Viewing 244 reply threads

  • Author

    Posts

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 21933

      The killer in CA stabbed several people and the shot people with a handgun. Check out the various news sites, like CNN, and you will calls for gun control (even though the guy used a knife and was clearly crazy) Most of the calls for gun control have the same “enough is enough” theme

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/opinion/omara-minnesota-guns/index.html?c=homepage-tDan OBrien - gun owner for gun control

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      The killer in CA stabbed several people and the shot people with a handgun. Check out the various news sites, like CNN, and you will calls for gun control (even though the guy used a knife and was clearly crazy) Most of the calls for gun control have the same "enough is enough" theme

      So, now they're calling for MORE gun control? In California, no less? So, this guy used "legally purchased handguns and knifes" and not those "big, bad, scary assault rifles"?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/opinion/omara-minnesota-guns/index.html?c=homepage-tDan OBrien - gun owner for gun control

      Article written by Mark O' Mara. Lead defense attorney of Zimmerman. Oh the irony.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Oops sorry. Not sure where I got Obrien

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      I don’t know the answer but this kid has had a long history of mental illness.  No way should he be allowed to purchase any guns of any kind.Better background checks?  Yeah, I think we're at that point.  No reason to make it that easy for crazies.  No objective person can argue this point.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I don't know the answer but this kid has had a long history of mental illness.  No way should he be allowed to purchase any guns of any kind.Better background checks?  Yeah, I think we're at that point.  No reason to make it that easy for crazies.  No objective person can argue this point.

      I'm a big gun advocate. But, I've always acknowledged the need for better background checks. This is simply another example that "assault rifles" aren't and have never been the problem.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You’re right DH and it’s also an example of the “enough is enough” mentality of gun control types.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Every anti-gun proponent that attempts to argue with me, walks off admitting he lost the argument.  This is all you have to say to them before they realize they are wrong:"drunk drivers kill 10 times more people every year.  If you're serious, then take away every Americans' car first, then I will believe you".the argument ends there. they know that 99% of all registered gun owners are law abiding, and have even saved others lives in crime situations.  You simply cannot take away everyone's guns, or everyone's cars.  It wont address the issue.This has more to do with our country deciding back in the 1970's to abolish Insane Asylums where we threw these nut jobs away with the key. forever.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      You're right DH and it's also an example of the "enough is enough" mentality of gun control types.

      That's a load of crap. Can you seriously sit here and say that the only goal for gun control groups is "more focus on mental healthcare and extensive background checks"? This latest shooting is PROOF that the ISSUE has nothing to do with guns.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      I’m still trying to figure out your question. What is it?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I'm still trying to figure out your question. What is it?

      Me? Or Vin?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      Every anti-gun proponent that attempts to argue with me, walks off admitting he lost the argument.  This is all you have to say to them before they realize they are wrong:"drunk drivers kill 10 times more people every year.  If you're serious, then take away every Americans' car first, then I will believe you".the argument ends there. they know that 99% of all registered gun owners are law abiding, and have even saved others lives in crime situations.  You simply cannot take away everyone's guns, or everyone's cars.  It wont address the issue.This has more to do with our country deciding back in the 1970's to abolish Insane Asylums where we threw these nut jobs away with the key. forever.

      I don't want to take your gun away.  I want better background checks.  Do you think anyone with a pulse should be able to carry.  Interesting point you bring up with your car analogy.  Vehicular death is a byproduct of the practical use of driving.  The primary use of a gun is to kill.  When you pull out of the driveway you aren't planning on killing anyone.  When you pull your gun out?  It is to kill...no?  Horrible analogy.  You must have argued with morons because that was too easy.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Every anti-gun proponent that attempts to argue with me, walks off admitting he lost the argument.  This is all you have to say to them before they realize they are wrong:"drunk drivers kill 10 times more people every year.  If you're serious, then take away every Americans' car first, then I will believe you".the argument ends there. they know that 99% of all registered gun owners are law abiding, and have even saved others lives in crime situations.  You simply cannot take away everyone's guns, or everyone's cars.  It wont address the issue.This has more to do with our country deciding back in the 1970's to abolish Insane Asylums where we threw these nut jobs away with the key. forever.

      I don't want to take your gun away.  I want better background checks.  Do you think anyone with a pulse should be able to carry.  Interesting point you bring up with your car analogy.  Vehicular death is a byproduct of the practical use of driving.  The primary use of a gun is to kill.  When you pull out of the driveway you aren't planning on killing anyone.  When you pull your gun out?  It is to kill...no?  Horrible analogy.  You must have argued with morons because that was too easy.

      Like I said, better background checks? Yes. Of course. Assault weapons bans, mag capacity restrictions, etc.? No. It won't solve anything.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      Every anti-gun proponent that attempts to argue with me, walks off admitting he lost the argument.  This is all you have to say to them before they realize they are wrong:"drunk drivers kill 10 times more people every year.  If you're serious, then take away every Americans' car first, then I will believe you".the argument ends there. they know that 99% of all registered gun owners are law abiding, and have even saved others lives in crime situations.  You simply cannot take away everyone's guns, or everyone's cars.  It wont address the issue.This has more to do with our country deciding back in the 1970's to abolish Insane Asylums where we threw these nut jobs away with the key. forever.

      I don't want to take your gun away.  I want better background checks.  Do you think anyone with a pulse should be able to carry.  Interesting point you bring up with your car analogy.  Vehicular death is a byproduct of the practical use of driving.  The primary use of a gun is to kill.  When you pull out of the driveway you aren't planning on killing anyone.  When you pull your gun out?  It is to kill...no?  Horrible analogy.  You must have argued with morons because that was too easy.

      When someone pulls out a gun it's not always to kill. Many times, most times in fact, the gun owner doesn't want to kill anyone, they just want to prevent something bad from happening to them. The stats prove that guns deter far more crime than they cause.Better background checks is swell, though I have a feeling the black market won't rush to implement such a system.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      Every anti-gun proponent that attempts to argue with me, walks off admitting he lost the argument.  This is all you have to say to them before they realize they are wrong:"drunk drivers kill 10 times more people every year.  If you're serious, then take away every Americans' car first, then I will believe you".the argument ends there. they know that 99% of all registered gun owners are law abiding, and have even saved others lives in crime situations.  You simply cannot take away everyone's guns, or everyone's cars.  It wont address the issue.This has more to do with our country deciding back in the 1970's to abolish Insane Asylums where we threw these nut jobs away with the key. forever.

      I don't want to take your gun away.  I want better background checks.  Do you think anyone with a pulse should be able to carry.  Interesting point you bring up with your car analogy.  Vehicular death is a byproduct of the practical use of driving.  The primary use of a gun is to kill.  When you pull out of the driveway you aren't planning on killing anyone.  When you pull your gun out?  It is to kill...no?  Horrible analogy.  You must have argued with morons because that was too easy.

      When someone pulls out a gun it's not always to kill. Many times, most times in fact, the gun owner doesn't want to kill anyone, they just want to prevent something bad from happening to them. The stats prove that guns deter far more crime than they cause.Better background checks is swell, though I have a feeling the black market won't rush to implement such a system.

      So don't even bother?  That's pretty defeatist.  You put layers of protection in place.  I doubt any will be 100% full proof.  You still have to put them in place.  You'll catch some and save some lives.  How pathetic the NRA has brainwashed some of you.  Embarrassing.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 1520

      Every anti-gun proponent that attempts to argue with me, walks off admitting he lost the argument.  This is all you have to say to them before they realize they are wrong:"drunk drivers kill 10 times more people every year.  If you're serious, then take away every Americans' car first, then I will believe you".the argument ends there. they know that 99% of all registered gun owners are law abiding, and have even saved others lives in crime situations.  You simply cannot take away everyone's guns, or everyone's cars.  It wont address the issue.This has more to do with our country deciding back in the 1970's to abolish Insane Asylums where we threw these nut jobs away with the key. forever.

      I don't want to take your gun away.  I want better background checks.  Do you think anyone with a pulse should be able to carry.  Interesting point you bring up with your car analogy.  Vehicular death is a byproduct of the practical use of driving.  The primary use of a gun is to kill.  When you pull out of the driveway you aren't planning on killing anyone.  When you pull your gun out?  It is to kill...no?  Horrible analogy.  You must have argued with morons because that was too easy.

      When someone pulls out a gun it's not always to kill. Many times, most times in fact, the gun owner doesn't want to kill anyone, they just want to prevent something bad from happening to them. The stats prove that guns deter far more crime than they cause.Better background checks is swell, though I have a feeling the black market won't rush to implement such a system.

      So don't even bother?  That's pretty defeatist.  You put layers of protection in place.  I doubt any will be 100% full proof.  You still have to put them in place.  You'll catch some and save some lives.  How pathetic the NRA has brainwashed some of you.  Embarrassing.

      I couldn't care less about the NRA. I don't pay attention to anything they do or say. How pathetic that MSNBC has brainwashed some of you into believing everyone who's against gun control is an NRA groupie unable to think on their own. Embarrassing. As I've said countless times on this site, I don't own a single gun and it's highly unlikely I ever will. It's just unfortunate that some people in this country are unable to grasp the concept that stricter gun laws will only punish those who abide by the law. How many "layers" are in place in the war on drugs? How's that working out after 40 years of trying to get it right? Spare me this "defeatist" nonsense, a precedent has been set with the prohibition and the war on drugs. Most of us know how what you're asking for will work out, hopefully one day you catch on.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You're right DH and it's also an example of the "enough is enough" mentality of gun control types.

      That's a load of crap. Can you seriously sit here and say that the only goal for gun control groups is "more focus on mental healthcare and extensive background checks"? This latest shooting is PROOF that the ISSUE has nothing to do with guns.

      i think you misunderstand, my point was basically what you are saying, that the majority of gun control types dont care about the details

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      for the “mental health” crowdhttp://www.cnn.com/2014/05/25/justice/california-shooting-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Every anti-gun proponent that attempts to argue with me, walks off admitting he lost the argument.  This is all you have to say to them before they realize they are wrong:"drunk drivers kill 10 times more people every year.  If you're serious, then take away every Americans' car first, then I will believe you".the argument ends there. they know that 99% of all registered gun owners are law abiding, and have even saved others lives in crime situations.  You simply cannot take away everyone's guns, or everyone's cars.  It wont address the issue.This has more to do with our country deciding back in the 1970's to abolish Insane Asylums where we threw these nut jobs away with the key. forever.

      I don't want to take your gun away.  I want better background checks.  Do you think anyone with a pulse should be able to carry.  Interesting point you bring up with your car analogy.  Vehicular death is a byproduct of the practical use of driving.  The primary use of a gun is to kill.  When you pull out of the driveway you aren't planning on killing anyone.  When you pull your gun out?  It is to kill...no?  Horrible analogy.  You must have argued with morons because that was too easy.

      Like I said, better background checks? Yes. Of course. Assault weapons bans, mag capacity restrictions, etc.? No. It won't solve anything.

      one of two things happened here.  Either what I said went right over your head, or, you chose to ignore it to bolster your misguided point.I would hardly classify drunk drivers and drunk driving as "practical use of driving".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      So don't even bother?  That's pretty defeatist.  You put layers of protection in place.  I doubt any will be 100% full proof.  You still have to put them in place.  You'll catch some and save some lives.  How pathetic the NRA has brainwashed some of you.  Embarrassing.

      Really? How pathetic the Bloombergs, Giffords, and Feinsteins have brainwashed some of you. Embarrassing.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      for the "mental health" crowdhttp://www.cnn.com/2014/05/25/justice/california-shooting-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

      What's your point Vin? I'm not being rude, but it's hard to understand what you're trying to say here.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      for the "mental health" crowdhttp://www.cnn.com/2014/05/25/justice/california-shooting-deaths/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

      What's your point Vin? I'm not being rude, but it's hard to understand what you're trying to say here.

      By mental health crowd I meant those who seem to say do nothing about guns and focus on mental health instead and my point was they this kid was on the radar, so to speak, but we were still unable to prevent an event like this. My overall point in the thread is that it reinforces a point I have been making, which is that there is a substantial number of Americans who place almost no value on guns and so those people see an event like this and say "enough is enough" with guns even though this kid also used a knife and had mental health issues. They focus on the guns because they don't see the reason to have them in the first place but also because they look at the current laws and see they make no sense.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Every anti-gun proponent that attempts to argue with me, walks off admitting he lost the argument.  This is all you have to say to them before they realize they are wrong:"drunk drivers kill 10 times more people every year.  If you're serious, then take away every Americans' car first, then I will believe you".the argument ends there. they know that 99% of all registered gun owners are law abiding, and have even saved others lives in crime situations.  You simply cannot take away everyone's guns, or everyone's cars.  It wont address the issue.This has more to do with our country deciding back in the 1970's to abolish Insane Asylums where we threw these nut jobs away with the key. forever.

      I hope this was a troll post

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Troll?  says the guy with 18K posts.  I’m sure everyone a gem.My post is dead-on accurate...no trolling.Not sure why you "hope" it was a troll post, but it seems to me you are losing just a tad bit of Hope...with your Change lately.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      By mental health crowd I meant those who seem to say do nothing about guns and focus on mental health instead and my point was they this kid was on the radar, so to speak, but we were still unable to prevent an event like this.

      Okay. So who's at fault?

      My overall point in the thread is that it reinforces a point I have been making, which is that there is a substantial number of Americans who place almost no value on guns and so those people see an event like this and say "enough is enough" with guns even though this kid also used a knife and had mental health issues. They focus on the guns because they don't see the reason to have them in the first place but also because they look at the current laws and see they make no sense.

      There's also a substantial number of Americans who DO place value on guns. The gun-control lobby focuses on everything that isn't the actual problem. They redirect blame to everything else. It's almost as if they're in denial. They know nothing about firearms, are mis-informed, and simply place the blame on guns when events like this occur. Why?When a terrorist carries out an attack that kills innocent children, WE BLAME THE TERRORIST. When a drunk driver veers into a lane with oncoming traffic, killing innocent children in a crash; WE BLAME THE DRUNK DRIVER.When someone goes into an elementary school, shoots and kills innocent children; WE BLAME GUNS. THIS IS THE LOGIC OF THE GUN CONTROL LOBBY.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      So don't even bother?  That's pretty defeatist.  You put layers of protection in place.  I doubt any will be 100% full proof.  You still have to put them in place.  You'll catch some and save some lives.  How pathetic the NRA has brainwashed some of you.  Embarrassing.

      Really? How pathetic the Bloombergs, Giffords, and Feinsteins have brainwashed some of you. Embarrassing.

      I'm a fiscal republican.  I don't care about the dinosaurs of the gun-toting religious right.  Those guys are killing the party.  Time to eject the cro-magnons and enter the 21st century.  Change is good.  Again,  I don't want to take any guns away from people that should have them.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      So don't even bother?  That's pretty defeatist.  You put layers of protection in place.  I doubt any will be 100% full proof.  You still have to put them in place.  You'll catch some and save some lives.  How pathetic the NRA has brainwashed some of you.  Embarrassing.

      Really? How pathetic the Bloombergs, Giffords, and Feinsteins have brainwashed some of you. Embarrassing.

      I'm a fiscal republican.  I don't care about the dinosaurs of the gun-toting religious right.  Those guys are killing the party.  Time to eject the cro-magnons and enter the 21st century.  Change is good.  Again,  I don't want to take any guns away from people that should have them.

      That's fine. It's your opinion. And as I've said all along, I'm all for more emphasis on universal background checks and mental healthcare. I am strongly against weapon bans/restrictions, magazine restrictions, and registration.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      What kind of background check would have prevented this? Unless you’re saying every awkward shy person diagnosed with aspergers (most likely what Elliot Roger had) should be denied a gun?There are two solutions in my mind.1. Hire a wizard to disintegrate every gun and munition on the planet and make us forget how to create them.2. Everyone carry a handgun everywhere at all times. Hell take it to the bathroom with you.In all seriousness, there is no easy answer. Most men think they're action heroes that would jump into combat and take on any assailant with their weapon of choice, and research tells us that without proper training, most people succumb to adrenalin and go flight or fight mode and panic when being shot at. Basically. Life sucks. Try your damndest not to die.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      What kind of background check would have prevented this? Unless you're saying every awkward shy person diagnosed with aspergers (most likely what Elliot Roger had) should be denied a gun?There are two solutions in my mind.1. Hire a wizard to disintegrate every gun and munition on the planet and make us forget how to create them.2. Everyone carry a handgun everywhere at all times. Hell take it to the bathroom with you.In all seriousness, there is no easy answer. Most men think they're action heroes that would jump into combat and take on any assailant with their weapon of choice, and research tells us that without proper training, most people succumb to adrenalin and go flight or fight mode and panic when being shot at. Basically. Life sucks. Try your damndest not to die.

      Exactly. There is no easy solution. But, more focus on mental healthcare and background checks is more practical and realistic than the liberal gun-control lobby's agenda of ridding the world of guns.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Troll?  says the guy with 18K posts.  I'm sure everyone a gem.My post is dead-on accurate...no trolling.Not sure why you "hope" it was a troll post, but it seems to me you are losing just a tad bit of Hope...with your Change lately.

      Um .. Okay

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      By mental health crowd I meant those who seem to say do nothing about guns and focus on mental health instead and my point was they this kid was on the radar, so to speak, but we were still unable to prevent an event like this.

      Okay. So who's at fault?

      My overall point in the thread is that it reinforces a point I have been making, which is that there is a substantial number of Americans who place almost no value on guns and so those people see an event like this and say "enough is enough" with guns even though this kid also used a knife and had mental health issues. They focus on the guns because they don't see the reason to have them in the first place but also because they look at the current laws and see they make no sense.

      There's also a substantial number of Americans who DO place value on guns. The gun-control lobby focuses on everything that isn't the actual problem. They redirect blame to everything else. It's almost as if they're in denial. They know nothing about firearms, are mis-informed, and simply place the blame on guns when events like this occur. Why?When a terrorist carries out an attack that kills innocent children, WE BLAME THE TERRORIST. When a drunk driver veers into a lane with oncoming traffic, killing innocent children in a crash; WE BLAME THE DRUNK DRIVER.When someone goes into an elementary school, shoots and kills innocent children; WE BLAME GUNS. THIS IS THE LOGIC OF THE GUN CONTROL LOBBY.

      People blame the shooter too, but typically the shooter is gone and it is easier to control access to guns than predict when human beings will go nuts. By the way, why do you suppose the car in your drunk driver story is treated different than a gun? Everyone has cars and they are needed for transportation. Few people have guns and they are made for killing (not some other social need)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 8096

      So, this 22 y/o kid with a Beemer in Santa Barbara can’t get any?  Seriousl… how far is it to Vegas?NSFWhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mAejVQvo5s

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      People blame the shooter too,

      You're right. Those people are the pro-gun crowd.

      Few people have guns and they are made for killing

      Few? Umm...you might want to check your sources on that.

      By the way, why do you suppose the car in your drunk driver story is treated different than a gun? Everyone has cars and they are needed for transportation.

      I don't know why it's different. A gun doesn't just grow legs, walk out the door and start killing people. Just like a car. It doesn't roll itself out on to the highway and start killing people. There is a HUMAN BEING that CAUSES the death in both those situations. I wonder why one gets treated differently than the other.  ::)

      but typically the shooter is gone

      That's true. So, that's why idiots like Richard Martinez (father of one the victims) is parading around in front of every camera, reporter, and microphone he can. Why? To blame the NRA and politics! Are you f*cking kidding me? Your son was gunned down by a mental head case and instead of blaming the person who pulled the trigger, you point your finger at the NRA. So, instead of mourning your child's death or putting the guilt on the shooter, you are standing on your soapbox and using this as a platform to push your liberal gun-control agenda. I wonder if Bloomberg or Feinstein helped him write his speech at his first press conference.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      By and large, gun control advocates are big Government advocates. Yes this does not mean everybody, Vin included I would hazard a guess, but most of the big drivers are.The reason behind this is the philosophy that Govt knows best, and the role of Govt is to provide for the citizens. To decide what is fair and to implement it. With this mindset you can understand how they do not think that firearms in the hands of the citizenry is needed, wanted or desired. The only people who need to have a firearm are those determined to be competent and trustworthy enough to support the will of the Govt. Why would anybody else need a firearm.I appreciate that this sounds a bit paranoid, but it isn't. The reason being is that ultimately Govt gets its authority by it's ability and legal authority to implement lethal force. Be that via the military or law enforcement. The first recourse is through the law courts which rely upon their implied use of lethal force if you do not respect their judgements, and eventually the cops are sent round with as much force as necessary to impose the will of the Govt.It's is a very simplistic view, but I would propose - accurate.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      By and large, gun control advocates are big Government advocates. Yes this does not mean everybody, Vin included I would hazard a guess, but most of the big drivers are.The reason behind this is the philosophy that Govt knows best, and the role of Govt is to provide for the citizens. To decide what is fair and to implement it. With this mindset you can understand how they do not think that firearms in the hands of the citizenry is needed, wanted or desired. The only people who need to have a firearm are those determined to be competent and trustworthy enough to support the will of the Govt. Why would anybody else need a firearm.I appreciate that this sounds a bit paranoid, but it isn't. The reason being is that ultimately Govt gets its authority by it's ability and legal authority to implement lethal force. Be that via the military or law enforcement. The first recourse is through the law courts which rely upon their implied use of lethal force if you do not respect their judgements, and eventually the cops are sent round with as much force as necessary to impose the will of the Govt.It's is a very simplistic view, but I would propose - accurate.

      Scary world gun-control advocates want to live in.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      People blame the shooter too,

      You're right. Those people are the pro-gun crowd.

      Few people have guns and they are made for killing

      Few? Umm...you might want to check your sources on that.

      By the way, why do you suppose the car in your drunk driver story is treated different than a gun? Everyone has cars and they are needed for transportation.

      I don't know why it's different. A gun doesn't just grow legs, walk out the door and start killing people. Just like a car. It doesn't roll itself out on to the highway and start killing people. There is a HUMAN BEING that CAUSES the death in both those situations. I wonder why one gets treated differently than the other.  ::)

      but typically the shooter is gone

      That's true. So, that's why idiots like Richard Martinez (father of one the victims) is parading around in front of every camera, reporter, and microphone he can. Why? To blame the NRA and politics! Are you f*cking kidding me? Your son was gunned down by a mental head case and instead of blaming the person who pulled the trigger, you point your finger at the NRA. So, instead of mourning your child's death or putting the guilt on the shooter, you are standing on your soapbox and using this as a platform to push your liberal gun-control agenda. I wonder if Bloomberg or Feinstein helped him write his speech at his first press conference.

      As I have posted many times, there is a very real potential for a backlash against guns, an overreaction born of a majority that look at gun laws as ludicrous. Seriously now, just think about the fact that AFTER Sandy Hook Wayne argued AGAINST universal background checks having supported them before. That is called chutzpah when you're in control, but it's also called over playing your hand when the tide turns.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      By and large, gun control advocates are big Government advocates. Yes this does not mean everybody, Vin included I would hazard a guess, but most of the big drivers are.The reason behind this is the philosophy that Govt knows best, and the role of Govt is to provide for the citizens. To decide what is fair and to implement it. With this mindset you can understand how they do not think that firearms in the hands of the citizenry is needed, wanted or desired. The only people who need to have a firearm are those determined to be competent and trustworthy enough to support the will of the Govt. Why would anybody else need a firearm.I appreciate that this sounds a bit paranoid, but it isn't. The reason being is that ultimately Govt gets its authority by it's ability and legal authority to implement lethal force. Be that via the military or law enforcement. The first recourse is through the law courts which rely upon their implied use of lethal force if you do not respect their judgements, and eventually the cops are sent round with as much force as necessary to impose the will of the Govt.It's is a very simplistic view, but I would propose - accurate.

      Scary world gun-control advocates want to live in.

      I am actually a fiscal CONSERVATIVE and I am very much against big government. I respect your opinion Spartan but even you I think would acknowledge your views are on the distinct minority. However, even if you accept the premise (ie we need guns to protect us from the govt) that premise is completely disconnected from the gun situation in America. In other words, there are not 300 million guns in the US because 300 million people want to defend themselves against the government, there are 300 million guns because guns are profitable to sell. There are not holes in the background check system so that citizens can secretly arm themselves against the government, there are holes in the background check system so gun sellers can sell a lot of guns

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      While I am all for closing certain loopholes, nothing will change. Events like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. will continue to happen. Ban assault rifles, it will continue to happen. Ban all firearms, and it will still happen.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      even with an across the board ban and a big effort on mental health issues, it will not all go away. the question though is can you reduce gun violence?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      While I am all for closing certain loopholes, nothing will change. Events like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. will continue to happen. Ban assault rifles, it will continue to happen. Ban all firearms, and it will still happen.

      Don't put safeguards in place because you don't think they will work?  Huh?  Do you even hear what you are saying?  It's too late to outright ban anything.  Better background checks is a great start.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      While I am all for closing certain loopholes, nothing will change. Events like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. will continue to happen. Ban assault rifles, it will continue to happen. Ban all firearms, and it will still happen.

      Don't put safeguards in place because you don't think they will work?  Huh?  Do you even hear what you are saying?  It's too late to outright ban anything.  Better background checks is a great start.

      Are you not understanding me? Have I not made it CLEAR that I'm for better background checks?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      While I am all for closing certain loopholes, nothing will change. Events like Sandy Hook, Columbine, etc. will continue to happen. Ban assault rifles, it will continue to happen. Ban all firearms, and it will still happen.

      Don't put safeguards in place because you don't think they will work?  Huh?  Do you even hear what you are saying?  It's too late to outright ban anything.  Better background checks is a great start.

      Are you not understanding me? Have I not made it CLEAR that I'm for better background checks?

      Yes but you keep saying that banning ridiculous magazines won't stop this or that.  Maybe LESS people will die...nothing is going to be 100%.  But you might be able to lessen the overall number of death with certain safeguards. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Yes but you keep saying that banning ridiculous magazines won't stop this or that.  Maybe LESS people will die...nothing is going to be 100%.  But you might be able to lessen the overall number of death with certain safeguards.

      And what is your definition of a "ridiculous magazine". If it's for a semi-automatic handgun, then what is considered "ridiculous"? If it's for a semi-automatic rifles, then what is considered "ridiculous"? 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      what does society gain by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      what does society gain by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      And again, what is your definition of high capacity magazines? And under your definition, how many have been used in mass shootings in the last 20 years?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      what does society gain by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      And again, what is your definition of high capacity magazines? And under your definition, how many have been used in mass shootings in the last 20 years?

      well, using NJ as an example, NJ is considering legislation that would limit magazines to 10 rounds, buy you can define it as you see fit and so under any definition you choose what does society gain? By your question about mass shootings, I take your point to be they are not used often, and that is a fair point, but not really a response to a question about what society gains by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      http://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/ar-15-m16-60-100-round-magazines-prod42026.aspxThis is ridiculous.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      by the wayhttp://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/shooting-reported-at-hyatt-on-clearwater-beach/2181519lots of guns in this society?  not a good idea

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      By and large, gun control advocates are big Government advocates. Yes this does not mean everybody, Vin included I would hazard a guess, but most of the big drivers are.The reason behind this is the philosophy that Govt knows best, and the role of Govt is to provide for the citizens. To decide what is fair and to implement it. With this mindset you can understand how they do not think that firearms in the hands of the citizenry is needed, wanted or desired. The only people who need to have a firearm are those determined to be competent and trustworthy enough to support the will of the Govt. Why would anybody else need a firearm.I appreciate that this sounds a bit paranoid, but it isn't. The reason being is that ultimately Govt gets its authority by it's ability and legal authority to implement lethal force. Be that via the military or law enforcement. The first recourse is through the law courts which rely upon their implied use of lethal force if you do not respect their judgements, and eventually the cops are sent round with as much force as necessary to impose the will of the Govt.It's is a very simplistic view, but I would propose - accurate.

      Scary world gun-control advocates want to live in.

      I am actually a fiscal CONSERVATIVE and I am very much against big government. I respect your opinion Spartan but even you I think would acknowledge your views are on the distinct minority. However, even if you accept the premise (ie we need guns to protect us from the govt) that premise is completely disconnected from the gun situation in America. In other words, there are not 300 million guns in the US because 300 million people want to defend themselves against the government, there are 300 million guns because guns are profitable to sell. There are not holes in the background check system so that citizens can secretly arm themselves against the government, there are holes in the background check system so gun sellers can sell a lot of guns

      OK, here is a question. A serious one which I would like you to think about before you answer. By what authority does the Government ultimately have to impose it's laws and it's will, other than with the imposition of deadly force?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      what does society gain by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      What does a society gain from football?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      well, using NJ as an example, NJ is considering legislation that would limit magazines to 10 rounds, buy you can define it as you see fit and so under any definition you choose what does society gain?

      Oh, so NJ is setting an example? 10 round magazines? Sounds similar to California. I see that recently that's worked out well for them. Kinda like that strict gun control haven such as Chicago.

      By your question about mass shootings, I take your point to be they are not used often, and that is a fair point, but not really a response to a question about what society gains by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      So now that you've acknowledged that high capacity magazines aren't the issue (which you earlier argued that they were), now you're trying to argue what society gains with them being there? Now you've moved from facts to your own personal opinions.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      by the wayhttp://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/shooting-reported-at-hyatt-on-clearwater-beach/2181519lots of guns in this society?  not a good idea

      Yep. Let's ban them. Because once we implement a nation wide ban, the 300 million + guns in the country will *POOF* magically disappear!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      http://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/ar-15-m16-60-100-round-magazines-prod42026.aspxThis is ridiculous.

      So, is that your definition of high capacity? Magazines that hold 60+ rounds?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      By and large, gun control advocates are big Government advocates. Yes this does not mean everybody, Vin included I would hazard a guess, but most of the big drivers are.The reason behind this is the philosophy that Govt knows best, and the role of Govt is to provide for the citizens. To decide what is fair and to implement it. With this mindset you can understand how they do not think that firearms in the hands of the citizenry is needed, wanted or desired. The only people who need to have a firearm are those determined to be competent and trustworthy enough to support the will of the Govt. Why would anybody else need a firearm.I appreciate that this sounds a bit paranoid, but it isn't. The reason being is that ultimately Govt gets its authority by it's ability and legal authority to implement lethal force. Be that via the military or law enforcement. The first recourse is through the law courts which rely upon their implied use of lethal force if you do not respect their judgements, and eventually the cops are sent round with as much force as necessary to impose the will of the Govt.It's is a very simplistic view, but I would propose - accurate.

      Scary world gun-control advocates want to live in.

      I am actually a fiscal CONSERVATIVE and I am very much against big government. I respect your opinion Spartan but even you I think would acknowledge your views are on the distinct minority. However, even if you accept the premise (ie we need guns to protect us from the govt) that premise is completely disconnected from the gun situation in America. In other words, there are not 300 million guns in the US because 300 million people want to defend themselves against the government, there are 300 million guns because guns are profitable to sell. There are not holes in the background check system so that citizens can secretly arm themselves against the government, there are holes in the background check system so gun sellers can sell a lot of guns

      OK, here is a question. A serious one which I would like you to think about before you answer. By what authority does the Government ultimately have to impose it's laws and it's will, other than with the imposition of deadly force?

      the authority is the Constitution, but I think you meant power. For power though, I get the point you are making, but the "government" is not a king or queen or an army, right? You are suggesting that a "government" has no power but for its ability to impose its will on people and I get the point, but I guess you would have to give me an example where all of Congress and a President and a military would unite against citizens?  If you could come up with that example, I guess you would then have to explain how citizens are going to hold tanks and f-16s etc off with even all the guns now in the US?In other words, I get the point you are making, but just dont see how it fits with modern reality

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      well, using NJ as an example, NJ is considering legislation that would limit magazines to 10 rounds, buy you can define it as you see fit and so under any definition you choose what does society gain?

      Oh, so NJ is setting an example? 10 round magazines? Sounds similar to California. I see that recently that's worked out well for them. Kinda like that strict gun control haven such as Chicago.

      By your question about mass shootings, I take your point to be they are not used often, and that is a fair point, but not really a response to a question about what society gains by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      So now that you've acknowledged that high capacity magazines aren't the issue (which you earlier argued that they were), now you're trying to argue what society gains with them being there? Now you've moved from facts to your own personal opinions.

      well, I was trying to get you to answer a question, but nevermind. From my perspective, I dont see any benefit, but I thought you might have a different view

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/ar-15-m16-60-100-round-magazines-prod42026.aspxThis is ridiculous.

      So, is that your definition of high capacity? Magazines that hold 60+ rounds?

      here's the solution yo the debate you two are having . . . start by including in the "ridiculous" column those that are obviously ridiculous . . and then work down. certainly you should be able to agree that some are "ridiculous"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      what does society gain by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      What does a society gain from football?

      entertainmentis that the answer for high capacity magazines?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      All I am asking for is some common sense…that’s it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Well, I guess to answer your question; it depends on what side of society you ask. Apparently your idea of high capacity magazines is anything over 10 rounds. Since gun control is a huge debate these days and seems to be fairly split (I’m not saying that it statistically is), I’d say that the answer would be split. For pro-gun advocates, it’s the ability to carry more ammo while hunting, while target shooting, recreational shooting, self-defense, home defense, and property defense. It allows for less reloading and carrying less magazines decreasing overall carry weight. On the other side, I’m sure the answer would be because they kill more people and are used in mass shootings (which isn’t true) and that they see no benefit to society (simply because they don’t own guns or care about guns).

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Well, apparently nobody wants to give “their definition” of a high capacity magazine. So, I’ll just go with Vin’s reference to “10 round magazines”.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Well, I guess to answer your question; it depends on what side of society you ask. Apparently your idea of high capacity magazines is anything over 10 rounds. Since gun control is a huge debate these days and seems to be fairly split (I'm not saying that it statistically is), I'd say that the answer would be split. For pro-gun advocates, it's the ability to carry more ammo while hunting, while target shooting, recreational shooting, self-defense, home defense, and property defense. It allows for less reloading and carrying less magazines decreasing overall carry weight. On the other side, I'm sure the answer would be because they kill more people and are used in mass shootings (which isn't true) and that they see no benefit to society (simply because they don't own guns or care about guns).

      well, so if you accept the premise that the most compelling argument for guns is self defense, I guess the most compelling argument would be that high capacity magazines enhance defense, to some extent

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      by the wayhttp://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/shooting-reported-at-hyatt-on-clearwater-beach/2181519lots of guns in this society?  not a good idea

      Yep. Let's ban them. Because once we implement a nation wide ban, the 300 million + guns in the country will *POOF* magically disappear!

      lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      What kind of background check would have prevented this? Unless you're saying every awkward shy person diagnosed with aspergers (most likely what Elliot Roger had) should be denied a gun?There are two solutions in my mind.1. Hire a wizard to disintegrate every gun and munition on the planet and make us forget how to create them.2. Everyone carry a handgun everywhere at all times. Hell take it to the bathroom with you.In all seriousness, there is no easy answer. Most men think they're action heroes that would jump into combat and take on any assailant with their weapon of choice, and research tells us that without proper training, most people succumb to adrenalin and go flight or fight mode and panic when being shot at. Basically. Life sucks. Try your damndest not to die.

      Exactly. There is no easy solution. But, more focus on mental healthcare and background checks is more practical and realistic than the liberal gun-control lobby's agenda of ridding the world of guns.

      The guy that shot up my friend's party 2 years ago with an assault rifle had no criminal record and no mental health issues. He was pretty normal back in high school. We even hung out occasionally. The gun control lobby would have been way more effective in preventing my situation from happening.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You cannot prevent every auto accident and yet we have drivers licenses, driving school, speed limits, age limits, air bags, seat belts…

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 6677

      You cannot prevent every auto accident and yet we have drivers licenses, driving school, speed limits, age limits, air bags, seat belts...

      one way to prevent auto accidents is to not drive drunk.  Ain’t that right councillor?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      the authority is the Constitution, but I think you meant power. For power though, I get the point you are making, but the "government" is not a king or queen or an army, right? You are suggesting that a "government" has no power but for its ability to impose its will on people and I get the point, but I guess you would have to give me an example where all of Congress and a President and a military would unite against citizens?  If you could come up with that example, I guess you would then have to explain how citizens are going to hold tanks and f-16s etc off with even all the guns now in the US?In other words, I get the point you are making, but just don't see how it fits with modern reality

      My perspective on this is not in terms of fighting off the Govt come the revolution,it is that it demonstrates the mind set of those that support big Govt. As they think Govt should be the arbitrator and provider of most, if not all things, they cannot comprehend why an ordinary citizen would need or want a firearm. Those who support the 2nd Amendment are by and large more independent and less supportive of BIG Govt. There are varying degrees to this assertion but again, it demonstrates a mindset.See where I am going now?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      the authority is the Constitution, but I think you meant power. For power though, I get the point you are making, but the "government" is not a king or queen or an army, right? You are suggesting that a "government" has no power but for its ability to impose its will on people and I get the point, but I guess you would have to give me an example where all of Congress and a President and a military would unite against citizens?  If you could come up with that example, I guess you would then have to explain how citizens are going to hold tanks and f-16s etc off with even all the guns now in the US?In other words, I get the point you are making, but just don't see how it fits with modern reality

      My perspective on this is not in terms of fighting off the Govt come the revolution,it is that it demonstrates the mind set of those that support big Govt. As they think Govt should be the arbitrator and provider of most, if not all things, they cannot comprehend why an ordinary citizen would need or want a firearm. Those who support the 2nd Amendment are by and large more independent and less supportive of BIG Govt. There are varying degrees to this assertion but again, it demonstrates a mindset.See where I am going now?

      I do, but that is a pretty big generalization.  I think you are definitely correct about people on the far left, but I just don't think that all (or even most) people for gun restrictions are on the far left.  I also agree that there is a segment of 2nd Amendment supporters, as you say, who support the 2nd Am. more from a philosophical perspective about government than from an interest in guns

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      what does society gain by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      What does a society gain from football?

      entertainmentis that the answer for high capacity magazines?

      Sort of.Some people like football, some people like Hockey, some people like Basketball. Different people have different tastes and gain different joys from different things.Some people like bolt action single action rifles, some like bolt action short magazine rifles, some like muzzle loaders, some like shooting the sh*t out of a target with a "high capacity" magazine. They have fun doing that. Just like some have fun watching a football gain. And for the record, banning "high capacity" magazines will serve little or no purpose. The reason being the number of times they are used v the number of murders is negligable, and, what's more, it won't slow people down much should they go postal. It takes about 3 seconds to change a magazine, not exactly going to provide the cops with much more time to get there is it? One reason why people like "high capacity" magazines is reloading them at the range. This is done before you leave, just like a crazy would do be it a 30 round or 10 round magazine.Now if all magazines were banned, I could see an impact - once the millions of existing magazines have been eliminated.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      what does society gain by allowing citizens to have high capacity magazines?

      What does a society gain from football?

      entertainmentis that the answer for high capacity magazines?

      Sort of.Some people like football, some people like Hockey, some people like Basketball. Different people have different tastes and gain different joys from different things.Some people like bolt action single action rifles, some like bolt action short magazine rifles, some like muzzle loaders, some like shooting the sh*t out of a target with a "high capacity" magazine. They have fun doing that. Just like some have fun watching a football gain. And for the record, banning "high capacity" magazines will serve little or no purpose. The reason being the number of times they are used v the number of murders is negligable, and, what's more, it won't slow people down much should they go postal. It takes about 3 seconds to change a magazine, not exactly going to provide the cops with much more time to get there is it? One reason why people like "high capacity" magazines is reloading them at the range. This is done before you leave, just like a crazy would do be it a 30 round or 10 round magazine.Now if all magazines were banned, I could see an impact - once the millions of existing magazines have been eliminated.

      the counter argument to the first part in bold is that they serve little or no purpose (entertainment) so what difference does it make to ban them? Also, I think the guy who shot Gifford was shot when he paused to reload, right?to the second part in bold, no one said change would come quickly and the flooding of the market doesn't mean surrender is the only option

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      You cannot prevent every auto accident and yet we have drivers licenses, driving school, speed limits, age limits, air bags, seat belts...

      one way to prevent auto accidents is to not drive drunk.  Ain't that right councillor?

      Will-auto-insurance-pay-for-a-car-accident-while-DUI-or-DWI-2-e1309820137842.jpg

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Really looking forward to the great “ban printers” crusade.http://makezine.com/2011/09/20/proscribed-printables/

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      “Annie Get Your Printer”.6min. video clip.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Abww7edoc4

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      yawn . . . .keep swingingswing-and-a-miss-o.gif

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      A magazine is nothing more than a box with a spring in it. You can easily make one out of a gallon can. Those who weren't too busy yawning might have noticed from the video that you can legally make your own lower receiver and you're not required to put a serial number on it.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/05/guns-mental-health-background-checksCiting figures from the FBI, the gun-reform group reports that the number of mental health records collected from states in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (known as "NICS") has tripled to nearly three and a half million since 2011—and that as a result, a growing number of mentally ill people have been stopped from purchasing firearms through licensed dealers.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      the counter argument to the first part in bold is that they serve little or no purpose (entertainment) so what difference does it make to ban them? Also, I think the guy who shot Gifford was shot when he paused to reload, right?

      I've listed the multiple purposes they serve to gun owners and enthusiasts. But, because they serve no purpose to you or the gun-control crowd (and it's proven they are rarely used in mass shootings), we should ban them?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      A magazine is nothing more than a box with a spring in it. You can easily make one out of a gallon can. Those who weren't too busy yawning might have noticed from the video that you can legally make your own lower receiver and you're not required to put a serial number on it.

      because a person with 3d modeling skill and a 3d printer can make a magazine . . . . do nothinggot it, thanks  . . . hey, are you Illuminator?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      the counter argument to the first part in bold is that they serve little or no purpose (entertainment) so what difference does it make to ban them? Also, I think the guy who shot Gifford was shot when he paused to reload, right?

      I've listed the multiple purposes they serve to gun owners and enthusiasts. But, because they serve no purpose to you or the gun-control crowd (and it's proven they are rarely used in mass shootings), we should ban them?

      no, but it makes them much easier to ban, that was my point.  You listed entertainment and self-defense. I said self-defense was at least a plausible reason, although I don't know the extent to which they actually help or are used for that purpose.  However, my point was not that complicated.  You can fill in the percentages as you see fit, but if you accept that the universe of people IN SOCIETY that value high capacity magazines is relatively small compared to those who do not, it should not be hard to see why they are an easy target for gun control advocates . . .and a target made even easier by the blanket refusals of the NRA to other reasonable measures (see comment from victim's father and Feinstein).Think of it this way: if the tide turns and gun control advocates are in control and gun advocates respond to gun restriction like the banning of high capacity magazines with "what is the logic behind that?" wouldn't you expect those gun control advocates to say "yeah, that is what we said for years about background checks etc."  THAT IS AMERICAN POLITICS. That is why legislation is more like a pendulum than a well thought out course. I am not saying I agree; in fact, I disagree. I am just saying that is reality

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      You don’t need a 3D printer, you can make a high capacity magazine with a one gallon can and a pair of pliers. Add a rivet gun and you can make a much nicer one. And by the way:http://www.google.com/search?redir_esc=&redir_esc=&hl=en&client=ms-null&source=android-browser-type&v=200400000&qsubts=1401201156402&q=3d%20modeling%20program

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      You don't need a 3D printer, you can make a high capacity magazine with a one gallon can and a pair of pliers. Add a rivet gun and you can make a much nicer one.

      ok thanks

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      For DH and others discussing the issue, this is from O’Mara’s editorial, so it is the view of a very accomplished attorney and gun owner in Florida:"Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently pledged $50 million to address gun issues. In the face of such a concerted effort, the failure of gun rights advocates to allow any reasonable flexibility to our right to bear arms could mean that it will eventually buckle under the weight of thoughtful opposition propelled to action by the next series of tragic and, unfortunately, inevitable mass shootings"sounds familiar . . .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/05/guns-mental-health-background-checksCiting figures from the FBI, the gun-reform group reports that the number of mental health records collected from states in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (known as "NICS") has tripled to nearly three and a half million since 2011—and that as a result, a growing number of mentally ill people have been stopped from purchasing firearms through licensed dealers.

      I was diagnosed with depression when I was 12. Is that going to keep me from buying a gun? Haven't tried it yet due to pricing :

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Yes, that does sound familiar. They keep saying it, and the opposite keeps happening.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/05/guns-mental-health-background-checksCiting figures from the FBI, the gun-reform group reports that the number of mental health records collected from states in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (known as "NICS") has tripled to nearly three and a half million since 2011—and that as a result, a growing number of mentally ill people have been stopped from purchasing firearms through licensed dealers.

      I was diagnosed with depression when I was 12. Is that going to keep me from buying a gun?

      nope

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      no, but it makes them much easier to ban, that was my point.  You listed entertainment and self-defense. I said self-defense was at least a plausible reason, although I don't know the extent to which they actually help or are used for that purpose.  However, my point was not that complicated.  You can fill in the percentages as you see fit, but if you accept that the universe of people IN SOCIETY that value high capacity magazines is relatively small compared to those who do not, it should not be hard to see why they are an easy target for gun control advocates . . .and a target made even easier by the blanket refusals of the NRA to other reasonable measures (see comment from victim's father and Feinstein).

      It's not hard to see at all. Gun-control advocates want to ban them because they're "scary". And, "if we don't need it, then nobody does". Forget the fact that they're rarely, if ever, used in shootings. As far as Feinstein, I have not seen her latest comments on the shooting. Provide a link if you can, I need a good laugh today. As far as Richard Martinez (and I know I'm going to catch hell for this), what a f*cking joke of a human being. How many interviews has this guy done before his son's (RIP) funeral? Not once has he blamed the shooter. Not once has he put any kind of accountability on the shooter's parents. He directs 100% of the blame on the NRA and government. It's been roughly 72 hours since his son was murdered and this guy has put his face in front of every microphone, camera, and reporter he can find. Not to mourn his son's death, but to push his liberal agenda. He blames the media for not focusing enough on the victims. Funny coming from a guy who spends more time in interviews blaming others and not mourning the death of his own son. Sorry, but that is a pathetic human being in my opinion.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      hard to criticize anyone’s conduct after the death of an innocent child and its not really that unusual for parent to get behind a cause after losing a child. Anyway, if the NRA conduct was not atrocious he’d have little to rant about, which was my point.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      hard to criticize anyone's conduct after the death of an innocent child and its not really that unusual for parent to get behind a cause after losing a child. Anyway, if the NRA conduct was not atrocious he'd have little to rant about, which was my point.

      Yep. Because the NRA pulled the trigger. And I'm sorry, I have much more respect for the parents that are mourning their loss in private; not the ones using it as a public stage to push their agendas.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      hard to criticize anyone's conduct after the death of an innocent child and its not really that unusual for parent to get behind a cause after losing a child. Anyway, if the NRA conduct was not atrocious he'd have little to rant about, which was my point.

      Yep. Because the NRA pulled the trigger. And I'm sorry, I have much more respect for the parents that are mourning their loss in private; not the ones using it as a public stage to push their agendas.

      well, a lot of good things have come from parents who lost kids, but fair enough.On the NRA, obviously no one says they pulled the trigger BUT just as obvious is their blanket refusal for almost all gun control.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      We can all agree an insane person with a weapon is bad for everyone. I’m a firm believer that people with a certain amount of mental illness should not have a gun. But what amount is that? People with Schizophrenia? How about people with a mild case? How about people who haven’t been diagnosed, which there are a lot of them. How about people on medications for depression or anxiety? How about women that take depression meds for moderate to severe PMDD? Okay so let’s say somehow someway, you’ve successfully stopped all the mentally ill from buying a gun. What those people getting those guns from the black market? How about from their own family members as we’ve seen in Sandy Hook? So are you going to outlaw the mentally ill and all of their relatives from having a gun?Don't listen to the far left or right on the issue, both sides are nut jobs. Most people against gun control are not against it because they think insane people with guns sounds like a good idea. They, like me, probably feel that in order to limit the insane people, i'll have my rights as a law abiding American also limited. I believe in my choice to choose on most topics. I don't want someone telling me what is best for me, I believe I have the right to chose for myself.So who's at fault in this case? The kid was seeing several therapists so does that mean he can't buy a gun? How about people seeing a couples therapist, can they have a gun? How about people with mental illness in their past, not a current diagnosis? You see the gray area. To say all people who have committed a crime in their life, and were dumb enough to get caught, or had a diagnosed mental illness cannot have a gun would be an injustice to many people.People want to believe that things like this young man can be prevented, but can they really? And how much of our freedoms do we want to give away to try and prevent it, especially if it can't be prevented. Is the answer to arm EVERYONE? I don't know that either. What I do believe is that bad people are bad people and will find ways to harm others if properly motivated and no law will change that.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      We can all agree an insane person with a weapon is bad for everyone. I'm a firm believer that people with a certain amount of mental illness should not have a gun. But what amount is that? People with Schizophrenia? How about people with a mild case? How about people who haven't been diagnosed, which there are a lot of them. How about people on medications for depression or anxiety? How about women that take depression meds for moderate to severe PMDD? Okay so let's say somehow someway, you've successfully stopped all the mentally ill from buying a gun. What those people getting those guns from the black market? How about from their own family members as we've seen in Sandy Hook? So are you going to outlaw the mentally ill and all of their relatives from having a gun?

      it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify a mentally ill person as potentially violent BEFORE an event like thisit is NOT very difficult to limit access to gunsneither is a perfect solution because there is no such thing, but one is definitely easier than the other

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify a mentally ill person as potentially violent BEFORE an event like thisit is NOT very difficult to limit access to gunsneither is a perfect solution because there is no such thing, but one is definitely easier than the other

      Really? And how's that?

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Stop worrying about what’s right, DH, focus on what’s “easy” (easy in this case meaning nearly impossible).

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Stop worrying about what's right, DH, focus on what's "easy" (easy in this case meaning nearly impossible).

      one of your weakest strawmans ever . . .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify a mentally ill person as potentially violent BEFORE an event like thisit is NOT very difficult to limit access to gunsneither is a perfect solution because there is no such thing, but one is definitely easier than the other

      Really? And how's that?

      there are civilized countries that ban guns entirely, those same countries have not invented a way to predict when someone's mental illness rises to the level of potential mass murderas an example, you can read here how background checks have impacted mental health issues in some states:http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/05/guns-mental-health-background-checks

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      We can all agree an insane person with a weapon is bad for everyone. I'm a firm believer that people with a certain amount of mental illness should not have a gun. But what amount is that? People with Schizophrenia? How about people with a mild case? How about people who haven't been diagnosed, which there are a lot of them. How about people on medications for depression or anxiety? How about women that take depression meds for moderate to severe PMDD? Okay so let's say somehow someway, you've successfully stopped all the mentally ill from buying a gun. What those people getting those guns from the black market? How about from their own family members as we've seen in Sandy Hook? So are you going to outlaw the mentally ill and all of their relatives from having a gun?

      it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify a mentally ill person as potentially violent BEFORE an event like thisit is NOT very difficult to limit access to guns

      Our constitutional rights should not be violated regardless of how inconvenient it seems to some. If you don't care about your rights, you'll soon have none. Facts are that this young kid led a privileged life with a nicer car and style of life than most people as adults. Truth is his mental instability was well documented yet he was allowed to enroll in a 4 year college and attend. Truth is he made and posted youtube videos documenting his mental illness. Truth is his parents new this kid better than anyone and allowed him to leave for college and try to be normal. Truth is our society believes he should have that right. Truth is that the police were called in and thoroughly searched his belongings one year before this happened and found nothing to take him out of society. Truth is this kid brought three hand guns and other weapons. I'm sure i'm missing other very relevant facts.This kid plotted this for a long time, wrote a manifesto about it and then carried it out. He was apparently a smart person and deeply ill one. Something like this was going to happen regardless of our laws on guns. Personally I believe the parents are most at fault as they were most involved and potential knew the best about his tendancies which is just one reason why these things will never stop. How many parents could take the necessary steps to get their child off the streets where they could never hurt anyone, especially if they had not hurt anyone yet? You tell me what the answer is. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      We can all agree an insane person with a weapon is bad for everyone. I'm a firm believer that people with a certain amount of mental illness should not have a gun. But what amount is that? People with Schizophrenia? How about people with a mild case? How about people who haven't been diagnosed, which there are a lot of them. How about people on medications for depression or anxiety? How about women that take depression meds for moderate to severe PMDD? Okay so let's say somehow someway, you've successfully stopped all the mentally ill from buying a gun. What those people getting those guns from the black market? How about from their own family members as we've seen in Sandy Hook? So are you going to outlaw the mentally ill and all of their relatives from having a gun?

      it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify a mentally ill person as potentially violent BEFORE an event like thisit is NOT very difficult to limit access to guns

      Our constitutional rights should not be violated regardless of how inconvenient it seems to some.

      you have a very limited right to bear arms, so far anything short of an all out ban stands.  See Heller, et.al.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      no, but it makes them much easier to ban, that was my point.  You listed entertainment and self-defense. I said self-defense was at least a plausible reason, although I don't know the extent to which they actually help or are used for that purpose.  However, my point was not that complicated.  You can fill in the percentages as you see fit, but if you accept that the universe of people IN SOCIETY that value high capacity magazines is relatively small compared to those who do not, it should not be hard to see why they are an easy target for gun control advocates . . .and a target made even easier by the blanket refusals of the NRA to other reasonable measures (see comment from victim's father and Feinstein).

      It's not hard to see at all. Gun-control advocates want to ban them because they're "scary". And, "if we don't need it, then nobody does". Forget the fact that they're rarely, if ever, used in shootings. As far as Feinstein, I have not seen her latest comments on the shooting. Provide a link if you can, I need a good laugh today. As far as Richard Martinez (and I know I'm going to catch hell for this), what a f*cking joke of a human being. How many interviews has this guy done before his son's (RIP) funeral? Not once has he blamed the shooter. Not once has he put any kind of accountability on the shooter's parents. He directs 100% of the blame on the NRA and government. It's been roughly 72 hours since his son was murdered and this guy has put his face in front of every microphone, camera, and reporter he can find. Not to mourn his son's death, but to push his liberal agenda. He blames the media for not focusing enough on the victims. Funny coming from a guy who spends more time in interviews blaming others and not mourning the death of his own son. Sorry, but that is a pathetic human being in my opinion.

      Are you saying that this kid should have had legal access to firearms?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      How many parents could take the necessary steps to get their child off the streets where they could never hurt anyone, especially if they had not hurt anyone yet?.

      and yet there are gun advocates who suggest that we should ONLY focus on mnetal illness . . .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      We can all agree an insane person with a weapon is bad for everyone. I'm a firm believer that people with a certain amount of mental illness should not have a gun. But what amount is that? People with Schizophrenia? How about people with a mild case? How about people who haven't been diagnosed, which there are a lot of them. How about people on medications for depression or anxiety? How about women that take depression meds for moderate to severe PMDD? Okay so let's say somehow someway, you've successfully stopped all the mentally ill from buying a gun. What those people getting those guns from the black market? How about from their own family members as we've seen in Sandy Hook? So are you going to outlaw the mentally ill and all of their relatives from having a gun?Don't listen to the far left or right on the issue, both sides are nut jobs. Most people against gun control are not against it because they think insane people with guns sounds like a good idea. They, like me, probably feel that in order to limit the insane people, i'll have my rights as a law abiding American also limited. I believe in my choice to choose on most topics. I don't want someone telling me what is best for me, I believe I have the right to chose for myself.So who's at fault in this case? The kid was seeing several therapists so does that mean he can't buy a gun? How about people seeing a couples therapist, can they have a gun? How about people with mental illness in their past, not a current diagnosis? You see the gray area. To say all people who have committed a crime in their life, and were dumb enough to get caught, or had a diagnosed mental illness cannot have a gun would be an injustice to many people.People want to believe that things like this young man can be prevented, but can they really? And how much of our freedoms do we want to give away to try and prevent it, especially if it can't be prevented. Is the answer to arm EVERYONE? I don't know that either. What I do believe is that bad people are bad people and will find ways to harm others if properly motivated and no law will change that.

      What a cop out...figures coming from you.So don't even try?  Don't do anything just because you believe your efforts are weak?  PATHETIC as usual.  You put safeguards in place.  Levels of protection.  Doing nothing?  That's tragic and is exactly what the NRA puppeteers want you to say.  Yes, I do believe that we can do a better job to prevent people like this from arming themselves legally.  We all know he shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm.  Hiding behind your thought process is a joke.  Well, they'll find a way anyhow so let's do nothing.  I can't believe that at all.  Speechless.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      We can all agree an insane person with a weapon is bad for everyone. I'm a firm believer that people with a certain amount of mental illness should not have a gun. But what amount is that? People with Schizophrenia? How about people with a mild case? How about people who haven't been diagnosed, which there are a lot of them. How about people on medications for depression or anxiety? How about women that take depression meds for moderate to severe PMDD? Okay so let's say somehow someway, you've successfully stopped all the mentally ill from buying a gun. What those people getting those guns from the black market? How about from their own family members as we've seen in Sandy Hook? So are you going to outlaw the mentally ill and all of their relatives from having a gun?

      it is very difficult, if not impossible, to identify a mentally ill person as potentially violent BEFORE an event like thisit is NOT very difficult to limit access to guns

      Our constitutional rights should not be violated regardless of how inconvenient it seems to some. If you don't care about your rights, you'll soon have none. Facts are that this young kid led a privileged life with a nicer car and style of life than most people as adults. Truth is his mental instability was well documented yet he was allowed to enroll in a 4 year college and attend. Truth is he made and posted youtube videos documenting his mental illness. Truth is his parents new this kid better than anyone and allowed him to leave for college and try to be normal. Truth is our society believes he should have that right. Truth is that the police were called in and thoroughly searched his belongings one year before this happened and found nothing to take him out of society. Truth is this kid brought three hand guns and other weapons. I'm sure i'm missing other very relevant facts.This kid plotted this for a long time, wrote a manifesto about it and then carried it out. He was apparently a smart person and deeply ill one. Something like this was going to happen regardless of our laws on guns. Personally I believe the parents are most at fault as they were most involved and potential knew the best about his tendancies which is just one reason why these things will never stop. How many parents could take the necessary steps to get their child off the streets where they could never hurt anyone, especially if they had not hurt anyone yet? You tell me what the answer is.

      Writing your own Manifesto I see...can I borrow your tinfoil hat?  Hey, I think there's a drone over your house right now!!!!  They're coming for you!!!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      we dont take the “do nothing” approach on preventable death:Preventable_causes_of_death.pngIt's only in the weird world of guns that you hear or read people saying that we should take no action unless we have a perfect defense

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      “According to the National Institutes of Health, obesity and overweight together are the second leading cause of preventable death in the United States, close behind tobacco use (3). An estimated 300,000 deaths per year are due to the obesity epidemic (57).”Tobacco and cheeseburgers = unpreventable.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      gun logic = clearly we have been wasting our timetrends_2011b.jpg"The smoking rate among adults in the United States has dropped again, an encouraging trend that experts on smoking cessation attribute to public policies like smoke-free air laws and cigarette taxes, as well as media campaigns and less exposure to smoking in movies. Eighteen percent of American adults were cigarette smokers in 2012, according to a report released last week by the National Center for Health Statistics, down from 18.9 percent the previous year. From 2009 to 2012, the rate dropped to 18 percent from 20.6 percent, the first statistically significant change over multiple years since the period spanning 1997 to 2005, when the rate fell to 20.9 percent from 24.7 percent."we should do NOTHING about guns because there is no hope . . .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      no, but it makes them much easier to ban, that was my point.  You listed entertainment and self-defense. I said self-defense was at least a plausible reason, although I don't know the extent to which they actually help or are used for that purpose.  However, my point was not that complicated.  You can fill in the percentages as you see fit, but if you accept that the universe of people IN SOCIETY that value high capacity magazines is relatively small compared to those who do not, it should not be hard to see why they are an easy target for gun control advocates . . .and a target made even easier by the blanket refusals of the NRA to other reasonable measures (see comment from victim's father and Feinstein).

      It's not hard to see at all. Gun-control advocates want to ban them because they're "scary". And, "if we don't need it, then nobody does". Forget the fact that they're rarely, if ever, used in shootings. As far as Feinstein, I have not seen her latest comments on the shooting. Provide a link if you can, I need a good laugh today. As far as Richard Martinez (and I know I'm going to catch hell for this), what a f*cking joke of a human being. How many interviews has this guy done before his son's (RIP) funeral? Not once has he blamed the shooter. Not once has he put any kind of accountability on the shooter's parents. He directs 100% of the blame on the NRA and government. It's been roughly 72 hours since his son was murdered and this guy has put his face in front of every microphone, camera, and reporter he can find. Not to mourn his son's death, but to push his liberal agenda. He blames the media for not focusing enough on the victims. Funny coming from a guy who spends more time in interviews blaming others and not mourning the death of his own son. Sorry, but that is a pathetic human being in my opinion.

      Are you saying that this kid should have had legal access to firearms?

      When have I once, EVEN ONCE, implied that?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      gun logic = clearly we have been wasting our timetrends_2011b.jpg"The smoking rate among adults in the United States has dropped again, an encouraging trend that experts on smoking cessation attribute to public policies like smoke-free air laws and cigarette taxes, as well as media campaigns and less exposure to smoking in movies. Eighteen percent of American adults were cigarette smokers in 2012, according to a report released last week by the National Center for Health Statistics, down from 18.9 percent the previous year. From 2009 to 2012, the rate dropped to 18 percent from 20.6 percent, the first statistically significant change over multiple years since the period spanning 1997 to 2005, when the rate fell to 20.9 percent from 24.7 percent."we should do NOTHING about guns because there is no hope . . .

      Because clearly that's a result of the "cigarette ban".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      How many parents could take the necessary steps to get their child off the streets where they could never hurt anyone, especially if they had not hurt anyone yet?.

      and yet there are gun advocates who suggest that we should ONLY focus on mnetal illness . . .

      And there are gun-control people who are screaming for bans. Equally dumb.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      we dont take the "do nothing" approach on preventable death:Preventable_causes_of_death.pngIt's only in the weird world of guns that you hear or read people saying that we should take no action unless we have a perfect defense

      Hmmm....why don't we ban the top 3 on that list?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      We can all agree an insane person with a weapon is bad for everyone. I'm a firm believer that people with a certain amount of mental illness should not have a gun. But what amount is that? People with Schizophrenia? How about people with a mild case? How about people who haven't been diagnosed, which there are a lot of them. How about people on medications for depression or anxiety? How about women that take depression meds for moderate to severe PMDD? Okay so let's say somehow someway, you've successfully stopped all the mentally ill from buying a gun. What those people getting those guns from the black market? How about from their own family members as we've seen in Sandy Hook? So are you going to outlaw the mentally ill and all of their relatives from having a gun?Don't listen to the far left or right on the issue, both sides are nut jobs. Most people against gun control are not against it because they think insane people with guns sounds like a good idea. They, like me, probably feel that in order to limit the insane people, i'll have my rights as a law abiding American also limited. I believe in my choice to choose on most topics. I don't want someone telling me what is best for me, I believe I have the right to chose for myself.So who's at fault in this case? The kid was seeing several therapists so does that mean he can't buy a gun? How about people seeing a couples therapist, can they have a gun? How about people with mental illness in their past, not a current diagnosis? You see the gray area. To say all people who have committed a crime in their life, and were dumb enough to get caught, or had a diagnosed mental illness cannot have a gun would be an injustice to many people.People want to believe that things like this young man can be prevented, but can they really? And how much of our freedoms do we want to give away to try and prevent it, especially if it can't be prevented. Is the answer to arm EVERYONE? I don't know that either. What I do believe is that bad people are bad people and will find ways to harm others if properly motivated and no law will change that.

      What a cop out...figures coming from you.So don't even try?  Don't do anything just because you believe your efforts are weak?  PATHETIC as usual.  You put safeguards in place.  Levels of protection.  Doing nothing?  That's tragic and is exactly what the NRA puppeteers want you to say.  Yes, I do believe that we can do a better job to prevent people like this from arming themselves legally.  We all know he shouldn't have been able to purchase a firearm.  Hiding behind your thought process is a joke.  Well, they'll find a away anyhow so let's do nothing.  I can't believe that at all.  Speechless.

      I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I never said doing nothing was the answer. I did insinuate that there was no answer and I do believe that to some extent. No plan is going to stop these things from happening as I personally believe many of these things are not reasonable to expect to prevent. This particular young kid had the police looking through his stuff and they couldn't find anything. So you're asking me what I'm going to do? Simply, I'll be doing nothing. I'll continue my life just as I always did. I'll vote for my right to own a gun if I like to, for my right to own a handgun if I like to. If I feel the need to buy one to protect my family I will as of right now I don't own a gun. I'll continue doing what I do now and avoid people I deem unstable. That's it. I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.1.24% of all deaths in the US in 2011 were gun related. Half of those were from gun related suicide. So we're talking about .62% of all deaths in a year from intentional shooting (homicide) or people accidentally getting shot. That's it. With all due respect to those deceased, this is not a significant problem.It has gotten the attention because those deaths have been particularly difficult to see as many have been innocent children or young adults. It has also been a great opportunity for people to push their agendas politically. Far more people are affected by MVA than shootings. So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      gun logic = clearly we have been wasting our timetrends_2011b.jpg"The smoking rate among adults in the United States has dropped again, an encouraging trend that experts on smoking cessation attribute to public policies like smoke-free air laws and cigarette taxes, as well as media campaigns and less exposure to smoking in movies. Eighteen percent of American adults were cigarette smokers in 2012, according to a report released last week by the National Center for Health Statistics, down from 18.9 percent the previous year. From 2009 to 2012, the rate dropped to 18 percent from 20.6 percent, the first statistically significant change over multiple years since the period spanning 1997 to 2005, when the rate fell to 20.9 percent from 24.7 percent."we should do NOTHING about guns because there is no hope . . .

      Because clearly that's a result of the "cigarette ban".

      actually, if you read the article there are differing views from doctors but two shared concepts are that TAXATION and, yes, work and public place BANS have had a profound impact. The article contrasts these approaches to less successful efforts like school education programs. So , you are partly correct it seems.By the way, America's doctors ALSO THINK GUN VIOLENCE IS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE:"The American College of Physicians thinks that gun violence and firearm injury prevention must be dealt with as high-priority issues. The College thinks that physicians must become more active in counseling patients about firearm safety and more involved in community efforts to restrict ownership and sale of handguns.The preventable loss of life and injury and the resulting pain, suffering, and consumption of human, economic, and healthcare resources demand that firearm injuries be considered a public health issue requiring immediate attention"not sure how that is even controversial, but it is . . .with some

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      we dont take the "do nothing" approach on preventable death:Preventable_causes_of_death.pngIt's only in the weird world of guns that you hear or read people saying that we should take no action unless we have a perfect defense

      Hmmm....why don't we ban the top 3 on that list?

      So that big scarey gun is not nearly as deadly as the can of soda or cig

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      we dont take the "do nothing" approach on preventable death:Preventable_causes_of_death.pngIt's only in the weird world of guns that you hear or read people saying that we should take no action unless we have a perfect defense

      Hmmm....why don't we ban the top 3 on that list?

      well, we do to varying degrees, but even if you disagree you must agree, do you not, that we certainly place way more effort reducing those public health issues than "nothing"?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      we dont take the "do nothing" approach on preventable death:Preventable_causes_of_death.pngIt's only in the weird world of guns that you hear or read people saying that we should take no action unless we have a perfect defense

      Hmmm....why don't we ban the top 3 on that list?

      So that big scarey gun is not nearly as deadly as the can of soda or cig

      think about that comment for a second and then think about the disparity in treatment of three different public health issues

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I never said doing nothing was the answer. I did insinuate that there was no answer and I do believe that to some extent. No plan is going to stop these things from happening as I personally believe many of these things are not reasonable to expect to prevent. This particular young kid had the police looking through his stuff and they couldn't find anything. So you're asking me what I'm going to do? Simply, I'll be doing nothing. I'll continue my life just as I always did. I'll vote for my right to own a gun if I like to, for my right to own a handgun if I like to. If I feel the need to buy one to protect my family I will as of right now I don't own a gun. I'll continue doing what I do now and avoid people I deem unstable. That's it. I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.1.24% of all deaths in the US in 2011 were gun related. Half of those were from gun related suicide. So we're talking about .62% of all deaths in a year from intentional shooting (homicide) or people accidentally getting shot. That's it. With all due respect to those deceased, this is not a significant problem.It has gotten the attention because those deaths have been particularly difficult to see as many have been innocent children or young adults. It has also been a great opportunity for people to push their agendas politically. Far more people are affected by MVA than shootings. So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      You're wrong of course.  Nothing is 100% full proof.  You can save SOME lives.  Does the NRA teach you to change the subject in their puppeteer class?  Let's stay on topic instead of trying to muddy the waters with everything else.  Is that the standard the NRA preaches?  Bring up other topics when you know you're wrong?  Do you think that kid should have been allowed to purchase those guns legally?  Yes or no?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I never said doing nothing was the answer. I did insinuate that there was no answer and I do believe that to some extent. No plan is going to stop these things from happening as I personally believe many of these things are not reasonable to expect to prevent. This particular young kid had the police looking through his stuff and they couldn't find anything. So you're asking me what I'm going to do? Simply, I'll be doing nothing. I'll continue my life just as I always did. I'll vote for my right to own a gun if I like to, for my right to own a handgun if I like to. If I feel the need to buy one to protect my family I will as of right now I don't own a gun. I'll continue doing what I do now and avoid people I deem unstable. That's it. I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.1.24% of all deaths in the US in 2011 were gun related. Half of those were from gun related suicide. So we're talking about .62% of all deaths in a year from intentional shooting (homicide) or people accidentally getting shot. That's it. With all due respect to those deceased, this is not a significant problem.It has gotten the attention because those deaths have been particularly difficult to see as many have been innocent children or young adults. It has also been a great opportunity for people to push their agendas politically. Far more people are affected by MVA than shootings. So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      You're wrong of course.  Nothing is 100% full proof.  You can save SOME lives.  Does the NRA teach you to change the subject in their puppeteer class?  Let's stay on topic instead of trying to muddy the waters with everything else.  Is that the standard the NRA preaches?  Bring up other topics when you know you're wrong?  Do you think that kid should have been allowed to purchase those guns legally?  Yes or no?

      How exactly is he wrong? And, no offense, I have yet to see you post anything about what you would implement to prevent these things from happening. You keep blaming pro-gun advocates for not wanting to do anything, yet you haven't brought a single thing to the table.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      this is a strange but very common gun argument.  Essentially, its "look elsewhere before here."  Apply that same logic to other preventable deaths:  "cancer kills way more people than heart attacks, so don't try to prevent heart attacks at all."  Can you imagine anyone saying that sincerely?Preventable_causes_of_death.png"remove all seat belts and airbags from cars and focus only on tobacco""don't try to stop drug abuse, focus only on tobacco" ::)As a country we focus on different forms of preventable death -- as a matter of Public Heath -- because of the impact they have on society.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I never said doing nothing was the answer. I did insinuate that there was no answer and I do believe that to some extent. No plan is going to stop these things from happening as I personally believe many of these things are not reasonable to expect to prevent. This particular young kid had the police looking through his stuff and they couldn't find anything. So you're asking me what I'm going to do? Simply, I'll be doing nothing. I'll continue my life just as I always did. I'll vote for my right to own a gun if I like to, for my right to own a handgun if I like to. If I feel the need to buy one to protect my family I will as of right now I don't own a gun. I'll continue doing what I do now and avoid people I deem unstable. That's it. I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.1.24% of all deaths in the US in 2011 were gun related. Half of those were from gun related suicide. So we're talking about .62% of all deaths in a year from intentional shooting (homicide) or people accidentally getting shot. That's it. With all due respect to those deceased, this is not a significant problem.It has gotten the attention because those deaths have been particularly difficult to see as many have been innocent children or young adults. It has also been a great opportunity for people to push their agendas politically. Far more people are affected by MVA than shootings. So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      You're wrong of course.  Nothing is 100% full proof.  You can save SOME lives.  Does the NRA teach you to change the subject in their puppeteer class?  Let's stay on topic instead of trying to muddy the waters with everything else.  Is that the standard the NRA preaches?  Bring up other topics when you know you're wrong?  Do you think that kid should have been allowed to purchase those guns legally?  Yes or no?

      How exactly is he wrong?

      So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      this is a strange but very common gun argument.  Essentially, its "look elsewhere before here."  Apply that same logic to other preventable deaths:  "cancer kills way more people than heart attacks, so don't try to prevent heart attacks at all."  Can you imagine anyone saying that sincerely?Preventable_causes_of_death.png"remove all seat belts and airbags from cars and focus only on tobacco""don't try to stop drug abuse, focus only on tobacco" ::)As a country we focus on different forms of preventable death -- as a matter of Public Heath -- because of the impact they have on society.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I never said doing nothing was the answer. I did insinuate that there was no answer and I do believe that to some extent. No plan is going to stop these things from happening as I personally believe many of these things are not reasonable to expect to prevent. This particular young kid had the police looking through his stuff and they couldn't find anything. So you're asking me what I'm going to do? Simply, I'll be doing nothing. I'll continue my life just as I always did. I'll vote for my right to own a gun if I like to, for my right to own a handgun if I like to. If I feel the need to buy one to protect my family I will as of right now I don't own a gun. I'll continue doing what I do now and avoid people I deem unstable. That's it. I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.1.24% of all deaths in the US in 2011 were gun related. Half of those were from gun related suicide. So we're talking about .62% of all deaths in a year from intentional shooting (homicide) or people accidentally getting shot. That's it. With all due respect to those deceased, this is not a significant problem.It has gotten the attention because those deaths have been particularly difficult to see as many have been innocent children or young adults. It has also been a great opportunity for people to push their agendas politically. Far more people are affected by MVA than shootings. So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      You're wrong of course.  Nothing is 100% full proof.  You can save SOME lives.  Does the NRA teach you to change the subject in their puppeteer class?  Let's stay on topic instead of trying to muddy the waters with everything else.  Is that the standard the NRA preaches?  Bring up other topics when you know you're wrong?  Do you think that kid should have been allowed to purchase those guns legally?  Yes or no?

      How exactly is he wrong? .

      another way he is wrong, misleading stats.  Here you go:10kijdii9r.png

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Preventable_causes_of_death.png

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Through all of this bullsh*t in this thread, I’ve seen 2 people (count that 2 PEOPLE), that have actually come up with a plan to change existing gun laws. Both of those people have been on the pro-gun side of the argument. I have yet to see a plan, and why it would be effective, from the gun-control crowd.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.

      Yeah, this kid was not using common sense when he went to a deli:"The sixth victim killed, Christopher Martinez, was getting a sandwich at a deli when he was shot."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I've seen 2 people (count that 2 PEOPLE), that have actually come up with a plan to change existing gun laws. Both of those people have been on the pro-gun side of the argument.

      huh? where are the plans that you post about?

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      People murdered by firearms each year:About 11,000People murdered by second hand smoke each year:About 50,000 Available in vending machines and stores all across America.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      If anyone cares, California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and this is CA’s law on mental health and guns.  THis should give you a good indication of why it is almost impossible to prevent someone with a mental illness from getting a gun. The top restriction (in bold) is much more onerous than most states (note all the “ands”):A person is barred from possessing, purchasing, receiving, attempting to purchase or receive, or having control or custody of any firearms if the person: Has been admitted to a facility and is receiving in-patient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility;Has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness or has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender. This prohibition does not apply, however, if the court of adjudication issues, upon the individual’s release from treatment or at a later date, a certificate stating that the person may possess a firearm without endangering others;Has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of enumerated violent felonies. A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity of other crimes is barred from possessing firearms unless a court finds that the person has recovered his or her sanity;Has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, unless there is a subsequent finding that the person has become competent;Is currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because he or she is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impaired by chronic alcoholism A person shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, or purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearms whatsoever or any other deadly weapon for a period of six months whenever he or she communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. Licensed psychotherapists are required to immediately report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of a person who has communicated a serious threat of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims (see § 8105(c)).and yet, as the link I posted earlier shows there are people investigated and stopped by background checks on the basis of mental health

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      People murdered by firearms each year:About 11,000People murdered by second hand smoke each year:About 50,000 Available in vending machines and stores all across America.

      lol. Illuminator, king of the new account strawman.  boring as all get out, but here . . have fun with this:"While scientists have welcomed President Obama's efforts to restart gun-violence research, many say that passing even modest gun-safety measures will be an uphill battle.That's because the gun lobby, researchers say, has followed a familiar and largely successful playbook: that of the tobacco companies.Critics say the National Rifle Association, in its efforts to block gun-control laws it says are unconstitutional, has used many of the strategies pioneered by the tobacco lobby, at least until a national settlement with state attorneys general forced cigarette makers to change some of their ways. Those tactics include suppressing information, blocking research, targeting individual scientists and pushing for state laws that prohibit cities and counties from passing their own gun measures, says Mark Pertschuk, director of Grassroots Change, a national support network for public health movements."

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      2 tongue in cheek ideas1. Ban all weapons manufactured after 1800. The founding fathers' ideas would be preserved as they would likely see modern arms as science fiction.or2. Allow ALL arms. Why can't I have nuclear bombs? Where are my drones? A rocket propelled grenade would be very effective in home defense (and demolishment).

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      2 tongue in cheek ideas1. Ban all weapons manufactured after 1800. The founding fathers' ideas would be preserved as they would likely see modern arms as science fiction.or2. Allow ALL arms. Why can't I have nuclear bombs? Where are my drones? A rocket propelled grenade would be very effective in home defense (and demolishment).

      tongue in cheek, but discussed by the Supreme Court

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I've seen 2 people (count that 2 PEOPLE), that have actually come up with a plan to change existing gun laws. Both of those people have been on the pro-gun side of the argument.

      huh? where are the plans that you post about?

      In other threads the past 3-5 weeks. I've made my point crystal clear. I'm more anxious to see yours. And all the other gun-control folk.

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      VinxBucFan: "THis should give you a good indication of why it is almost impossible to prevent someone with a mental illness from getting a gun."VinBucFan: "it is NOT very difficult to limit access to guns"Hard to decide,  isn't it?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.

      Yeah, this kid was not using common sense when he went to a deli:"The sixth victim killed, Christopher Martinez, was getting a sandwich at a deli when he was shot."

      Exactly. And if we ban high capacity magazines, assault rifles, hell...guns in general; this wouldn't happen. Never, ever.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      VinxBucFan: "THis should give you a good indication of why it is almost impossible to prevent someone with a mental illness from getting a gun."VinBucFan: "it is NOT very difficult to limit access to guns"Hard to decide,  isn't it?

      Lol. Exactly.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      If anyone cares, California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and this is CA's law on mental health and guns.  THis should give you a good indication of why it is almost impossible to prevent someone with a mental illness from getting a gun. The top restriction (in bold) is much more onerous than most states (note all the "ands"):A person is barred from possessing, purchasing, receiving, attempting to purchase or receive, or having control or custody of any firearms if the person: Has been admitted to a facility and is receiving in-patient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility;Has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness or has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender. This prohibition does not apply, however, if the court of adjudication issues, upon the individual’s release from treatment or at a later date, a certificate stating that the person may possess a firearm without endangering others;Has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of enumerated violent felonies. A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity of other crimes is barred from possessing firearms unless a court finds that the person has recovered his or her sanity;Has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, unless there is a subsequent finding that the person has become competent;Is currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because he or she is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impaired by chronic alcoholism A person shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, or purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearms whatsoever or any other deadly weapon for a period of six months whenever he or she communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. Licensed psychotherapists are required to immediately report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of a person who has communicated a serious threat of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims (see § 8105(c)).and yet, as the link I posted earlier shows there are people investigated and stopped by background checks on the basis of mental health

      So here's a great idea! Let's add more and more bullsh*t laws that aren't properly enforced!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      VinxBucFan: "THis should give you a good indication of why it is almost impossible to prevent someone with a mental illness from getting a gun."VinBucFan: "it is NOT very difficult to limit access to guns"Hard to decide,  isn't it?

      Illuminator expending a lot of effort on word games ..  ..  for a subject he says no one is interested in . . . . lol . . .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      If anyone cares, California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and this is CA's law on mental health and guns.  THis should give you a good indication of why it is almost impossible to prevent someone with a mental illness from getting a gun. The top restriction (in bold) is much more onerous than most states (note all the "ands"):A person is barred from possessing, purchasing, receiving, attempting to purchase or receive, or having control or custody of any firearms if the person: Has been admitted to a facility and is receiving in-patient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility;Has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness or has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender. This prohibition does not apply, however, if the court of adjudication issues, upon the individual’s release from treatment or at a later date, a certificate stating that the person may possess a firearm without endangering others;Has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of enumerated violent felonies. A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity of other crimes is barred from possessing firearms unless a court finds that the person has recovered his or her sanity;Has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, unless there is a subsequent finding that the person has become competent;Is currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because he or she is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impaired by chronic alcoholism A person shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, or purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearms whatsoever or any other deadly weapon for a period of six months whenever he or she communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. Licensed psychotherapists are required to immediately report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of a person who has communicated a serious threat of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims (see § 8105(c)).and yet, as the link I posted earlier shows there are people investigated and stopped by background checks on the basis of mental health

      So here's a great idea! Let's add more and more bullsh*t laws that aren't properly enforced!

      you don't think the law cited above is properly enforced?  On this issue, its not enforcement its that you cant draft a law to cover the event that is not a ban.  Go ahead and give it a try . .  I think you'll probably find that there is a reason they drew the line at "in-patient" don't you?

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Fact: you are four and a half times more likely to be killed by someone wielding a cigarette than you are by someone wielding a firearm.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Fact: you are four and a half times more likely to be killed by someone wielding a cigarette than you are by someone wielding a firearm.

      lol.  Ozymandias/Bucfucious/Illumintor/VonMises:  "more cigarette equal more cigarette violence . . . well, hold on . . I have been arguing against that for months and so what I really mean is more cigarettes in the hands of the wrong people equals more cigarette violence'its a good thing no one cares about this subject Illum . . .least of all you . . . :-[the "Vin the Meanie" pout cant be far off now . .  .

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      If anyone cares, California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country and this is CA's law on mental health and guns.  THis should give you a good indication of why it is almost impossible to prevent someone with a mental illness from getting a gun. The top restriction (in bold) is much more onerous than most states (note all the "ands"):A person is barred from possessing, purchasing, receiving, attempting to purchase or receive, or having control or custody of any firearms if the person: Has been admitted to a facility and is receiving in-patient treatment for a mental illness and the attending mental health professional opines that the patient is a danger to self or others. This prohibition applies even if the person has consented to the treatment, although the prohibition ends as soon as the patient is discharged from the facility;Has been adjudicated to be a danger to others as a result of a mental disorder or mental illness or has been adjudicated to be a mentally disordered sex offender. This prohibition does not apply, however, if the court of adjudication issues, upon the individual’s release from treatment or at a later date, a certificate stating that the person may possess a firearm without endangering others;Has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of enumerated violent felonies. A person who is found not guilty by reason of insanity of other crimes is barred from possessing firearms unless a court finds that the person has recovered his or her sanity;Has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, unless there is a subsequent finding that the person has become competent;Is currently under a court-ordered conservatorship because he or she is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impaired by chronic alcoholism A person shall not have in his or her possession or under his or her custody or control, or purchase or receive, or attempt to purchase or receive, any firearms whatsoever or any other deadly weapon for a period of six months whenever he or she communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims. Licensed psychotherapists are required to immediately report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of a person who has communicated a serious threat of violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims (see § 8105(c)).and yet, as the link I posted earlier shows there are people investigated and stopped by background checks on the basis of mental health

      So here's a great idea! Let's add more and more bullsh*t laws that aren't properly enforced!

      you don't think the law cited above is properly enforced?  On this issue, its not enforcement its that you cant draft a law to cover the event that is not a ban.  Go ahead and give it a try . .  I think you'll probably find that there is a reason they drew the line at "in-patient" don't you?

      I should have read that more carefully. You got me there. *tips hat*

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      no worries DH. It’s an interesting convo

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      Fact: you are four and a half times more likely to be killed by someone wielding a cigarette than you are by someone wielding a firearm.

      The guy that shot at me was a smoker.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Fact: you are four and a half times more likely to be killed by someone wielding a cigarette than you are by someone wielding a firearm.

      The guy that shot at me was a smoker.

      If only they had banned smoking.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      Fact: you are four and a half times more likely to be killed by someone wielding a cigarette than you are by someone wielding a firearm.

      The guy that shot at me was a smoker.

      If only they had banned smoking.

      I support banning smoking in public places.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Ozymandias/Bucfucious/Illumintor/VonMises:  .  .

      I've always been partial to the nom de plume, "Chief Joseph".

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I never said doing nothing was the answer. I did insinuate that there was no answer and I do believe that to some extent. No plan is going to stop these things from happening as I personally believe many of these things are not reasonable to expect to prevent. This particular young kid had the police looking through his stuff and they couldn't find anything. So you're asking me what I'm going to do? Simply, I'll be doing nothing. I'll continue my life just as I always did. I'll vote for my right to own a gun if I like to, for my right to own a handgun if I like to. If I feel the need to buy one to protect my family I will as of right now I don't own a gun. I'll continue doing what I do now and avoid people I deem unstable. That's it. I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.1.24% of all deaths in the US in 2011 were gun related. Half of those were from gun related suicide. So we're talking about .62% of all deaths in a year from intentional shooting (homicide) or people accidentally getting shot. That's it. With all due respect to those deceased, this is not a significant problem.It has gotten the attention because those deaths have been particularly difficult to see as many have been innocent children or young adults. It has also been a great opportunity for people to push their agendas politically. Far more people are affected by MVA than shootings. So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      You're wrong of course.  Nothing is 100% full proof.  You can save SOME lives.  Does the NRA teach you to change the subject in their puppeteer class?  Let's stay on topic instead of trying to muddy the waters with everything else.  Is that the standard the NRA preaches?  Bring up other topics when you know you're wrong?  Do you think that kid should have been allowed to purchase those guns legally?  Yes or no?

      Can you really? I mean honestly can you. The theory is great but if we're talking about making guns 25% or 50% harder to get does that stop someone who apparently is angry enough to kill another person in the first place? I know it sounds nice and has a common knowledge undertone but does it actually change anything substantially? I would question that.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3027

      I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.

      Yeah, this kid was not using common sense when he went to a deli:"The sixth victim killed, Christopher Martinez, was getting a sandwich at a deli when he was shot."

      He could have been hit by a car walking into that deli, or choked on the food or anything else. My point is that these shootings happen so infrequently that you can't worry about them. There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Fact: you are four and a half times more likely to be killed by someone wielding a cigarette than you are by someone wielding a firearm.

      The guy that shot at me was a smoker.

      If only they had banned smoking.

      I support banning smoking in public places.

      That kind if thinking will not get you invited to the gun club Christmas party.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I don't think doing nothing is the answer. I never said doing nothing was the answer. I did insinuate that there was no answer and I do believe that to some extent. No plan is going to stop these things from happening as I personally believe many of these things are not reasonable to expect to prevent. This particular young kid had the police looking through his stuff and they couldn't find anything. So you're asking me what I'm going to do? Simply, I'll be doing nothing. I'll continue my life just as I always did. I'll vote for my right to own a gun if I like to, for my right to own a handgun if I like to. If I feel the need to buy one to protect my family I will as of right now I don't own a gun. I'll continue doing what I do now and avoid people I deem unstable. That's it. I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.1.24% of all deaths in the US in 2011 were gun related. Half of those were from gun related suicide. So we're talking about .62% of all deaths in a year from intentional shooting (homicide) or people accidentally getting shot. That's it. With all due respect to those deceased, this is not a significant problem.It has gotten the attention because those deaths have been particularly difficult to see as many have been innocent children or young adults. It has also been a great opportunity for people to push their agendas politically. Far more people are affected by MVA than shootings. So if you're so concerned about safety of Americans, you should be talking about that, not gun control.

      You're wrong of course.  Nothing is 100% full proof.  You can save SOME lives.  Does the NRA teach you to change the subject in their puppeteer class?  Let's stay on topic instead of trying to muddy the waters with everything else.  Is that the standard the NRA preaches?  Bring up other topics when you know you're wrong?  Do you think that kid should have been allowed to purchase those guns legally?  Yes or no?

      Can you really? I mean honestly can you. The theory is great but if we're talking about making guns 25% or 50% harder to get does that stop someone who apparently is angry enough to kill another person in the first place? I know it sounds nice and has a common knowledge undertone but does it actually change anything substantially? I would question that.

      Short of an outright ban and repossession of all guns you are never going to stop the hyper-motivated crazy person. For example, gun laws prevented the Santa Monica killer from buying an AR so he built one. However, there are literally thousands of deaths and injuries between the hyper motivated psychotic killer and the accidental self-inflicted gun death of a child. No different than other public health issues. You are never going to stop the hard core lifelong smoker but you can save many other lives ... Over time.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      I'll continue to live my life happy and use common sense as my guide for life.

      Yeah, this kid was not using common sense when he went to a deli:"The sixth victim killed, Christopher Martinez, was getting a sandwich at a deli when he was shot."

      He could have been hit by a car walking into that deli, or choked on the food or anything else. My point is that these shootings happen so infrequently that you can't worry about them. There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      First, these types of shootings are flash points for gun control advocates (that is the point if the thread) but also the hardest to prevent, so agree to an extent. The point of gun control is not just these events, it's to reduce overall gun violence over time. Second, just using your example though, there are traffic lights, speed limits, crosswalks a drivers license requirement, seatbelts, airbags, and car registration - all aimed at reducing the likelyhood of the the car death you describe. It still happens and no one expects a perfect solution ...but there are almost no comparable efforts on guns. And guns are made for killing, not transportation.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Fact: you are four and a half times more likely to be killed by someone wielding a cigarette than you are by someone wielding a firearm.

      The guy that shot at me was a smoker.

      If only they had banned smoking.

      I support banning smoking in public places.

      That kind if thinking will not get you invited to the gun club Christmas party.

      Why not? The "gun club" gave them the "gun free" zones i.e. Sandy Hook. Looks to be working out well, right?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Short of an outright ban and repossession of all gunsyou are never going to stop the hyper-motivated crazy person. For example, gun laws prevented the Santa Monica killer from buying an AR so he built one.

      Which will never, I repeat NEVER, happen. 

      However, there are literally thousands of deaths and injuries between the hyper motivated psychotic killer and the accidental self-inflicted gun death of a child. No different than other public health issues. You are never going to stop the hard core lifelong smoker but you can save many other lives ... Over time.

      And what do you suggest Vin? Other than better background checks, more focus on mental health, and closing certain loopholes i.e. no background check on private sales, no checks at gun shows, etc ; what else do you propose and why would it work?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Fact: you are four and a half times more likely to be killed by someone wielding a cigarette than you are by someone wielding a firearm.

      The guy that shot at me was a smoker.

      If only they had banned smoking.

      I support banning smoking in public places.

      That kind if thinking will not get you invited to the gun club Christmas party.

      Why not? The "gun club" gave them the "gun free" zones i.e. Sandy Hook. Looks to be working out well, right?

      Lol, gun free zones are a great example of modern government. Politicians creating symbols that help them keep their job. Sort of like the prior assault rifle ban, lol

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Short of an outright ban and repossession of all gunsyou are never going to stop the hyper-motivated crazy person. For example, gun laws prevented the Santa Monica killer from buying an AR so he built one.

      Which will never, I repeat NEVER, happen. 

      However, there are literally thousands of deaths and injuries between the hyper motivated psychotic killer and the accidental self-inflicted gun death of a child. No different than other public health issues. You are never going to stop the hard core lifelong smoker but you can save many other lives ... Over time.

      And what do you suggest Vin? Other than better background checks, more focus on mental health, and closing certain loopholes i.e. no background check on private sales, no checks at gun shows, etc ; what else do you propose and why would it work?

      Well, I think you have to do those things first to bring things back to sanity and see how it goes. But, I have mentioned several other things most of which I describe as gun control by proxy,  such as taxing guns and ammo to pay for research and security, removing all the BS that prevents research on gun violence (I posted a thread recently discussing this), mandatory insurance, licensing etcetera

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2601

      Short of an outright ban and repossession of all gunsyou are never going to stop the hyper-motivated crazy person. For example, gun laws prevented the Santa Monica killer from buying an AR so he built one.

      Which will never, I repeat NEVER, happen. 

      However, there are literally thousands of deaths and injuries between the hyper motivated psychotic killer and the accidental self-inflicted gun death of a child. No different than other public health issues. You are never going to stop the hard core lifelong smoker but you can save many other lives ... Over time.

      And what do you suggest Vin? Other than better background checks, more focus on mental health, and closing certain loopholes i.e. no background check on private sales, no checks at gun shows, etc ; what else do you propose and why would it work?

      Well, I think you have to do those things first to bring things back to sanity and see how it goes. But, I have mentioned several other things most of which I describe as gun control by proxy,  such as taxing guns and ammo to pay for research and security, removing all the BS that prevents research on gun violence (I posted a thread recently discussing this), mandatory insurance, licensing etcetera

      But how do we stop criminals, people that steal guns and use them, from having guns? It sounds nigh impossible :

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Shameful quote.  Not sure where you picked this up but it is flat out disgusting. 

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      There is a fairly recent study that says only about 10% of guns on the black market are stolen. Most are obvious straw purchases and illegal sakes by FFL dealers. On short though, you cannot stop every illegal act but you can reduce the flow of legal guns and illegal guns and you can control the type of guns and bullets etc. allowed to the market.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      Interesting study… I might add…I do NOT want to take away your 2nd Amendment right to carry, fyi but this is a great read.  Apologies if it has already been posted.SummaryKeeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.ArgumentMost people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent were illegal. Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide (that is, self-defense).After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied.Needless to say, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun advocates have fiercely attacked this survey. Kellermann's work has been branded "junk science," "unpublishable," "biased," "seriously flawed," "fraudulent" and "grand malpractice." The NRA also criticized the Centers for Disease Control for continuing to fund such anti-gun research, and the Republican Congress pressured the CDC to shut it down completely. Thus, the reaction of Republicans and the NRA to this controversial study was not to call for more studies to clarify the issue, but to censor all further scientific research.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Shameful quote.  Not sure where you picked this up but it is flat out disgusting.

      So, I'll ask you again, what is YOUR solution?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Short of an outright ban and repossession of all gunsyou are never going to stop the hyper-motivated crazy person. For example, gun laws prevented the Santa Monica killer from buying an AR so he built one.

      Which will never, I repeat NEVER, happen. 

      However, there are literally thousands of deaths and injuries between the hyper motivated psychotic killer and the accidental self-inflicted gun death of a child. No different than other public health issues. You are never going to stop the hard core lifelong smoker but you can save many other lives ... Over time.

      And what do you suggest Vin? Other than better background checks, more focus on mental health, and closing certain loopholes i.e. no background check on private sales, no checks at gun shows, etc ; what else do you propose and why would it work?

      Well, I think you have to do those things first to bring things back to sanity and see how it goes. But, I have mentioned several other things most of which I describe as gun control by proxy,  such as taxing guns and ammo to pay for research and security, removing all the BS that prevents research on gun violence (I posted a thread recently discussing this), mandatory insurance, licensing etcetera

      I agree with removing things that block research 100%. Insurance, I'm not sure about. Licensing, absolutely. Taxation to pay for security? Fine, I guess I love my kids more than gun-control advocates love theirs.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Shameful quote.  Not sure where you picked this up but it is flat out disgusting.

      So, I'll ask you again, what is YOUR solution?

      You keep asking this...why?  Why do I have to have the "answer" to have an opinion?  Certainly, better background checks I am HUGE on.  More research is OBVIOUS.  Maybe the NRA can get more involved with these solutions instead of fighting tooth and nail on them.  Doesn't it make you the tiniest bit suspicious that they refuse to fund objective research on this?  That tells me they don't want to ask the questions because the answers aren't what they want them to be.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Shameful quote.  Not sure where you picked this up but it is flat out disgusting.

      So, I'll ask you again, what is YOUR solution?

      You keep asking this...why?  Why do I have to have the "answer" to have an opinion?  Certainly, better background checks I am HUGE on.  More research is OBVIOUS.  Maybe the NRA can get more involved with these solutions instead of fighting tooth and nail on them.  Doesn't it make you the tiniest bit su**CENSORED**ious that they refuse to fund objective research on this?  That tells me they don't want to ask the questions because the answers aren't what they want them to be.

      Just asking, considering you have no problem berating other people's proposed solutions, yet you haven't brought anything to the table. And yes, as a vet, a gun enthusiast who works closely with a private manufacturer, a CWP holder, a Class 3 license holder and as a lifetime member of the NRA; it bothers me quite a bit about the way they are going about things. And I have voiced my opinion to them.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      DH, your thoughts on this below?

      Interesting study... I might add...I do NOT want to take away your 2nd Amendment right to carry, fyi but this is a great read.  Apologies if it has already been posted.SummaryKeeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.ArgumentMost people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent were illegal. Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide (that is, self-defense).After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied.Needless to say, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun advocates have fiercely attacked this survey. Kellermann's work has been branded "junk science," "unpublishable," "biased," "seriously flawed," "fraudulent" and "grand malpractice." The NRA also criticized the Centers for Disease Control for continuing to fund such anti-gun research, and the Republican Congress pressured the CDC to shut it down completely. Thus, the reaction of Republicans and the NRA to this controversial study was not to call for more studies to clarify the issue, but to censor all further scientific research.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Shameful quote.  Not sure where you picked this up but it is flat out disgusting.

      So, I'll ask you again, what is YOUR solution?

      You keep asking this...why?  Why do I have to have the "answer" to have an opinion?  Certainly, better background checks I am HUGE on.  More research is OBVIOUS.  Maybe the NRA can get more involved with these solutions instead of fighting tooth and nail on them.  Doesn't it make you the tiniest bit su**CENSORED**ious that they refuse to fund objective research on this?  That tells me they don't want to ask the questions because the answers aren't what they want them to be.

      Just asking, considering you have no problem berating other people's proposed solutions, yet you haven't brought anything to the table. And yes, as a vet, a gun enthusiast who works closely with a private manufacturer, a CWP holder, a Class 3 license holder and as a lifetime member of the NRA; it bothers me quite a bit about the way they are going about things. And I have voiced my opinion to them.

      The only opinion i have attacked is those that propose doing nothing because they feel it wouldn't do anything to begin with...do you realize how poor that sounds?  As a vet, that certainly cannot be your attitude on life, can it?  Or does it in this case because it fits the narrative you have been conditioned to believe?  Food for thought...thank you for your service.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      DH, your thoughts on this below?

      Interesting study... I might add...I do NOT want to take away your 2nd Amendment right to carry, fyi but this is a great read.  Apologies if it has already been posted.SummaryKeeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.ArgumentMost people keep guns in their homes for self-protection. The image of an unknown criminal breaking into your house is an important one for gun advocates, because it justifies keeping a gun in the home. But to gun control advocates, a gun in the home means that a family fight or a drinking binge is more likely to turn deadly. Which view is more accurate?In an attempt to answer this question, a team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases.Of the 420 homicides they originally investigated, 96.4 percent were illegal. Only 3.6 percent were ruled legally excusable homicide (that is, self-defense).After eliminating the impact of other variables like illegal drugs and domestic violence, the researchers found that the risk of getting killed was 2.7 times greater in homes with a gun than without them. No protective benefit of possessing a firearm was ever found, not even for a single one of the 14 subgroups studied.Needless to say, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun advocates have fiercely attacked this survey. Kellermann's work has been branded "junk science," "unpublishable," "biased," "seriously flawed," "fraudulent" and "grand malpractice." The NRA also criticized the Centers for Disease Control for continuing to fund such anti-gun research, and the Republican Congress pressured the CDC to shut it down completely. Thus, the reaction of Republicans and the NRA to this controversial study was not to call for more studies to clarify the issue, but to censor all further scientific research.http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

      I'll have to take the time to read it and research it. But, it looks interesting.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Shameful quote.  Not sure where you picked this up but it is flat out disgusting.

      So, I'll ask you again, what is YOUR solution?

      You keep asking this...why?  Why do I have to have the "answer" to have an opinion?  Certainly, better background checks I am HUGE on.  More research is OBVIOUS.  Maybe the NRA can get more involved with these solutions instead of fighting tooth and nail on them.  Doesn't it make you the tiniest bit su**CENSORED**ious that they refuse to fund objective research on this?  That tells me they don't want to ask the questions because the answers aren't what they want them to be.

      Actually, it's not just that the NRA refuses to fund research  it supported sand continues to support legislation to PREVENT research

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Shameful quote.  Not sure where you picked this up but it is flat out disgusting.

      So, I'll ask you again, what is YOUR solution?

      You keep asking this...why?  Why do I have to have the "answer" to have an opinion?  Certainly, better background checks I am HUGE on.  More research is OBVIOUS.  Maybe the NRA can get more involved with these solutions instead of fighting tooth and nail on them.  Doesn't it make you the tiniest bit su**CENSORED**ious that they refuse to fund objective research on this?  That tells me they don't want to ask the questions because the answers aren't what they want them to be.

      Just asking, considering you have no problem berating other people's proposed solutions, yet you haven't brought anything to the table. And yes, as a vet, a gun enthusiast who works closely with a private manufacturer, a CWP holder, a Class 3 license holder and as a lifetime member of the NRA; it bothers me quite a bit about the way they are going about things. And I have voiced my opinion to them.

      The only opinion i have attacked is those that propose doing nothing because they feel it wouldn't do anything to begin with...do you realize how poor that sounds?  As a vet, that certainly cannot be your attitude on life, can it?  Or does it in this case because it fits the narrative you have been conditioned to believe?  Food for thought...thank you for your service.

      No need to thank me buddy. And no, I don't think we should sit on our hands. Clearly, something needs to be done. First off, I think there should be more accountability in the home. I think parents should be more aware of their children's behavior. I think parent's should be more active in their children's life. I feel that today's youth has no sense of accountability, respect, or responsibility. I think the media should focus more on victims instead of the culprit and politics (wishful thinking). I think that all guns should be mandated to a 3-5 day waiting period, unless you have an active and valid CWP or FFL license. I think that ALL first-time gun buyers should be mandated to take a certified safety course. I think that there should be more funding on mental health care. And I definitely believe that ALL firearm purchases are subject to background checks. Failure to comply should be met with PERMANENT revocation of licensing, fines, and possible incarceration. I do not believe in and am adamantly against any form of bans. I am open to restrictions on magazines as long as it's negotiated on both ends. And, I FIRMLY BELIEVE, until we can stop looking at each other as Liberals, Conservatives, Donkeys, Elephants, Left Wing, Right Wing, Bat Wing....who gives a sh*t; nothing will get accomplished.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      There is nothing you're going to do to stop them

      Shameful quote.  Not sure where you picked this up but it is flat out disgusting.

      So, I'll ask you again, what is YOUR solution?

      You keep asking this...why?  Why do I have to have the "answer" to have an opinion?  Certainly, better background checks I am HUGE on.  More research is OBVIOUS.  Maybe the NRA can get more involved with these solutions instead of fighting tooth and nail on them.  Doesn't it make you the tiniest bit su**CENSORED**ious that they refuse to fund objective research on this?  That tells me they don't want to ask the questions because the answers aren't what they want them to be.

      Just asking, considering you have no problem berating other people's proposed solutions, yet you haven't brought anything to the table. And yes, as a vet, a gun enthusiast who works closely with a private manufacturer, a CWP holder, a Class 3 license holder and as a lifetime member of the NRA; it bothers me quite a bit about the way they are going about things. And I have voiced my opinion to them.

      The only opinion i have attacked is those that propose doing nothing because they feel it wouldn't do anything to begin with...do you realize how poor that sounds?  As a vet, that certainly cannot be your attitude on life, can it?  Or does it in this case because it fits the narrative you have been conditioned to believe?  Food for thought...thank you for your service.

      No need to thank me buddy. And no, I don't think we should sit on our hands. Clearly, something needs to be done. First off, I think there should be more accountability in the home. I think parents should be more aware of their children's behavior. I think parent's should be more active in their children's life. I feel that today's youth has no sense of accountability, respect, or responsibility. I think the media should focus more on victims instead of the culprit and politics (wishful thinking). I think that all guns should be mandated to a 3-5 day waiting period, unless you have an active and valid CWP or FFL license. I think that ALL first-time gun buyers should be mandated to take a certified safety course. I think that there should be more funding on mental health care. And I definitely believe that ALL firearm purchases are subject to background checks. Failure to comply should be met with PERMANENT revocation of licensing, fines, and possible incarceration. I do not believe in and am adamantly against any form of bans. I am open to restrictions on magazines as long as it's negotiated on both ends.And, I FIRMLY BELIEVE, until we can stop looking at each other as Liberals, Conservatives, Donkeys, Elephants, Left Wing, Right Wing, Bat Wing....who gives a sh*t; nothing will get accomplished.

      the best post I have read in these threads in a long time, the last sentence in bold/red in particular

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      No need to thank me buddy. And no, I don't think we should sit on our hands. Clearly, something needs to be done. First off, I think there should be more accountability in the home. I think parents should be more aware of their children's behavior. I think parent's should be more active in their children's life. I feel that today's youth has no sense of accountability, respect, or responsibility. I think the media should focus more on victims instead of the culprit and politics (wishful thinking). I think that all guns should be mandated to a 3-5 day waiting period, unless you have an active and valid CWP or FFL license. I think that ALL first-time gun buyers should be mandated to take a certified safety course. I think that there should be more funding on mental health care. And I definitely believe that ALL firearm purchases are subject to background checks. Failure to comply should be met with PERMANENT revocation of licensing, fines, and possible incarceration. I do not believe in and am adamantly against any form of bans. I am open to restrictions on magazines as long as it's negotiated on both ends. And, I FIRMLY BELIEVE, until we can stop looking at each other as Liberals, Conservatives, Donkeys, Elephants, Left Wing, Right Wing, Bat Wing....who gives a sh*t; nothing will get accomplished.

      I'm on board for all that you say.  Dynamic organizations are the ones that truly transcend time/eras.  The movement will probably have to start within the NRA.  I won't hold my breath.Great post.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      I apologize, as I know I’m very vocal on this topic. It’s personal to me. I’m not going to rant about my personal experiences, but I know what guns can do. I have seen what they are capable of. I know exactly what they can do to another human. As a father to a young boy, I cringe when I see stories like Sandy Hook knowing what a gun is capable of. But, with that in mind, I am against bans, registration, and restrictions (to a point). Some may call me a hypocrite. And that’s fine. But, I don’t believe guns are the problem. I think the object that pulls the trigger is the most dangerous weapon of all.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      That’s classic NRA…guns don’t kill people, people do.  I think the gun helps though.  To quote Eddie Izzard…just yelling “bang” at someone won’t kill too many people.  You’d have to be pretty dodgy on the heart.It is way too late to ban guns.  Registration and restrictions are all that's left.  You still keep your rights and we make it much more difficult for those who should not be carrying, to carry.  There will always be idiots.  I get that but let's not make it so easy for them.  You keep your right to carry and maybe we save some lives in the process. I would still like your opinion on the Kellerman piece.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      That's classic NRA...guns don't kill people, people do.

        Well, guns don't grown legs and walk into crowded areas firing itself.

      I think the gun helps though.

      Of course it does. So do knives, baseball bats, blunt objects, pressure cooker bombs, hijacked airliners, etc. The point is that if someone wants to hurt people, they will find a way.

      It is way too late to ban guns.  Registration and restrictions are all that's left.

        Why is that? This past event in California involved legally purchased firearms that were registered to the shooter. What did restriction and registration solve there?

      You still keep your rights and we make it much more difficult for those who should not be carrying, to carry.

      We have a right to NOT register arms. So no, we'd be losing a right. And the most common danger in regards to firearm possession is with criminals. How would restriction and registration make it more difficult for them to obtain firearms?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      there is no right to not register arms that I am aware of.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      There seems to be this ridiculous argument from the NRA nut jobs(not necessarily you DH) that says that an individual will find a way to hurt someone regardless should we make guns less available(not BAN or take away your right to bear arms…keep em I say).  I say that the NRA FUND this research and truly once and for all back this up with real evidence.  I would bet(a large amount of my savings that the results would dictate less % of deaths would occur because the offender would use less lethal means…I would bet it all actually).  Any takers?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      there is no right to not register arms that I am aware of.

      There is no law saying that I have to either.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      There seems to be this ridiculous argument from the NRA nut jobs(not necessarily you DH) that says that an individual will find a way to hurt someone regardless should we make guns less available(not BAN or take away your right to bear arms...keep em I say).  I say that the NRA FUND this research and truly once and for all back this up with real evidence.  I would bet(a large amount of my savings that the results would dictate less % of deaths would occur because the offender would use less lethal means...I would bet it all actually).  Any takers?

      How about the gun-control crowd fund a study saying that it isn't the case? See what I did there?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      There seems to be this ridiculous argument from the NRA nut jobs(not necessarily you DH) that says that an individual will find a way to hurt someone regardless should we make guns less available(not BAN or take away your right to bear arms...keep em I say).  I say that the NRA FUND this research and truly once and for all back this up with real evidence.  I would bet(a large amount of my savings that the results would dictate less % of deaths would occur because the offender would use less lethal means...I would bet it all actually).  Any takers?

      How about the gun-control crowd fund a study saying that it isn't the case? See what I did there?

      http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspxWhy do your people want to suppress the research and grants?  Can you or anyone in your organization answer this?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      Vin:  The NRA does not want these studies because they know the answers already.  This is just like Big Tobacco.  At some point the truth will find its way out.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      There seems to be this ridiculous argument from the NRA nut jobs(not necessarily you DH) that says that an individual will find a way to hurt someone regardless should we make guns less available(not BAN or take away your right to bear arms...keep em I say).  I say that the NRA FUND this research and truly once and for all back this up with real evidence.  I would bet(a large amount of my savings that the results would dictate less % of deaths would occur because the offender would use less lethal means...I would bet it all actually).  Any takers?

      How about the gun-control crowd fund a study saying that it isn't the case? See what I did there?

      http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.aspxWhy do your people want to suppress the research and grants?  Can you or anyone in your organization answer this?

      When did I say that I supported it? Perhaps you should reread one of my previous posts. Why do your people want to ban assault rifles and restrict magazine limits when FACTS have shown they aren't nearly as dangerous or commonly used as your standard pistol?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 3316

      After all this…I still say you have the right to bear arms and protect your castle.  I’m fine with that.  We just need some parameters so its not any tom, dick or harry being allowed to carry.  That’s a bad scenario.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      After all this...I still say you have the right to bear arms and protect your castle.  I'm fine with that.  We just need some parameters so its not any tom, **CENSORED** or harry being allowed to carry.  That's a bad scenario.

      I agree!

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      there is no right to not register arms that I am aware of.

      There is no law saying that I have to either.

      oh yeah, agreed

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 975

      There seems to be this ridiculous argument from the NRA nut jobs(not necessarily you DH) that says that an individual will find a way to hurt someone regardless should we make guns less available(not BAN or take away your right to bear arms...keep em I say).  I say that the NRA FUND this research and truly once and for all back this up with real evidence.  I would bet(a large amount of my savings that the results would dictate less % of deaths would occur because the offender would use less lethal means...I would bet it all actually).  Any takers?

      Guns were pretty much banned in the UK and the murder rate did not deviate much. In fact it rose for about 10 years until slowly dropping over the last 20 back to original levels.figure5_tcm77-273052.pngGuns were pretty much banned in Australia and the murder rate did not deviate much.fig012.png

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      There seems to be this ridiculous argument from the NRA nut jobs(not necessarily you DH) that says that an individual will find a way to hurt someone regardless should we make guns less available(not BAN or take away your right to bear arms...keep em I say).  I say that the NRA FUND this research and truly once and for all back this up with real evidence.  I would bet(a large amount of my savings that the results would dictate less % of deaths would occur because the offender would use less lethal means...I would bet it all actually).  Any takers?

      Guns were pretty much banned in the UK and the murder rate did not deviate much. In fact it rose for about 10 years until slowly dropping over the last 20 back to original levels.figure5_tcm77-273052.pngGuns were pretty much banned in Australia and the murder rate did not deviate much.fig012.png

      Spartan, come on now, why is the comparison always guns to murder rate when murder rate is impacted by more than just guns?  Here's an EXAMPLE of what common sense says you would see:Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia Loftin C, McDowall D, Wiersema B, Cottey TJ. New Engl. J. Med. 1991; 325(23): 1615-1620. Violence Research Group, Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University of Maryland, College Park 20742-8235. Comment In:  N Engl J Med 1992;326(17):1159; author reply 1160 (Copyright © 1991, Massachusetts Medical Society) BACKGROUND. Whether restricting access to handguns will reduce firearm-related homicides and suicides is currently a matter of intense debate. In 1976 the District of Columbia adopted a law that banned the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. We evaluated the effect of implementing this law on the frequency of homicides and suicides. METHODS. Homicides and suicides committed from 1968 through 1987 were classified according to place of occurrence (within the District of Columbia or in adjacent metropolitan areas where the law did not apply), cause (homicide or suicide), mechanism of death (firearms or other means), and time of occurrence (before or after the implementation of the law). The number of suicides and homicides was calculated for each month during the study period, and differences between the mean monthly totals before and after the law went into effect were estimated. RESULTS. In Washington, D.C., the adoption of the gun-licensing law coincided with an abrupt decline in homicides by firearms (a reduction of 3.3 per month, or 25 percent) and suicides by firearms (reduction, 0.6 per month, or 23 percent). No similar reductions were observed in the number of homicides or suicides committed by other means, nor were there similar reductions in the adjacent metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia. There were also no increases in homicides or suicides by other methods, as would be expected if equally lethal means were substituted for handguns. CONCLUSIONS. Restrictive licensing of handguns was associated with a prompt decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of Columbia. No such decline was observed for homicides or suicides in which guns were not used, and no decline was seen in adjacent metropolitan areas where restrictive licensing did not apply. Our data suggest that restrictions on access to guns in the District of Columbia prevented an average of 47 deaths each year after the law was implemented. Now, no one study is the definitive word on anything and you need a lot of time to see change when there are a lot of guns, but obviously if you reduce access to guns you reduce the chance for gun violence.  In fact, to Anomaly's point, I posted earlier this year a recent study that says exactly what he claims (in bold).  In the US, guns are everywhere so guns raise the stakes on numerous crimes like domestic abuse, theft etc.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Moot points all.  This wasn’t a constitutional issue for the Aussies.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Moot points all.  This wasn't a constitutional issue for the Aussies.

      neither is it for Americans, except in the case of an all out ban:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdfThere is about a million miles between where we are now and an outright ban that would not stand up to a Constitutional challenge

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Everytown taking a page out of the NRA playbook, with help from the victim’s father:https://act.everytown.org/act/NotOneMore?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      except in the case of an all out ban

      Like In Australia. Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click "Post"

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      except in the case of an all out ban

      Like In Australia. Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click "Post"

      Australia did not really ban guns either, they greatly restricted access (hence my comment about all out ban), and my comment went further anyway. I guess if I was imitating you I would ask if you read . .  period? Is that what I should do?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Everytown taking a page out of the NRA playbook, with help from the victim's father:https://act.everytown.org/act/NotOneMore?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

      I'm finding it extremely difficult to sympathize with this clown.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      “I’m finding it extremely difficult to sympathize with this clown.”And so it has begun. Lol.You've done remarkably well.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Everytown taking a page out of the NRA playbook, with help from the victim's father:https://act.everytown.org/act/NotOneMore?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

      I'm finding it extremely difficult to sympathize with this clown.

      I get that, but its not uncommon and arguably part of grieving.  Dozens or hundreds of examples, I am sure. Here's one:Child Find was founded in 1980 by Gloria Yerkovich, the mother of a missing child in upstate New York, when there was limited law enforcement response to missing children and no laws about parental abduction.http://www.childfindofamerica.org/about%20Child%20Find.htmObviously. America's Most Wanted was started by John Walsh after his son was killed

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      “Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click “Post””Just to give you a friendly heads up.I see you not familiar with Vinnie. Let me help you out, everything posted in this thread has already been written at least 50 times before and bandied around and beaten like a dead horse. There's no consistency in anything he posts, he tells you he doesn't want to ban guns then post 62 articles about banning guns. Then he complains that the NRA is in it for PROFIT, and that he favors gun control and advocates for bureaucratic red tape. Then he'll turn around and with a straight face claim to be conservative.  He has a couple of people on the forum that he responds to calmly but that will only last until they see through his game and then he'll turn on them and launch into another one of his lie filled psychotic tirades.You'll see, it won't take long.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Everytown taking a page out of the NRA playbook, with help from the victim's father:https://act.everytown.org/act/NotOneMore?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

      I'm finding it extremely difficult to sympathize with this clown.

      I get that, but its not uncommon and arguably part of grieving.  Dozens or hundreds of examples, I am sure. Here's one:Child Find was founded in 1980 by Gloria Yerkovich, the mother of a missing child in upstate New York, when there was limited law enforcement response to missing children and no laws about parental abduction.http://www.childfindofamerica.org/about%20Child%20Find.htmObviously. America's Most Wanted was started by John Walsh after his son was killed

      Did John Walsh go after the perpetrators? Or did he go after the tools that they used? And, I have to ask this, especially to you and the gun-control crowd; would Mr. Martinez be doing the same thing he is now if his son was one of the victims who were stabbed to death?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      "Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click "Post""Just to give you a friendly heads up.I see you not familiar with Vinnie. Let me help you out, everything posted in this thread has already been written at least 50 times before and bandied around and beaten like a dead horse. There's no consistency in anything he posts, he tells you he doesn't want to ban guns then post 62 articles about banning guns. Then he complains that the NRA is in it for PROFIT, and that he favors gun control and advocates for bureaucratic red tape. Then he'll turn around and with a straight face claim to be conservative.  He has a couple of people on the forum that he responds to calmly but that will only last until they see through his game and then he'll turn on them and launch into another one of his lie filled psychotic tirades.Oh and by the way . . . our government did this:building-7.jpg

      fixed it for you Durango .  . .um . . .  Millich . . .The irony that comes with posting in the Cove is you have people like Durango (Millich) - a guy banned from the Insider board for ranting about a PR conspiracy to bring down Mike Williams (lol) and a devout 9/11 Truther -- calling me a liar and various other names . . . .lmao.Goodness gracious . . . :-[Now, carry on Durango . .  . have your silly fun . . just don't come back later an complain about how I destroyed a thread (lol)

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Everytown taking a page out of the NRA playbook, with help from the victim's father:https://act.everytown.org/act/NotOneMore?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

      I'm finding it extremely difficult to sympathize with this clown.

      I get that, but its not uncommon and arguably part of grieving.  Dozens or hundreds of examples, I am sure. Here's one:Child Find was founded in 1980 by Gloria Yerkovich, the mother of a missing child in upstate New York, when there was limited law enforcement response to missing children and no laws about parental abduction.http://www.childfindofamerica.org/about%20Child%20Find.htmObviously. America's Most Wanted was started by John Walsh after his son was killed

      Did John Walsh go after the perpetrators? Or did he go after the tools that they used? And, I have to ask this, especially to you and the gun-control crowd; would Mr. Martinez be doing the same thing he is now if his son was one of the victims who were stabbed to death?

      well, that is a good question and I think the answer to your question about this father is probably no, although maybe he would be focused on mental health?  Again, that is why I said I get your point. For all I know the guy is an activist and deserving of your criticism, I don't really know.  I think you realize this, but if you look at the first comments in this thread, I created the thread saying that the stabbing would be overshadowed . . . and that is because there is no NKA (National Knife Association) refusing all restrictions on knives, even after having said that some restrictions were called for.  Legitimate gun owners with legitimate concerns about the scope of regulation are, unfortunately, overshadowed by the NRA, who has been overreaching for years.  Many Americans see through the NRA and that is why you have Everytown and other organizations to begin with.EDIT: for what its worth, the father is a criminal defense attorney and the mother a prosecutor, so they definitely have a perspective, but I don't know if they are activists

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      "Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click "Post""Just to give you a friendly heads up.I see you not familiar with Vinnie. Let me help you out, everything posted in this thread has already been written at least 50 times before and bandied around and beaten like a dead horse. There's no consistency in anything he posts, he tells you he doesn't want to ban guns then post 62 articles about banning guns. Then he complains that the NRA is in it for PROFIT, and that he favors gun control and advocates for bureaucratic red tape. Then he'll turn around and with a straight face claim to be conservative.  He has a couple of people on the forum that he responds to calmly but that will only last until they see through his game and then he'll turn on them and launch into another one of his lie filled psychotic tirades.Oh and by the way . . . our government did this:building-7.jpg

      fixed it for you Durango .  . .um . . .  Millich . . .The irony that comes with posting in the Cove is you have people like Durango (Millich) - a guy banned from the Insider board for ranting about a PR conspiracy to bring down Mike Williams (lol) and a devout 9/11 Truther -- calling me a liar and various other names . . . .lmao.Goodness gracious . . . :-[Now, carry on Durango . .  . have your silly fun . . just don't come back later an complain about how I destroyed a thread (lol)

      "He has a couple of people on the forum that he responds to calmly but that will only last until they see through his game and then he'll turn on them and launch into another one of his lie filled psychotic tirades.""You'll see, it won't take long."


      There you go! Need I say more? He's my little puppet on a string. That was a piece of cake. Lol.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Everytown taking a page out of the NRA playbook, with help from the victim's father:https://act.everytown.org/act/NotOneMore?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

      I'm finding it extremely difficult to sympathize with this clown.

      I get that, but its not uncommon and arguably part of grieving.  Dozens or hundreds of examples, I am sure. Here's one:Child Find was founded in 1980 by Gloria Yerkovich, the mother of a missing child in upstate New York, when there was limited law enforcement response to missing children and no laws about parental abduction.http://www.childfindofamerica.org/about%20Child%20Find.htmObviously. America's Most Wanted was started by John Walsh after his son was killed

      Did John Walsh go after the perpetrators? Or did he go after the tools that they used? And, I have to ask this, especially to you and the gun-control crowd; would Mr. Martinez be doing the same thing he is now if his son was one of the victims who were stabbed to death?

      well, that is a good question and I think the answer to your question about this father is probably no, although maybe he would be focused on mental health?  Again, that is why I said I get your point. For all I know the guy is an activist and deserving of your criticism, I don't really know.  I think you realize this, but if you look at the first comments in this thread, I created the thread saying that the stabbing would be overshadowed . . . and that is because there is no NKA (National Knife Association) refusing all restrictions on knives, even after having said that some restrictions were called for.  Legitimate gun owners with legitimate concerns about the scope of regulation are, unfortunately, overshadowed by the NRA, who has been overreaching for years.  Many Americans see through the NRA and that is why you have Everytown and other organizations to begin with.EDIT: for what its worth, the father is a criminal defense attorney and the mother a prosecutor, so they definitely have a perspective, but I don't know if they are activists

      He's also an Army vet

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Every word Milich said was true:https://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1306335.0.html

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Every word Milich said was true:https://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1306335.0.html

      Lol, as I said . . a lot of irony on the Cove . . . now we have a guy who gets banned repeatedly (note the most recent name/account change to Ozy . . from Illuminator . . Bucfucious . . etc) and who actually quotes me in his sig . . . a guy who actually created a thread with a poll about who wanted to shoot me (you can see my reference to that in the link he provides) . . . this is the guy now vouching for Millich.Like I said, it is truly theater of the absurd here on the Cove . . . the Cove nut bags blaming me for pushing back at their nonsense.  By the way,  didn't I predict yesterday that Illuminator (now Ozy) would come back with a "Vin the Big Meanie" post?  Well, here it is . .lolCarry on Illuminator, you and your MIsfit friend have fun . .  just don't get banned . . . yet again. . .  and don't come back and blame me for destroying this thread . . .  oh, who am I kidding . . we know that is precisely what you intends to do.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Everytown jumping on thishttp://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1945002and continuing to focus on women:"The role of guns in violence against women is deadly – American women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in all other high-income countries and 57 percent of mass shootings involve domestic violence or violence against women, as we saw in this most recent tragedy," said Shannon Watts, Founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. "Mr. Martinez said he never expected this could happen to his family – but gun violence can, and does happen in every town. That's why we all need to do something about it and hold our elected leaders accountable for protecting our children, our families and our communities from gun violence." Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1945002#ixzz3321iAedy

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      "Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click "Post""Just to give you a friendly heads up.I see you not familiar with Vinnie. Let me help you out, everything posted in this thread has already been written at least 50 times before and bandied around and beaten like a dead horse. There's no consistency in anything he posts, he tells you he doesn't want to ban guns then post 62 articles about banning guns. Then he complains that the NRA is in it for PROFIT, and that he favors gun control and advocates for bureaucratic red tape. Then he'll turn around and with a straight face claim to be conservative.  He has a couple of people on the forum that he responds to calmly but that will only last until they see through his game and then he'll turn on them and launch into another one of his lie filled psychotic tirades.You'll see, it won't take long.

      Haha!  Thanks Mate.  I had indeed figured out that Vinny is a big fan of his own written words.  I actually like the cat for some odd reason.  People like him make message boards more fun.BTW, Kudos on that Zeppelin pic.  My fav band.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Everytown jumping on thishttp://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1945002and continuing to focus on women:"The role of guns in violence against women is deadly – American women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in all other high-income countries and 57 percent of mass shootings involve domestic violence or violence against women, as we saw in this most recent tragedy," said Shannon Watts, Founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. "Mr. Martinez said he never expected this could happen to his family – but gun violence can, and does happen in every town. That's why we all need to do something about it and hold our elected leaders accountable for protecting our children, our families and our communities from gun violence." Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/1945002#ixzz3321iAedy

      American women are even more inclined to be killed by a drunk driver, or oddly enough, have a song written about them by the Guess Who.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      lol . .  ahh . . . the multiple account beauty of an “anonymous” message boardoops: editthat's betterhey, anyone notice that the nonsense from these posters almost always occurs in threads I create about gun control, but NOT in threads I create about other subjects:https://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1316521.0.htmlhttps://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1316521.0.htmYou think the subject matters? lol.  apparently posting about gun control is taboo, but posting about a poet or government waste . .  is not? hmmmmAlso, anyone notice that the posters most willing to discuss guns are the gun pros?

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      "Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click "Post""Just to give you a friendly heads up.I see you not familiar with Vinnie. Let me help you out, everything posted in this thread has already been written at least 50 times before and bandied around and beaten like a dead horse. There's no consistency in anything he posts, he tells you he doesn't want to ban guns then post 62 articles about banning guns. Then he complains that the NRA is in it for PROFIT, and that he favors gun control and advocates for bureaucratic red tape. Then he'll turn around and with a straight face claim to be conservative.  He has a couple of people on the forum that he responds to calmly but that will only last until they see through his game and then he'll turn on them and launch into another one of his lie filled psychotic tirades.You'll see, it won't take long.

      Haha!  Thanks Mate.  I had indeed figured out that Vinny is a big fan of his own written words.  I actually like the cat for some odd reason.  People like him make message boards more fun.BTW, Kudos on that Zeppelin pic.  My fav band.

      You're welcome, but let me caution you, the luster on the novelty will soon wear off.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      "Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click "Post""Just to give you a friendly heads up.I see you not familiar with Vinnie. Let me help you out, everything posted in this thread has already been written at least 50 times before and bandied around and beaten like a dead horse. There's no consistency in anything he posts, he tells you he doesn't want to ban guns then post 62 articles about banning guns. Then he complains that the NRA is in it for PROFIT, and that he favors gun control and advocates for bureaucratic red tape. Then he'll turn around and with a straight face claim to be conservative.  He has a couple of people on the forum that he responds to calmly but that will only last until they see through his game and then he'll turn on them and launch into another one of his lie filled psychotic tirades.You'll see, it won't take long.

      Haha!  Thanks Mate.  I had indeed figured out that Vinny is a big fan of his own written words.  I actually like the cat for some odd reason.  People like him make message boards more fun.BTW, Kudos on that Zeppelin pic.  My fav band.

      You're welcome, but let me caution you, the luster on the novelty will soon wear off.

      I had the opportunity to see Zepp in Tampa.  All four songs.564.jpg

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      "Dood, do you even read your stuff before you click "Post""Just to give you a friendly heads up.I see you not familiar with Vinnie. Let me help you out, everything posted in this thread has already been written at least 50 times before and bandied around and beaten like a dead horse. There's no consistency in anything he posts, he tells you he doesn't want to ban guns then post 62 articles about banning guns. Then he complains that the NRA is in it for PROFIT, and that he favors gun control and advocates for bureaucratic red tape. Then he'll turn around and with a straight face claim to be conservative.  He has a couple of people on the forum that he responds to calmly but that will only last until they see through his game and then he'll turn on them and launch into another one of his lie filled psychotic tirades.You'll see, it won't take long.

      Haha!  Thanks Mate.  I had indeed figured out that Vinny is a big fan of his own written words.  I actually like the cat for some odd reason.  People like him make message boards more fun.BTW, Kudos on that Zeppelin pic.  My fav band.

      You're welcome, but let me caution you, the luster on the novelty will soon wear off.

      I had the opportunity to see Zepp in Tampa.  All four songs.564.jpg

      Yep, me too. My first concert. I was in England a couple of years ago when i saw some random guy walking along the street wearing a T-Shirt of that very same show. It was an obvious knock off, but my jaw almost hit the ground.I guess the history surrounding that show will live-on for a very long time.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      lol . .  ahh . . . the multiple account beauty of an "anonymous" message boardoops: editthat's betterhey, anyone notice that the nonsense from these posters almost always occurs in threads I create about gun control, but NOT in threads I create about other subjects:https://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1316521.0.htmlhttps://www.pewterreport.com/Boards/index.php/topic,1316521.0.htmYou think the subject matters? lol.  apparently posting about gun control is taboo, but posting about a poet or government waste . .  is not? hmmmmAlso, anyone notice that the posters most willing to discuss guns are the gun pros?

      You're a flukin fruit cake.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      I literaly still have my original t from that show…never wore it.  I’ve seen the copies, and they look great. Years later, I ran into Jerry Weintraub, he was the Promoter of the tour.  I told him I still had my ticket, and never sent it in to redeem it, and he pulled a $10 bill and said “paid in full”.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Is Vin trying to say we’re the same person?  This is getting fun.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      I literaly still have my original t from that show...never wore it.  I've seen the copies, and they look great. Years later, I ran into Jerry Weintraub, he was the Promoter of the tour.  I told him I still had my ticket, and never sent it in to redeem it, and he pulled a $10 bill and said "paid in full".

      THAT is one hell of a story.BTW... If you haven't seen the Celebration Day DVD, you have to watch it. It was their reunion show in London from 2007. It is great.The beginning of the disc has them arriving in Tampa w/ a report from channel 13 news. Cool stuff, however I'm pretty sure that clip came from their 1973Tampa Stadium show. Regardless, well worth checking out.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9128

      Everytown taking a page out of the NRA playbook, with help from the victim's father:https://act.everytown.org/act/NotOneMore?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

      I'm finding it extremely difficult to sympathize with this clown.

      I get that, but its not uncommon and arguably part of grieving.  Dozens or hundreds of examples, I am sure. Here's one:Child Find was founded in 1980 by Gloria Yerkovich, the mother of a missing child in upstate New York, when there was limited law enforcement response to missing children and no laws about parental abduction.http://www.childfindofamerica.org/about%20Child%20Find.htmObviously. America's Most Wanted was started by John Walsh after his son was killed

      Did John Walsh go after the perpetrators? Or did he go after the tools that they used? And, I have to ask this, especially to you and the gun-control crowd; would Mr. Martinez be doing the same thing he is now if his son was one of the victims who were stabbed to death?

      well, that is a good question and I think the answer to your question about this father is probably no, although maybe he would be focused on mental health?  Again, that is why I said I get your point. For all I know the guy is an activist and deserving of your criticism, I don't really know.  I think you realize this, but if you look at the first comments in this thread, I created the thread saying that the stabbing would be overshadowed . . . and that is because there is no NKA (National Knife Association) refusing all restrictions on knives, even after having said that some restrictions were called for.  Legitimate gun owners with legitimate concerns about the scope of regulation are, unfortunately, overshadowed by the NRA, who has been overreaching for years.  Many Americans see through the NRA and that is why you have Everytown and other organizations to begin with.EDIT: for what its worth, the father is a criminal defense attorney and the mother a prosecutor, so they definitely have a perspective, but I don't know if they are activists

      Well, in my opinion, I think we will soon see a shift in the NRA's stance on things.

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Thanks much.  Yeah, Peter Grant was my Idol as a young man.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Everytown taking a page out of the NRA playbook, with help from the victim's father:https://act.everytown.org/act/NotOneMore?source=fbns_share&utm_source=fb_n_&utm_medium=_s&utm_campaign=share

      I'm finding it extremely difficult to sympathize with this clown.

      I get that, but its not uncommon and arguably part of grieving.  Dozens or hundreds of examples, I am sure. Here's one:Child Find was founded in 1980 by Gloria Yerkovich, the mother of a missing child in upstate New York, when there was limited law enforcement response to missing children and no laws about parental abduction.http://www.childfindofamerica.org/about%20Child%20Find.htmObviously. America's Most Wanted was started by John Walsh after his son was killed

      Did John Walsh go after the perpetrators? Or did he go after the tools that they used? And, I have to ask this, especially to you and the gun-control crowd; would Mr. Martinez be doing the same thing he is now if his son was one of the victims who were stabbed to death?

      well, that is a good question and I think the answer to your question about this father is probably no, although maybe he would be focused on mental health?  Again, that is why I said I get your point. For all I know the guy is an activist and deserving of your criticism, I don't really know.  I think you realize this, but if you look at the first comments in this thread, I created the thread saying that the stabbing would be overshadowed . . . and that is because there is no NKA (National Knife Association) refusing all restrictions on knives, even after having said that some restrictions were called for.  Legitimate gun owners with legitimate concerns about the scope of regulation are, unfortunately, overshadowed by the NRA, who has been overreaching for years.  Many Americans see through the NRA and that is why you have Everytown and other organizations to begin with.EDIT: for what its worth, the father is a criminal defense attorney and the mother a prosecutor, so they definitely have a perspective, but I don't know if they are activists

      Well, in my opinion, I think we will soon see a shift in the NRA's stance on things.

      possibly

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Thanks much.  Yeah, Peter Grant was my Idol as a young man.

      He revolutionized rock band management. I''l leave you w/ this clip. As a Zep fan you have to see it. One of my all time favorite Zep tunes, never preformed live, from the DVD. Their Presence album.Smoking hot."For Your Life"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cIRv5MpUQM

      Please wait…

    • vlagatta

      Member
      Post count: 2638

      Thanks much.  Yeah, Peter Grant was my Idol as a young man.

      He revolutionized rock band management. I''l leave you w/ this clip. As a Zep fan you have to see it. One of my all time favorite Zep tunes, never preformed live, from the DVD. Their Presence album.Smoking hot."For Your Life"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cIRv5MpUQM

      Thanks for the clip manEDIT!  Holy **** they are tight in that song... jason sounds (almost) as good as dad.  Thanks again

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 2862

      Thanks much.  Yeah, Peter Grant was my Idol as a young man.

      He revolutionized rock band management. I''l leave you w/ this clip. As a Zep fan you have to see it. One of my all time favorite Zep tunes, never preformed live, from the DVD. Their Presence album.Smoking hot."For Your Life"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cIRv5MpUQM

      Thanks for the clip manEDIT!  Holy **** they are tight in that song... jason sounds (almost) as good as dad.  Thanks again

      Yep. The whole show is that good. Jason was fantastic! Would have made his old man proud.

      Please wait…

    • Anonymous

      Inactive
      Post count: 9891

      Interesting political take on Martinez:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/27/richard-martinezs-grief-wont-change-the-gun-debate-it-just-wont/

      Please wait…

    • brycen54

      Participant
      Post count: 636

      Was a big fan of Zep back in the day. Their extracurricular activities were somewhat disturbing however.http://www.oasisblues.com/2011/11/led-zeppelin-groupies-and-under-age-sex.html?m=1