more than children

      It seems that his premise has changed.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Three posters – Vin, DH and Freddy – carrying on a long discussion as adults. Olaf, you have two posts here today. Take a guess what both are about? I will give you a hint, it starts with VThe funniest thing is you said yesterday - in yet another post about me - that I posted because I have a void in my life. Think about the irony ...seriously. Can you please post on topic or not at all? It's not some absurd battle. It's just a discussion.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      I wish we had weapons, like a gun, that incapacitated rather than killed.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I wish we had weapons, like a gun, that incapacitated rather than killed.

      Non-lethals fired from a shotgun.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      I wish we had weapons, like a gun, that incapacitated rather than killed.

      Non-lethals fired from a shotgun.

      Benabag rounds? Ehh I want something that knocks people out so I can handcuff them or get away and call the authorities.Though that would be a good right now option. I and my girlfriend like to drink and having a gun in the house scares me :

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I wish we had weapons, like a gun, that incapacitated rather than killed.

      Non-lethals fired from a shotgun.

      Benabag rounds? Ehh I want something that knocks people out so I can handcuff them or get away and call the authorities.Though that would be a good right now option. I and my girlfriend like to drink and having a gun in the house scares me :

      The obvious troll is obvious?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1645

      "We have to ban ARs to save the children" ---- vinbot

      Vin, Is this a serious quote from you?

      This was his original premise in the argument.    People who did not agree with him loved guns more than children

      It seems that his premise has changed.

      Of course, has to change as his arguments get shot down.  Only way to keep the argument going.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      lol, um okayhey Olaf, you going to go upstairs and chastise the poster who posted Buggsy's photo?https://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1316144.450.html

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 4057

      I wish we had weapons, like a gun, that incapacitated rather than killed.

      Non-lethals fired from a shotgun.

      Benabag rounds? Ehh I want something that knocks people out so I can handcuff them or get away and call the authorities.Though that would be a good right now option. I and my girlfriend like to drink and having a gun in the house scares me :

      In NOLA I knew people who had the pump action prop. Basically the idea being if you hear someone in the house you make that click-click sound of the pump. Everyone knows what that sound is and no one is gonna come investigate if it is a "real" gun or not.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      I wish we had weapons, like a gun, that incapacitated rather than killed.

      Non-lethals fired from a shotgun.

      Benabag rounds? Ehh I want something that knocks people out so I can handcuff them or get away and call the authorities.Though that would be a good right now option. I and my girlfriend like to drink and having a gun in the house scares me :

      In NOLA I knew people who had the pump action prop. Basically the idea being if you hear someone in the house you make that click-click sound of the pump. Everyone knows what that sound is and no one is gonna come investigate if it is a "real" gun or not.

      Haha! I like that. You have to be sure they hear it though.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I wish we had weapons, like a gun, that incapacitated rather than killed.

      Non-lethals fired from a shotgun.

      Benabag rounds? Ehh I want something that knocks people out so I can handcuff them or get away and call the authorities.Though that would be a good right now option. I and my girlfriend like to drink and having a gun in the house scares me :

      In NOLA I knew people who had the pump action prop. Basically the idea being if you hear someone in the house you make that click-click sound of the pump. Everyone knows what that sound is and no one is gonna come investigate if it is a "real" gun or not.

      Haha! I like that. You have to be sure they hear it though.

      It's not a prop. A Mossberg 500 can shoot non-lethals. And a Mossberg unloaded, being pumped, sounds like the hand of God is about ready to slap you stupid.

      Please wait…

Viewing 129 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.