Gun Control

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

But there are no feasible solutions for the real problems.

Then we live with what we got, we deserve it for ignoring the problems for so long and need to stop all the BS about gun restrictions.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

"Gun Appreciation Day" is being sponsored by a white supremacist group, American Third Position. Be aware folks, never let your guard down.

Indeed. Never let your guard down. Our President, who promised in his campaign speeches to uphold the second amendment, is now working to ban about 80% of semi-automatic (i.e., self reloading) guns now in civilian hands.

We have been betrayed by a lying traitor.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

and giving the crims the great advantage by taking law abiding citizens guns away is just stupid. Solve the real problems first, then look at further options.

"Law abiding citizens" with such a fascination with guns, that refuse any gun control, are as much of the "real problems" as "crims" are! Call me stupid! Oh that's right I already have been!

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

"Law abiding citizens" with such a fascination with guns, that refuse any gun control, are as much of the "real problems" as "crims" are!

When you say stupid things like that...
You simply cannot legitimately support a statement like that.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

But there are no feasible solutions for the real problems.

HUH? Now that's a bit pessimistic.

So when we demand action from our politicians, of course we get no remedies.

Really? The State of New York has passed significant gun control measures with bi-partisan support. POTUS has proposed a number of realistic gun control measures. We will see who in Congress are gun nuts and vote "no" and who the real progressives are who vote "yes."

They're just doing what we tell them

Well that IS the classic definition of a democracy.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

need to stop all the BS about gun restrictions.

I will continue the "BS about gun restrictions" until hell freezes over if it will save the life of one person, especially a child, from gun violence.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

When you say stupid things like that...

I have already been called "stupid" so what else would you expect?

You simply cannot legitimately support a statement like that.

I hereby complexly and legitimately support my statement that gun nuts are as much of the problem as "crims" are.

[GregLee]

Re: Gun Control

When you say stupid things like that...
You simply cannot legitimately support a statement like that.

The underlying issue is whether you can be legitimately punished for an action which, according to some accepted theory, is likely to lead to another person being harmed (the progressive view), or whether you can be legitimately punished only when you harm another person (the conservative view). For speech, the progressive would prohibit any slander, since it might be harmful, while a conservative would only punish a slanderer who did actually harm someone. For DUI, the progressive wants to punish anyone who drives with over a certain blood alcohol level, because it has become more likely that he will cause an accident, but the conservative would punish only those who do actually cause accidents. For guns, if you collect assault rifles as a hobby but never shoot anyone, the progressive will send you to jail, but a conservative would only agree to penalize you if, through your negligence, one of your guns is used to shoot someone.

[matapule]

Re: Gun Control

The underlying issue is whether you can be legitimately punished for an action which, according to some accepted theory, is likely to lead to another person being harmed (the progressive view), .................For speech, the progressive would prohibit any slander, since it might be harmful, ............ For DUI, the progressive wants to punish anyone who drives with over a certain blood alcohol level, because it has become more likely that he will cause an accident, ...............For guns, if you collect assault rifles as a hobby but never shoot anyone, the progressive will send you to jail,

This is wild fabrication. This is obviously your opinion, but that doesn't make t true.

[Kaonohi]

Civilians, prepare to be sacrificed!

This is wild fabrication. This is obviously your opinion, but that doesn't make t true.

Nor do your wild fabrications make your opinion true.

You are proposing a "guilty until proven innocent" strategy.

Talk to the Jews about that.

The majority of firearms in the USA are never involved in criminal activity, yet you propose to make the owners of these inanimate objects potential (or real) criminals.

Go back to Mexico, or Tonga. There you will find the repressive government you seek.

More people die at the hands of doctors making mistakes annually than because of civilian firearms. More children die in advanced age from tobacco smoke than from firearms. More teens die in auto mishaps than from firearms.

Doctors often save lives, as do firearms. Tobacco and autos are unforgivable.
You have become unhinged, and I understand your frustration. It is unforgivable that any child - less any group of children - be massacred by firearms, flame or any other cause. Yet I have shown you statistics which demonstrate that gun confiscation doesn't work. Yet you press on with the useless conclusion that gun confiscation will solve your problems.

It is a fantasy conclusion, which has been demonstrated as fantasy the world over. Criminals ill find guns, or make them, and the civilian populace will be targets, while the rich and famous, like politicians, celebrities, and prominent businessmen will be protected by armed guards the rest of us can't afford.

Be prepared to give up your life, and your families lives when your plan goes through, for that is the next logical step to your proposal.

(That is, unless you think Obama will protect you.)

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

The underlying issue is whether you can be legitimately punished for an action which, according to some accepted theory, is likely to lead to another person being harmed (the progressive view), or whether you can be legitimately punished only when you harm another person (the conservative view). For speech, the progressive would prohibit any slander, since it might be harmful, while a conservative would only punish a slanderer who did actually harm someone. For DUI, the progressive wants to punish anyone who drives with over a certain blood alcohol level, because it has become more likely that he will cause an accident, but the conservative would punish only those who do actually cause accidents. For guns, if you collect assault rifles as a hobby but never shoot anyone, the progressive will send you to jail, but a conservative would only agree to penalize you if, through your negligence, one of your guns is used to shoot someone.

Greg, it used to be we were innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Matapule, and now the traitor Obama want us to be guilty until proven innocent.

Bye bye Freedom, Justice and the American Way.

[lensperson]

Re: Gun Control

I just don't think the status quo is working.

If the present system is working let us see the weapons advocates actually reduce homicides.

After all, when Gifford was attacked she was in a state packed full of guns.

Why, in that crowd, did not somebody stop the event.

If further school killings are to your liking, sign on to the status quo.

[Kaonohi]

Re: Gun Control

I just don't think the status quo is working.

If the present system is working let us see the weapons advocates actually reduce homicides.

After all, when Gifford was attacked she was in a state packed full of guns.

Why, in that crowd, did not somebody stop the event.

If further school killings are to your liking, sign on to the status quo.

Definitely, we need NEW solutions.

The countries who have restrictive gun laws which confiscate ALL guns, still have school killings!!!!
Confiscation is NOT the answer. Everybody either thinks they already have the answer (MakaPoo), or they are being open-minded, looking for new answers.

I don't know how to prevent killings by unbalanced individuals, but statistics have shown that confiscation doesn't work.

Arguing about this is not progress. We need to find workable solutions.

Chill, think, and FEEL. How would you prevent this at YOUR children's school?
That is the way we will prevent it nationally.
Apply the micro to the macro.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: Gun Control

I don't know how to prevent killings by unbalanced individuals, but statistics have shown that confiscation doesn't work. How would you prevent this at YOUR children's school?

Many of these mass killers have planned to die, you can't easily stop someone like that, certainly not if nobody is armed and willing/able to risk their life to interfere. It sux, but arming the public is the only recourse I can see unless you want a police state to control everything, and that still won't stop everything.
mata sez restricting guns will save lives, but other lives will be lost by being defenseless. It's probably a no-win situation, but allowing the Gmt. to take away guns is opening a can of worms that we don't want even more.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: Gun Control

"Gun Appreciation Day" is being sponsored by a white supremacist group, American Third Position. Be aware folks, never let your guard down.

News reporters covering the event should ask all the minorities if they are white supremacists. You never know where those sneaky buggers are hiding

It looks like they removed A3P as a sponsor and issued a statement. If you look at their become sponsor page, it seems relatively easy to get on the list. No cash required to sponsor. They did a bad job of screening. If you give them the benefit of the doubt, you can say high volume combined with low staff. If you think they're a front for white supremacy, then you'd say it's an evil conspiracy.

When you say stupid things like that...
You simply cannot legitimately support a statement like that.

I will continue the "BS about gun restrictions" until hell freezes over if it will save the life of one person, especially a child, from gun violence.

Ron, I would think Matapule is making things easy for you by being clear with his intentions. It's futile to try and change his mind, nor anyone else's actually. There's plenty of room on this thread for all opinions. Let him say his thing. You say yours. HT readers will think whatever they think.

After all, when Gifford was attacked she was in a state packed full of guns.

Why, in that crowd, did not somebody stop the event.

Excellent question! Here are some things to think about:

1) Using a gun in self-defense and the defense of others comes with many risks:

a) you may draw the killer's attention to you and your loved ones
b) there may be more than one killer you are not aware of
c) in the chaos, you may mistake another armed citizen or off-duty/under-cover cop as the killer
d) in the chaos, law enforcement may mistake you for the killer
e) you could die in an exchange of gun fire
f) you may harm an innocent
g) you may be vulnerable to criminal and/or civil charges
h) even if found innocent, you could lose a lot of money defending yourself in court


2) In light of all these risks, you better be damn sure it's worth it, pulling your firearm.

3) An armed citizen's first responsibility is to themselves and their family. If I become maimed, killed, thrown in jail, or sued; I can no longer take care of my family.

4) Other adults are responsible for themselves and their families. They made the choice whether to arm themselves or not.

5) An armed citizen's priority should be to leave the kill zone with their family. This makes the job of law enforcement easier. Draw your firearm only if you are cornered and in immediate danger.

6) Law enforcement is trained to run towards danger. Citizens should run from danger.

7) Finally, until people are thrown into such a situation, they don't' really know what they will or won't do. On one day they may do this. On another day they may do that.


In the case of Gifford, we can imagine two groups of people. Those who were physically close to her at the time of the shooting, and everyone else. Everyone else, whether armed or not, should protect themselves and their family by running away. Armed people close to Gifford should simply run, if the killer isn't after them or their family. There's a good chance that those close to Gifford were supporters and less likely to be armed.

Many people have an instinct to help others (especially children). In those fews seconds, they may make the mental calculation that they are willing take the risks to try and stop the gunman.

Here are some stories to consider.

Another thing to keep in mind is if an armed citizen does stop the gunman early, the incident doesn't become a "mass shooting" and fails to make the news (not enough blood).