The Guns thread - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think that some people are protesting too much and getting anal-retentive in detail about what constituent 'assault rifle'.

Look folks, I am of opinion that these types of rifle specifically the civilian variant of military M-16 like the AR-15 or Sig Sauer should be banned in most circumstance.
 
I don't disagree. But use the proper terminology.

People wanting gun laws knowing **** about guns is a tired old trope. Let's not reinforce it.
 
Texas police shoot man who disarmed possible church shooter

So a guy walks into a church full of people with a gun, in the time between the police being called and them arriving he is wrestled to the ground. The police walk in and immediately open fire on the person holding the gun (which was one of the parishioners that had disarmed the potential shooter). Yeah adding more people with guns to schools is going to end well.

And lets not forget that there have been cases were Police Officers have been fired for trying to deescalate situations rather than just shooting the suspect.
 
Yup. That is kind of what I am expecting.
 
Good guy with a gun was shot? That's not possible.
 
You are right in that respect. However, we don't know if we can get to the point where UK and Australia are if we don't get something meaningful passed. We may not be able to do a massive buyback or massive penalties for illegal gun ownership without necessary steps.

And I think part of that fault should lie on the Republicans in office who stymied gun reform legislation for over two decades. The breaking point shouldn't have been Parkland High, but in 2013 after Newtown.

People have had enough and they and their children are speaking out. Big companies are starting to withdraw support for the NRA.

To let you know where I stand...this is what I put on Facebook and Twitter today....

Kelly said:
I have been asked several times what my opinion on teachers carrying guns in schools is....well here it is. I will not be discussing it any further, I am giving my opinion on it, and that is the last that I will be discussing this issue on FACEBOOK.

My degree is a Bachelor of Science degree in Criminal Justice with a Sociology Minor. I'm not typing this to say that I am an expert in any way on the subject of guns, who should carry them, etc. I am simply stating that because for 4 years I sat in classrooms with police officers, DPS officers, FBI agents (some of which were my teachers), Sheriff's Department, Texas Rangers, ATF, etc. Most were wanting to rise in rank within their departments. Many were seasoned officers. I sat in the classroom with these men and women daily, heard their ideas, heard their stories, ate lunch with them for 4 years...and they earned my respect like no others. Their stories of what they learned on a daily basis, that allowed them to become better 1st responders were scary, heart pounding, enlightening, and inspirational. What I learned from them is that their learning on the job, NEVER STOPS. They have all had extensive fire arms training of course, as well as active shooting training, and just about any other training you could think of.......and yet, there are still scenarios that they face each day that do not fall into categories of expertise for them. Many of them have said that my job is far scarier than theirs....hahaha, but I know this is not true. I say all of this because, they all remember their first day on the job, they were scared to death, shaky, excited, ready to take on the world, and feeling like they had to think on their feet every second of the day. They were like this each day for their first week, month, and some longer. These seasoned officers spoke about times where their life was on the line, where they not only had to think of themselves, but FIRST think of innocent bystanders. Think, if they shoot, and miss, what will be hit? Is that a gun, is it not, what is it? all of these questions swimming in their minds at the same time...and they have been trained, DAILY for situations like this, and yet, there are still questions.

Putting guns into the hands of educators, and giving them extensive training, maybe even training like the ones I stated above have had......you will be putting guns into the hands of a rookie police officer on their first day pounding the beat EVERY SINGLE DAY THEY ARE IN THE CLASSROOM FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE AS A TEACHER. Because if or when God forbid the time comes, that teacher will be a "rookie" police officer on their first day on the job, facing a shooter, that is probably armed far better than they are, and they have to make the split second decision to shoot, what if I miss? where am I shooting? are there students on the other side of that wall? that door? that window? Is that teacher going to wear a Kevlar vest every single day for the rest of their teaching career?

I am a teacher who loves my students more than life. I would give it up for them in a second, and want to protect them to the best of my ability. I am a damn good shot with a hand gun, but if asked, or required to carry a gun into my classroom, into my school....my answer would be no. In my opinion, that should be the answer of every educator out there today.

I do understand that there are communities out there that are FAR FROM ANY help as far as law enforcement. In many instances it would take law enforcement 15, 20 even 30 minutes to get there to help. These communities have to come up with strategies that fit their community. That I totally understand. That, in my opinion, would mean hiring security that is on sight, equipped, and experienced in law enforcement.

Unlocked doors coming into our schools are unsafe, my school included and we have armed law enforcement on our campus....that is a problem for me because in my opinion, no one should be able to walk into a school without 1 being buzzed in, 2 having ID checked, BY WHATEVER SECURITY THAT SCHOOL HAS IN PLACE, not the secretary, not the receptionist, not the attendance clerk, and still there should be questions as to why they are there. If a parent sees that as an inconvenience too bad. There should be a WORKING CAMERA ON EVERY SINGLE OUTSIDE DOOR ON AT ALL TIMES AND WHEN IT IS NOT WORKING......FIX IT! ALARMS THAT GO OFF WHEN AN OUTSIDE DOOR IS OPENED by force, as in "not with a key" ....KNOW who has a key to the outside doors, and do they still have that key? There are things that we need to do now, that YES COST MONEY, YES WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO IMPLEMENT, BUT NEED TO BE STARTED NOW! School board members, state legislators, national legislators, let's talk.

My classes know what we will do, who does what, and what goes where....in case of a lock down situation....we have a plan. As a teacher......DO YOU?

There are law enforcement experts in this area that have come up with wonderful ways to protect the classroom, no matter what type of door that classroom may have. THAT SHOULD BE THE VERY FIRST THING TOMORROW THAT WE TAKE CARE OF IN OUR SCHOOLS.

Governor Abbott put your money where your mouth is and give schools the funding to do at least the first step.

As a teacher, I can assure you I want something done NOW. However, my point before was not that we can't ever get to the point of the U.K, and other countries....what I am saying, is what I tell my students in every debate. Throwing out numbers, percentages and comparisons mean nothing if you cannot show HOW they are truly relevant. IMO, THIS tweet from twitter has done the best job.

ZgKO2cD.jpg


I do not believe that we will ever have the percentages of those other countries, far too many variables to account for....... BUT that does not mean that I don't think we should try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try and try again........and then keep trying. :)
 
Despite what some of you trying to telling me about whether a weapon is a single shot or not, the fact of matter is that in my opinion no sane person should own a gun --any gun at all.
With this statement right here, I believe I can no longer have a good faith argument with you about guns. Guns are not inherently evil and act as protection for those needing it. As someone living in the country where police aren't going to have fast response times and there are predators that could attack my animals, the necessity for guns is always going to be there for me. Don't think people use guns to protect themselves? Here's a couple stories where that's the case:

Charges brought against home-invasion suspects foiled by armed Hemet homeowners

GRAPHIC VIDEO: Liquor store clerks shoot armed robbery suspect, fight over gun
 
I think that some people are protesting too much and getting anal-retentive in detail about what constituent 'assault rifle'.

Look folks, I am of opinion that these types of rifle specifically the civilian variant of military M-16 like the AR-15 or Sig Sauer should be banned in most circumstance.

I don't give a **** what the name of the gun, rifle, whatever is......if it can shoot enough rounds within a few minutes to kill a lot of people, it has no place in our society. Done......
 
I don't give a **** what the name of the gun, rifle, whatever is......if it can shoot enough rounds within a few minutes to kill a lot of people, it has no place in our society. Done......
So handguns and shotguns have no place? You can fire off an awful lot of shots with those yet it's a form of protection for many that is necessary.
 
im a veteran, ive seen what AR-15, AK-47s and weapons like that can do to the human body, and I was in the Navy, I was nowhere near a combat zone, but Ive helped transport wounded Marines and sailors to medical off choppers and 3 rounds from an AR-15 type weapon can tear a limb apart

Oddly enough, that's exactly what they were designed to do. Wound and mama. They really aren't good for killing unless you hit someone in a vital organ. The AR-15 is only a .22 caliber round. It's just high velocity. That and, at least Army infantry, is trained not to shoot your kill but rather, shoot to wound. Killing takes the enemy numbers down by 1 each time. Wounding takes out more enemies because now they have to tend to the wounded.
 
With this statement right here, I believe I can no longer have a good faith argument with you about guns. Guns are not inherently evil and act as protection for those needing it. As someone living in the country where police aren't going to have fast response times and there are predators that could attack my animals, the necessity for guns is always going to be there for me. Don't think people use guns to protect themselves? Here's a couple stories where that's the case:

I'm viewing the ownership of gun from the perspective of urban person, and still subscribe to the opinion that no sane person should own a gun. l wouldn't want to kill another human being no matter how bad that person is. Although, I know a couple of people who use gun in countryside hunting (game birds), I just don't always agree with them in their methodology.

Rural ownership of gun in the USA is very high and these people tend to advocate enforcement of the existing gun regulation in order to reduce gun violence. Sport hunting (clay) is also quite popular. All of these only serve to complicated legalisation with regards to 'assault rifles' in the mass shooting over the last decade in urban environment like school and church.
 

Yea, i've been keeping track of the list of companies getting Twitter harassed to dump the NRA...

BUT i want to know. Since we saw such hate at all those bakeries/floriests etc, who refused to do catering for LGBTQ weddings etc, as it was 'seen as discriminatory', THEN how is this any different?
OR is it cause the "NRA" is not a socially protected group?

My question...Why does any private citizen need this?

Every site i was on (that allows political discourse) i asked about that, right after LV. And many said "bump stocks were designed so disabled people can still shoot... But from MY own checking into it afterwards, it seems to ME, it was merely made so people could get the 'feel of firing in an almost full auto way, without breaking the law and having a full auto weapon..
Which is why i have absolutely no reason to dislike the desire to ban them.

The NRA has helped cause the deaths of more Americans than World War II. It's run by fanatics like Wayne Lapierre. Any organization that associates with it should be boycotted.

Come again?? SO how many mass shooters have actually been members?
how many just supported them?

As per the website Quora, of the 130+ mass shootings we've had, NOT ONE has been done by a member of the NRA (Or even former member)
https://www.quora.com/Of-the-last-m...apons-used-were-legally-owned-by-the-shooters

So blaming the NRA is full of it. Just like saying CAIR is responsible for all islamic jihadist killings, cause they 'support muslims in the US'..

Hotwire asked you how they are different, specifically. You avoided that question. So please answer it.

Hotwire pointed out the one difference. AN assault rifle is one defined as having multiple fire selections. Meaning it can do more than just go from Safe to Semi. The AR only does that. The M-16 has safe, semi and burst (changed from full auto)..

I think that some people are protesting too much and getting anal-retentive in detail about what constituent 'assault rifle'.

Look folks, I am of opinion that these types of rifle specifically the civilian variant of military M-16 like the AR-15 or Sig Sauer should be banned in most circumstance.

So IYO< what weapons CAN citizens own? Just revolvers? just hunting rifles (306, .22)? just shotguns (pump or double barrel)??
Who gets to decide?

I do not believe that we will ever have the percentages of those other countries, far too many variables to account for....... BUT that does not mean that I don't think we should try, try, try, try, try, try, try, try and try again........and then keep trying. :)

So lets compare.. That chart is also on this site, where the US DOES look bad, compared to the other countries who have the LOWEST rates of gun crimes..
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...lence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

BUT compare it to those who have the HIGHEST..

ElSalvador ranks #1 with 40.29 per 100k. Then comes Venezuela a 34.77, then guatemala at 26.81, then columbia at 25.94.. Then Honduras, brazil, US virgin islands, Jamacia, Bahamas, Trinidad and tobego..
All sourced from "Institute for health metrics and evaluation"..
(PS the site i put up above, is NOT letting me cut out the image of the chart).

Then as per this CNN article
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

The countries that rank higher than the US are mostly in central/south america, the africas, and some in the mid/far east... All of which are ahead of the US.

With this statement right here, I believe I can no longer have a good faith argument with you about guns. Guns are not inherently evil and act as protection for those needing it. As someone living in the country where police aren't going to have fast response times and there are predators that could attack my animals, the necessity for guns is always going to be there for me.

Me neither. When someone's belief is wrapped around NO ONE should own a gun, its obvious talking to you won't do a damn thing to convince you. So i'd be better off just hitting my head on a brick wall... At least the wall MIGHT eventually cave.
 
The backlash against the NRA is primarily due to just how craven and soulless they have revealed themselves to be.

Seriously, Lepierre and Loesch have come off as unhinged recently. Part of that may be that they also feel this is different. A part may be Mueller may actually be hitting a source of their income.
 
Yea, i've been keeping track of the list of companies getting Twitter harassed to dump the NRA...

BUT i want to know. Since we saw such hate at all those bakeries/floriests etc, who refused to do catering for LGBTQ weddings etc, as it was 'seen as discriminatory', THEN how is this any different?
OR is it cause the "NRA" is not a socially protected group?



Every site i was on (that allows political discourse) i asked about that, right after LV. And many said "bump stocks were designed so disabled people can still shoot... But from MY own checking into it afterwards, it seems to ME, it was merely made so people could get the 'feel of firing in an almost full auto way, without breaking the law and having a full auto weapon..
Which is why i have absolutely no reason to dislike the desire to ban them.



Come again?? SO how many mass shooters have actually been members?
how many just supported them?

As per the website Quora, of the 130+ mass shootings we've had, NOT ONE has been done by a member of the NRA (Or even former member)
https://www.quora.com/Of-the-last-m...apons-used-were-legally-owned-by-the-shooters

So blaming the NRA is full of it. Just like saying CAIR is responsible for all islamic jihadist killings, cause they 'support muslims in the US'..



Hotwire pointed out the one difference. AN assault rifle is one defined as having multiple fire selections. Meaning it can do more than just go from Safe to Semi. The AR only does that. The M-16 has safe, semi and burst (changed from full auto)..



So IYO< what weapons CAN citizens own? Just revolvers? just hunting rifles (306, .22)? just shotguns (pump or double barrel)??
Who gets to decide?



So lets compare.. That chart is also on this site, where the US DOES look bad, compared to the other countries who have the LOWEST rates of gun crimes..
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...lence-how-the-u-s-compares-to-other-countries

BUT compare it to those who have the HIGHEST..

ElSalvador ranks #1 with 40.29 per 100k. Then comes Venezuela a 34.77, then guatemala at 26.81, then columbia at 25.94.. Then Honduras, brazil, US virgin islands, Jamacia, Bahamas, Trinidad and tobego..
All sourced from "Institute for health metrics and evaluation"..
(PS the site i put up above, is NOT letting me cut out the image of the chart).

Then as per this CNN article
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

The countries that rank higher than the US are mostly in central/south america, the africas, and some in the mid/far east... All of which are ahead of the US.



Me neither. When someone's belief is wrapped around NO ONE should own a gun, its obvious talking to you won't do a damn thing to convince you. So i'd be better off just hitting my head on a brick wall... At least the wall MIGHT eventually cave.

I'm not hitting all of your points, just a few but, I'm on mobile so I'm not editing anything out.

The NRA is a political group that wants to make sure everyone has the choice to own any gun they want. Those in any LGBTQ group are they to make sure people have equal rights as human being, even though they are different from others. Being a gun owner is a choice, being LGBT is not.

It was said that the AR-15 is not "military grade". Well, unless its design was changed from the M-series rifles, yes, it is "military grade". Something being "military grade" doesn't mean full-auto or burst fire. It has to do with the build. The M-16 was designed to fire a lot of rounds over extended periods of time without wearing down the shooter. That's why it has the buffer in the stock to absorb recoil. That's why it has heat guards on the barrel to protect your hands. It has a pistol grip for easier one-handed firing. It has a muzzle designed to lock on a bayonet. It's designed for quick disassembly so it can be cleaned easily in the field. These are "military grade" features. All of these are on the AR-15. So, that's was I was getting at when I asked, aside from the burst fire option, what's the difference.
 
Not necessary. It's irrational fear.

I have to disagree. I have lived in many places where it's quite rational to want to be able to protect yourself. Not everyone lives 5 minutes away from a police station.
 
I own two weapons, my great uncles service .45 from WW2 (he was an MP)

and an old school Remington bolt action rifle

if someone wants to own a rifle, a bolt action is more than adequate IMO
 
I have to disagree. I have lived in many places where it's quite rational to want to be able to protect yourself. Not everyone lives 5 minutes away from a police station.


And virtually no one has enemies out to get them. Who are you afraid of? I live where there are bears, wolves and coyotes. And feel no need to own a gun. I also know that the odds of someone breaking into my home while I'm there, are low, not to mention they'd probably not aim to hurt me.

The odds of a targeted home invasion are low, the odds of a serial killer are low. All of those things are unlikely to happen. So who are you afraid of?
 
I own two weapons, my great uncles service .45 from WW2 (he was an MP)

and an old school Remington bolt action rifle

if someone wants to own a rifle, a bolt action is more than adequate IMO
Or, for home defense, a single-shot break-neck shotgun.
 
Third-Grader Reaches into Maplewood Officer's Holster, Fires Weapon in School Gym

Maplewood police said no one was hurt after a third-grader reached into a school liaison officer's holster and fired the gun on Monday.

The incident happened in the school gym at Harmony Learning Center in Maplewood, where the officer was "interacting with (third- and fourth-graders) and building relationships," according to a police department release.

The release says the officer was sitting on a bench, and a third-grader "reached over and placed his finger into the officer's gun holster and pressed the trigger of the officer's gun causing it to discharge though the bottom of the holster."

The round hit the floor, and no one was injured, the press release states.

http://kstp.com/news/no-one-hurt-wh...mony-learning-center-maplewood/4773777/?cat=1 (Feb. 5, 2018)
 
And virtually no one has enemies out to get them. Who are you afraid of? I live where there are bears, wolves and coyotes. And feel no need to own a gun. I also know that the odds of someone breaking into my home while I'm there, are low, not to mention they'd probably not aim to hurt me.

The odds of a targeted home invasion are low, the odds of a serial killer are low. All of those things are unlikely to happen. So who are you afraid of?

I believe humans have a right to protect themselves and their property. I have been threatened at home and outside before.
 
I believe humans have a right to protect themselves and their property. I have been threatened at home and outside before.

oh youve been threatened, have you now?

try being black and living in America

I walk out my door every day with a damn good chance im not making it home because some cop is having a bad day and a gun isnt going to change that

hell, it actually increases the chances of me being killed because to many out there the second Amendment only applies to white people
 
I believe humans have a right to protect themselves and their property. I have been threatened at home and outside before.


Yeah, but isn't it a lot easier and safer to protect yourself if neither party has gun? Last time I was threatened in front of my home it was by a guy with a 2x4. He didn't have the guts to use it, and I was sure of that. Even if he had I would have been nuts to run inside and grab a gun. Over what? A hobo stealing my recycling bin?

I don't own a single physical thing that I think having a lethal weapon to protect is necessary.

And statistically, the person most likely to murder my spouse is me. Knowing that I'd never kill them, means statistically they are as safe as they need to be.

The rational that you need it for home defense makes me question how you rationalize doing something statically more dangerous, like driving a car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"