With the recent shootings in Oregon,

[BoilerMadness]

Obama, right on cue, called for more stringent Gun Control laws. What makes it even more interesting, is that he did it BEFORE he had any facts to make that assessment. At the time he made his proclamation, it was only known, that 13 people had been killed and that the shooter was 20 years old. There was no information about why the shootings occurred, whether the gun was legally obtained or anything else that would be considered relevant to such a declaration.

He also said that it's a proven fact, that states with more stringent Gun Control laws, have fewer gun deaths. Really?? Let's compare Illinois (some of the strictest gun laws in the country) with Texas, which has arguably the most relaxed Gun Control laws. You can pick virtually any year and make a side by side comparison and Illinois will have significantly more gun deaths.

We have thousands of Gun Control laws on the books now. Will another one really make one bit of difference?

In one respect, Gun Control and Immigration have something in common. There are sufficient laws on the books, that we don't really need any more. Laws are useless, if there isn't any attempt at enforcement. We NEED to enforce the laws we have, rather than having Obama pander to the Left, by asking for more laws.

 

[Bill4411]

Well I'm sick and tired of these mass shootings. Something needs to be done about it and I'm sorry if the fear of limiting your access to a gun is what worries in the wake of this newest tragedy.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Well I'm sick and tired of these mass shootings. Something needs to be done about it and I'm sorry if the fear of limiting your access to a gun is what worries in the wake of this newest tragedy.

OK, what are you going to do to identify and stop one out of 340Million people, who decides he wants to grab a gun and go out and shoot someone tomorrow? What LAW will make that stop?

We're ALL sick of these shootings, but it makes NO SENSE to punish 99.99% of the country for what a few deranged people do. If you look at virtually all the mass shootings, that have occurred over the last several years, you'll find that they were committed in Gun Free zones (schools, theaters, etc.) Allowing people to legally carry weapons in those areas MAY minimize those shootings.

The thing that Gun Control advocates can't seem to wrap their brains around, is that criminals aren't deterred by laws. If they can ignore one law, they can ignore them all, which is what makes them criminals.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Well I'm sick and tired of these mass shootings. Something needs to be done about it and I'm sorry if the fear of limiting your access to a gun is what worries in the wake of this newest tragedy.

Why not apply similar laws to guns that we have for vehicles: registration, training, licensing, etc? We're the only advanced nation in the world where these incidences occur at such a high frequency. Are we so roadblocked by political tribalism & fear of the NRA to do anything about it?

Kristof published this op-ed after the murder of journalists on live tv in August:

More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Why not apply similar laws to guns that we have for vehicles: registration, training, licensing, etc? We're the only advanced nation in the world where these incidences occur at such a high frequency. Are we so roadblocked by political tribalism & fear of the NRA to do anything about it?

Kristof published this op-ed after the murder of journalists on live tv in August:

More Americans have died from guns in the United States since 1968 than on battlefields of all the wars in American history.

Registration already occurs. Licensing (I assume you mean carry permits) occurs in the vast majority of states. Some make it so restrictive, that it becomes almost impossible to get a permit. Amazingly, those states usually have the most gun crime. BTW, the people with the permits are invariably NOT the problem. The NRA actually provides training in gun safety, shooting and responsible handling and storage of weapons. I doubt that training will do anything to decrease wackos from going on shooting sprees, but it may make them more effective at killing.

I believe Switzerland has a greater number of guns per person, than the US, but has a negligible problem with gun violence. Perhaps it's the culture? Could the violence in movies and video games have our kids so desensitized to death, that they don't realize that there isn't a reset function for people's lives? Have we become so indulgent of our youth, that they feel entitled to do whatever they want, without fearing consequences? It's tough to solve a random problem, without removing all the freedom from our free society.

More Americans have died in car accidents in the US, since 1968, than have died from guns......

 

[tantalum]

With the deadly assault on the black church in South Carolina the main stream media blamed the confederate flag. Wlll there now be any mention of all the hate that is vented at Christians in this culture. We see plenty of that hate speed right here in this board. The shooter seemed to be targeting Christians.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

Time to ban MSNBC, the nation's leading advocate of hate.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

OK, what are you going to do to identify and stop one out of 340Million people, who decides he wants to grab a gun and go out and shoot someone tomorrow? What LAW will make that stop?

The thing that Gun Control advocates can't seem to wrap their brains around, is that criminals aren't deterred by laws. If they can ignore one law, they can ignore them all, which is what makes them criminals.

The first paragraph is strictly fallacious - that you will never stop ALL gun crimes is not a good reason to not try to stop MORE of them.

To the second part, I would say that the thing that second amendment supporters don't seem to understand is that if you, as a law abiding citizen, really want to go get your gun, you'll wait a week... a month... a year... however long it takes. What needs prevention is the ease with which troubled people (or criminals) can get their hands on something that allows them to take the lives of multiple people in such sprees. Crazy people are always going to kill other people, but I'd rather them do so with a box cutter where they can be more easily subdued.

I firmly believe that doing something drastic like outlawing guns altogether wouldn't significantly reduce the murder rate - people will kill each other with hammers and knives and whatever. But I do believe there is some merit to restricting access to weapons in some way - maybe not even at point of purchase.

Personally, if I were to ever own a gun of any kind, that sucker would be locked up in a fingerprint-ID safe. Too often we're seeing people get a gun that doesn't belong to them because someone who legally owns it carelessly stores it.

I largely agree that we need to be better at enforcing gun laws already on the books before we start adding more. IIRC, the shooting in SC was conducted with a weapon that should not have been allowed to be legally purchased in the first place.

 

[qazplm]

The first paragraph is strictly fallacious - that you will never stop ALL gun crimes is not a good reason to not try to stop MORE of them.

To the second part, I would say that the thing that second amendment supporters don't seem to understand is that if you, as a law abiding citizen, really want to go get your gun, you'll wait a week... a month... a year... however long it takes. What needs prevention is the ease with which troubled people (or criminals) can get their hands on something that allows them to take the lives of multiple people in such sprees. Crazy people are always going to kill other people, but I'd rather them do so with a box cutter where they can be more easily subdued.

I firmly believe that doing something drastic like outlawing guns altogether wouldn't significantly reduce the murder rate - people will kill each other with hammers and knives and whatever. But I do believe there is some merit to restricting access to weapons in some way - maybe not even at point of purchase.

Personally, if I were to ever own a gun of any kind, that sucker would be locked up in a fingerprint-ID safe. Too often we're seeing people get a gun that doesn't belong to them because someone who legally owns it carelessly stores it.

I largely agree that we need to be better at enforcing gun laws already on the books before we start adding more. IIRC, the shooting in SC was conducted with a weapon that should not have been allowed to be legally purchased in the first place.

No, he's right. You should never have a law if you can't guarantee that law will stop anyone from ignoring it. That's why we don't have laws against murder, rape, theft...after all people ignore it. And we don't have laws about auto registration, because criminals will just ignore it to save the money. We should always remember to have laws that criminals will follow.

Outlawing guns would, theoretically, significantly reduce the murder rate. See the UK. The problem is we've had so many guns, for so long, that there is no way to put that genie back into the bottle. So banning serves no purpose at this point because there's already enough guns for each of us to have one or two or more both legally and illegally out there.

Bush said it: Stuff happens. As a society, we are unwilling to do anything to stop this, thus we are willing to let this continue because "stuff happens" and some crazed fear that even mild regulations are the next step towards gubmint control.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Well, I am no gun control nut nor am I a gun owner. I am a big fan of individual liberties, but I also can't see how doing nothing here or reducing gun laws is a morally acceptable answer. I wonder how the staunchest gun rights supporter would feel if one of their kids was murdered in one of these incidents. Would they really answer with, "my kid should've been armed!"?

 

[ecouch]

This is not for you.

Propose legislation that would have stopped this from occurring?

The same number of people were killed in Chicago this weekend. If I remember correctly, even more were injured.

Black Lives Matter.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Obama, right on cue, called for more stringent Gun Control laws. What makes it even more interesting, is that he did it BEFORE he had any facts to make that assessment. At the time he made his proclamation, it was only known, that 13 people had been killed and that the shooter was 20 years old. There was no information about why the shootings occurred, whether the gun was legally obtained or anything else that would be considered relevant to such a declaration.

He also said that it's a proven fact, that states with more stringent Gun Control laws, have fewer gun deaths. Really?? Let's compare Illinois (some of the strictest gun laws in the country) with Texas, which has arguably the most relaxed Gun Control laws. You can pick virtually any year and make a side by side comparison and Illinois will have significantly more gun deaths.

We have thousands of Gun Control laws on the books now. Will another one really make one bit of difference?

In one respect, Gun Control and Immigration have something in common. There are sufficient laws on the books, that we don't really need any more. Laws are useless, if there isn't any attempt at enforcement. We NEED to enforce the laws we have, rather than having Obama pander to the Left, by asking for more laws.

Gun control is extermination of the public and nothing more. These mass shootings are that on a mini extermination. In almost every case these mass shootings are staged by the government such as declassified "Operation Gladio" which you can read about on GWU.EDU where the national security archives are, where they admit they blew up schools, shot up schools, movie theaters, churches, and malls to scare the public into submission to hand in their firearms and disarm them. Most of the time they would drug up a patsy while hardcore operatives would conduct the murder with government sanction and the patsy would wake up with amnesia like the Batman shooter not even knowing what happened. But these mass shooters, even if you think they're real, they are hitting soft targets of DISARMED people.

The school had a gun ban even for armed security and nobody could defend themselves. That was one mass shooter who took over the entire school and executed people for being Christians, probably an ISIS supporter. Nero and many governments all the way through the modern age all the way to the middle east today want to exterminate Christians. This guy did the same thing ISIS did. I don't even understand what Obama is upset about. What are all these liberals upset about? They hate Christians too. Hell you can't even bring a bible to school or most colleges will have you thrown out. That shooter and most of these schools have a lot in common. They hate Christians, they hate bibles, and Hillary funded ISIS who chops Christian heads off all over the world. The liberal just wants those guns. Once they get those guns there could be 1000 school shootings and the news probably wouldn't even report it. They get the weapons not the people in the school.

The government wants all good guys disarmed so more of this can happen just look at Chicago. Chicago is a Vietnam zone. Obama gun control styled. And that is the exact spirit of the government. Almost every government in history disarmed the public for execution to begin. It is the exception if a government doesn't mass exterminate, not the rule. That guy just engaged in exactly what every government does. Hit the soft target and disarm the masses so they can have some fun. Imagine what someone could do to a totally disarmed society. They could sell some drugs, pay off some enemies overseas, buy some guns, and then they could do whatever they wanted. Just like this guy did. They'll have the guns. You won't. The law only stops law abiding people. These shooters aren't law abiding. If that school would have allowed conceal carry there is no way that guy has unlimited time to conduct his extermination.

The smile on this so called father of the Sandy Hook shooter I think summarizes what is going in quite nicely. 1 minute before the cameras roll he has a smile ear to ear laughing and telling jokes. The next minute once the cameras are rolling he is creating rivers full of tears. It is more fake that a half baked cake.


Look at him laugh Operation GLADIO styled

Now look at him turn on the act.....one moment one moment....here it comes

Obama knew exactly who his centerpiece was

THEN THEY USE THE NEWS AS A PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE OPERATION TO NINNY THE PUBLIC INTO SERVILE SLAVE MODE. AS THEY PRIMAL FEAR STOMP THE USA CITIZEN.

 

[BoilerMadness]

The first paragraph is strictly fallacious - that you will never stop ALL gun crimes is not a good reason to not try to stop MORE of them.

To the second part, I would say that the thing that second amendment supporters don't seem to understand is that if you, as a law abiding citizen, really want to go get your gun, you'll wait a week... a month... a year... however long it takes. What needs prevention is the ease with which troubled people (or criminals) can get their hands on something that allows them to take the lives of multiple people in such sprees. Crazy people are always going to kill other people, but I'd rather them do so with a box cutter where they can be more easily subdued.

I firmly believe that doing something drastic like outlawing guns altogether wouldn't significantly reduce the murder rate - people will kill each other with hammers and knives and whatever. But I do believe there is some merit to restricting access to weapons in some way - maybe not even at point of purchase.

Personally, if I were to ever own a gun of any kind, that sucker would be locked up in a fingerprint-ID safe. Too often we're seeing people get a gun that doesn't belong to them because someone who legally owns it carelessly stores it.

I largely agree that we need to be better at enforcing gun laws already on the books before we start adding more. IIRC, the shooting in SC was conducted with a weapon that should not have been allowed to be legally purchased in the first place.

The first paragraph was a question, so how is it fallacious? Nowhere did I say, "that you will never stop ALL gun crimes is not a good reason to not try to stop MORE of them". Of course we should TRY to stop them all, but realistically, I believe we all know that's impossible. In a previous post, I said we don't need MORE gun laws, but we do need to ENFORCE the ones we have. That would certainly make a significant difference in Chicago.

As you are aware, killing did NOT begin with the invention of the gun. People have been killing each other for thousands of years and if guns didn't exist, killings wouldn't stop. Like it or not, guns are here to stay, and you can't uninvent the technology. I have no problem with background checks and reasonable waiting periods, since that will help restrict gun ownership to more stable individuals. Yet, criminals continue to get guns. They steal them from private residences, gun shops, pawn shops, armories and even mug policemen and take their guns. Laws are already on the books to make all these things illegal, but they continue. Perhaps, if the penalties were much stiffer, it would decrease the number of these crimes.

Apparently, the shooter's Facebook page indicated a fascination with the IRA and other shooters, as well. The tips were there, that he was unbalanced, but no one keyed in on it in time. How invasive should the government get into people's personal information, in an effort to head off future incidents? That is the dilemma.

I took exception with Obama, because he immediately rolled out the plea for more gun laws, before he even had firm details on what happened or why. As it turns out, all the guns, that the shooter had, were legally obtained, so no new law would have stopped this tragedy from occurring. If he were going to politicize this, he should have had the decency to wait a few days and get some facts, before he tried to push his agenda.

I've owned guns most of my life. When my sons turned 7, I taught them each gun safety. Always assume a gun is loaded, is the first and most important lesson. I took them to a quarry and taught them how to shoot. Before I let them touch a gun, I showed them a .22 cal cartridge, which is small and innocuous looking. Then I placed a gallon milk jug, filled with water, on the ground. We walked about 30 ft away and I shot the milk jug with a .22 pistol. They were very impressed, when that little bullet exploded the milk jug. A very graphic demonstration of the power of a little bullet. They are both good shots and have great respect for guns. FWIW, I qualified Expert with the .45, .38, and 9mm, while I was in the Navy. I still go out to a range about every other month, because I enjoy target shooting.

 

[BoilerMadness]

No, he's right. You should never have a law if you can't guarantee that law will stop anyone from ignoring it. That's why we don't have laws against murder, rape, theft...after all people ignore it. And we don't have laws about auto registration, because criminals will just ignore it to save the money. We should always remember to have laws that criminals will follow.

Outlawing guns would, theoretically, significantly reduce the murder rate. See the UK. The problem is we've had so many guns, for so long, that there is no way to put that genie back into the bottle. So banning serves no purpose at this point because there's already enough guns for each of us to have one or two or more both legally and illegally out there.

Bush said it: Stuff happens. As a society, we are unwilling to do anything to stop this, thus we are willing to let this continue because "stuff happens" and some crazed fear that even mild regulations are the next step towards gubmint control.

So your solution is, that if they ignore the laws on the books, write more laws, since it's obvious, that they'll obey the new ones. Yeah, right....

Your usual asinine drivel. Don't you ever get tired of being juvenile?

 

[BoilerMadness]

Well, I am no gun control nut nor am I a gun owner. I am a big fan of individual liberties, but I also can't see how doing nothing here or reducing gun laws is a morally acceptable answer. I wonder how the staunchest gun rights supporter would feel if one of their kids was murdered in one of these incidents. Would they really answer with, "my kid should've been armed!"?

Nobody suggested doing nothing, except qaz. Nobody said anything about reducing the gun laws, although there are over 10K gun laws out there now, so it's not a reach to suggest that many are redundant. I merely said that Obama jumped the gun by suggesting that NEW gun laws were needed, because of this incident. Especially, since he had no details to support such an assertion.

Your last statement is too absurd to justify comment.

 

[Purdue97]

The first paragraph is strictly fallacious - that you will never stop ALL gun crimes is not a good reason to not try to stop MORE of them.

To the second part, I would say that the thing that second amendment supporters don't seem to understand is that if you, as a law abiding citizen, really want to go get your gun, you'll wait a week... a month... a year... however long it takes. What needs prevention is the ease with which troubled people (or criminals) can get their hands on something that allows them to take the lives of multiple people in such sprees. Crazy people are always going to kill other people, but I'd rather them do so with a box cutter where they can be more easily subdued.

I firmly believe that doing something drastic like outlawing guns altogether wouldn't significantly reduce the murder rate - people will kill each other with hammers and knives and whatever. But I do believe there is some merit to restricting access to weapons in some way - maybe not even at point of purchase.

Personally, if I were to ever own a gun of any kind, that sucker would be locked up in a fingerprint-ID safe. Too often we're seeing people get a gun that doesn't belong to them because someone who legally owns it carelessly stores it.

I largely agree that we need to be better at enforcing gun laws already on the books before we start adding more. IIRC, the shooting in SC was conducted with a weapon that should not have been allowed to be legally purchased in the first place.

I would agree that all gun crimes will not be prevented is not a reason to try to stop more of them. That said, places that have more 'prevention' and laws in place have higher gun crime. This idea or 'fact; out there that places with stricter gun control have less gun violence is complete joke.

I would add that if it is not a gun, it will be something else homemade that will be done in mass killings. If these people decide they are going to do something like this-it will be attempted.

I am a big 2nd Amendment person, and civil liberties person in general. That said, I do not own any guns. From what I understand though, it many places it is not as easy to get a gun, or get a permit as you think. Perfect case in point is up here in Boston/Cambridge area. In Boston/Cambridge, damn near impossible. Go thirty minutes west to Milford, one can get a concealed carry in days. Guess where crime is higher?

 

[atmafola]

What is unqestionable is that a no guns policy prevents this type of mass murder. Proof see Australia. That's the camp I belong. But there is no practical way to get there in the US. First, a significant proportion of us want to keep possession of their guns for whatever reasons like (hunting, they feel its their right, irrational fears, rational fears, just because etc). Two, there's already so much firearm in the country, I don't see any practical way of getting rid of all them even if we wanted to adopt such a policy. Haphazard gun control by random municipalities or states does little. Guns still come places where they are traded liberally and end up in places where they are controlled.

So having reluctantly accepted that mass gun ownership is here to stay for now (perhaps a future generation might feel differently), our next best effort should be to focus on mental illness. If we can't fix the guns lets fix the people. In terms of guns, hopefully technology will save the day. Something like fingerprint technology (like we see in cellphones already) can go long ways in making future guns safer.

 

[SDBoiler1]

What is unqestionable is that a no guns policy prevents this type of mass murder. Proof see Australia. That's the camp I belong. But there is no practical way to get there in the US. First, a significant proportion of us want to keep possession of their guns for whatever reasons like (hunting, they feel its their right, irrational fears, rational fears, just because etc). Two, there's already so much firearm in the country, I don't see any practical way of getting rid of all them even if we wanted to adopt such a policy. Haphazard gun control by random municipalities or states does little. Guns still come places where they are traded liberally and end up in places where they are controlled.

So having reluctantly accepted that mass gun ownership is here to stay for now (perhaps a future generation might feel differently), our next best effort should be to focus on mental illness. If we can't fix the guns lets fix the people. In terms of guns, hopefully technology will save the day. Something like fingerprint technology (like we see in cellphones already) can go long ways in making future guns safer.

The shooting in Roseburg, OR is a tragedy. What is also a tragedy is the fact the media almost goes out of its way to avoid calling these shootings hate crimes. This anti-social, atheistic, girl of a man asked his victims what their religious beliefs were. If they said "Christian", he shot them in the head at point blank range. If these said something else, he generally shot them in the leg.

Ok Libs, how is this not a hate crime? Where's your outrage? Do you think it's ok to have open season on people because of what they believe, at least if they profess to be Christian?

Obviously, the fact this p.o.s. was a deranged lunatic had nothing to do with his actions. He used guns, so we need more gun control. More laws will obviously help to solve this problem. Donald Trump was right - this guy had serious mental health and anti-social issues. How does a country keep a homicidal maniac hell-bent on killing from doing what he did, especially in places where people aren't allowed to protect themselves? Even the guard at the community college was unarmed for God's sake.

 

[atmafola]

The shooting in Roseburg, OR is a tragedy. What is also a tragedy is the fact the media almost goes out of its way to avoid calling these shootings hate crimes. This anti-social, atheistic, girl of a man asked his victims what their religious beliefs were. If they said "Christian", he shot them in the head at point blank range. If these said something else, he generally shot them in the leg.

Ok Libs, how is this not a hate crime? Where's your outrage? Do you think it's ok to have open season on people because of what they believe, at least if they profess to be Christian?

Obviously, the fact this p.o.s. was a deranged lunatic had nothing to do with his actions. He used guns, so we need more gun control. More laws will obviously help to solve this problem. Donald Trump was right - this guy had serious mental health and anti-social issues. How does a country keep a homicidal maniac hell-bent on killing from doing what he did, especially in places where people aren't allowed to protect themselves? Even the guard at the community college was unarmed for God's sake.

why don't you direct your questions and outrage at the stereotypical "lib" you've created in your mind? Obviously, you didnt read much of my comment.

 

[Bill4411]

What is unqestionable is that a no guns policy prevents this type of mass murder. Proof see Australia. That's the camp I belong. But there is no practical way to get there in the US. First, a significant proportion of us want to keep possession of their guns for whatever reasons like (hunting, they feel its their right, irrational fears, rational fears, just because etc). Two, there's already so much firearm in the country, I don't see any practical way of getting rid of all them even if we wanted to adopt such a policy. Haphazard gun control by random municipalities or states does little. Guns still come places where they are traded liberally and end up in places where they are controlled.

So having reluctantly accepted that mass gun ownership is here to stay for now (perhaps a future generation might feel differently), our next best effort should be to focus on mental illness. If we can't fix the guns lets fix the people. In terms of guns, hopefully technology will save the day. Something like fingerprint technology (like we see in cellphones already) can go long ways in making future guns safer.

The reason they have gun control in Australia is because of an unbelievable mass killing- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant
It was bad enough that the Australians were fed up and this was in a country where owning guns does have some justification due to the wildlife and conditions there. I for one am tired of hearing about the second amendment which was thrown in as an add on to the Constitution in order to get the colonies to pass it to begin with so we could start doing business as a cohesive government. It's not mandate from God-- and only white propertied men got to vote regarding its adoption-no women, blacks, native Americans or poor white people had a vote on its adoption. BTW it does not say that there can't be logical regulation of "arms". Why do I or my neighbor need multi clip assault rifles other than to cause mass mayhem? Those guns are mean't for anything but hunting people. But gun nuts rejoice as the NRA has so much money and creates so much mass hysteria on the issue of regulation that nothing will ever be done. If Sandy Hook didn't result in anything do it I don't know what will?

 

[SDBoiler1]

why don't you direct your questions and outrage at the stereotypical "lib" you've created in your mind? Obviously, you didnt read much of my comment.

atmafola,

My apologies. This mini-rant was not directed at you in any way. You were at the end of the thread and I tacked on. Again, sorry.

 

[SDBoiler1]

The reason they have gun control in Australia is because of an unbelievable mass killing- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bryant
It was bad enough that the Australians were fed up and this was in a country where owning guns does have some justification due to the wildlife and conditions there. I for one am tired of hearing about the second amendment which was thrown in as an add on to the Constitution in order to get the colonies to pass it to begin with so we could start doing business as a cohesive government. It's not mandate from God-- and only white propertied men got to vote regarding its adoption-no women, blacks, native Americans or poor white people had a vote on its adoption. BTW it does not say that there can't be logical regulation of "arms". Why do I or my neighbor need multi clip assault rifles other than to cause mass mayhem? Those guns are mean't for anything but hunting people. But gun nuts rejoice as the NRA has so much money and creates so much mass hysteria on the issue of regulation that nothing will ever be done. If Sandy Hook didn't result in anything do it I don't know what will?

You seem to miss the main point. The Roseburg and Sandy Hook shootings were both perpetrated by deranged, anti-social misfits. They chose to use guns to exact revenge on innocent people. Again, the deranged lunatics committed the acts. They pulled the triggers, they killed the people. Guns do not decide to shoot themselves off.

Also, there already are manifold gun laws on the books. If a deranged lunatic wants to kill people in a fit of rage, how do you stop this person? Institutionalize everyone who might be mentally unstable? Turn in everyone who you think doesn't act the way you think they should? Well, the Progressive mentality decided to eliminate most insane asylums in the 1960s and 1970s, saying they were inhumane and cruel. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

 

[Bill4411]

You seem to miss the main point. The Roseburg and Sandy Hook shootings were both perpetrated by deranged, anti-social misfits. They chose to use guns to exact revenge on innocent people. Again, the deranged lunatics committed the acts. They pulled the triggers, they killed the people. Guns do not decide to shoot themselves off.

Also, there already are manifold gun laws on the books. If a deranged lunatic wants to kill people in a fit of rage, how do you stop this person? Institutionalize everyone who might be mentally unstable? Turn in everyone who you think doesn't act the way you think they should? Well, the Progressive mentality decided to eliminate most insane asylums in the 1960s and 1970s, saying they were inhumane and cruel. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

But an assault weapon sure makes it a lot easier for the deranged anti-social person to kill a lot of people real fast. As some one said if the gun manufacturers weren't exempt from prosecution for the harm their guns cause and we let the trial lawyers at them we probably would see reform pretty darn quick.

 

[qazplm]

So your solution is, that if they ignore the laws on the books, write more laws, since it's obvious, that they'll obey the new ones. Yeah, right....

Your usual asinine drivel. Don't you ever get tired of being juvenile?

Nope I'm with you, never write any laws that people will ignore. Ever.

 

[qazplm]

The shooting in Roseburg, OR is a tragedy. What is also a tragedy is the fact the media almost goes out of its way to avoid calling these shootings hate crimes. This anti-social, atheistic, girl of a man asked his victims what their religious beliefs were. If they said "Christian", he shot them in the head at point blank range. If these said something else, he generally shot them in the leg.

Ok Libs, how is this not a hate crime? Where's your outrage? Do you think it's ok to have open season on people because of what they believe, at least if they profess to be Christian?

Obviously, the fact this p.o.s. was a deranged lunatic had nothing to do with his actions. He used guns, so we need more gun control. More laws will obviously help to solve this problem. Donald Trump was right - this guy had serious mental health and anti-social issues. How does a country keep a homicidal maniac hell-bent on killing from doing what he did, especially in places where people aren't allowed to protect themselves? Even the guard at the community college was unarmed for God's sake.

He also was a conservative, says so right on the internet. You really want to play that game? But sure, I have no problem with calling it a "hate crime." He targeted a group of folks. Here's the problem, it's far too easy for "deranged lunatics" "angry loved ones" and others to get a gun. The idea that arming everyone will stop this is silly. This country has more guns than people. It's laughable that we are the only country on the planet that isn't a third world hellhole that has this problem, all of those other countries have more stringent gun control laws, lower by orders of magnitude homicide rates, and yet the argument continues to be that our gun laws are either just fine or actually too strict and if we just had more guns things would be better.

It's absolute insanity. Which must be the only reason why the US is such a "leader" in this area. We must literally have more crazy people.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

He also was a conservative, says so right on the internet. You really want to play that game? But sure, I have no problem with calling it a "hate crime." He targeted a group of folks. Here's the problem, it's far too easy for "deranged lunatics" "angry loved ones" and others to get a gun. The idea that arming everyone will stop this is silly. This country has more guns than people. It's laughable that we are the only country on the planet that isn't a third world hellhole that has this problem, all of those other countries have more stringent gun control laws, lower by orders of magnitude homicide rates, and yet the argument continues to be that our gun laws are either just fine or actually too strict and if we just had more guns things would be better.

It's absolute insanity. Which must be the only reason why the US is such a "leader" in this area. We must literally have more crazy people.

Switzerland has more guns per capita than any country on Earth and they have the lowest crime and gun crime. Mexico has the least guns per capita on Earth other than North Korea in the hands of the civilian population. Mexico is a country ruled by mass murderers who slaughter the public at will. Gun control only punishes law abiding citizens. And a criminal does not need a gun to kill. They will kill more people and they'll do it with whatever they can get. This is why 5 times more people in the US are killed with knives than guns in gun control areas AND that more people die by gun in gun control areas. There are some cities in the US that have gun control. Chicago, Washington DC, NY, and LA. These are the biggest crime zone killer areas in the United States bar none by orders of magnitude. On the other hand where there are guns these mass murders do not happen. The answer is more guns. An armed citizen is an equal to an armed mass murderer on government issued amnesiac hallucination drugs. A disarmed citizen is a slave to the state as well as the criminal. It is impossible to control the guns a criminal has because it is the government that arms the criminals such as "fast and furious". The government has to arm criminals because it forces the public to turn to them for answers. It is a method of social control. This is why the all of South America is nothing but terrorist drug states ruling a bunch of cattle slaves living in squaller. Without crime you wouldn't need a government. The government had a war on drugs and 20 million people in the US use drugs daily. How did that work out? It only made the drug dealers more powerful. That exact same effect would be guns. It would only make mass murderers more powerful because then they'd have the same dictatorship on guns as they do drugs. This is why these people are very careful about choosing their targets. The sort that would carry this out is always a leftist thinker who wants power, is usually involved in the satan worship, on SRI drugs, probably under a government MKULTRA mind control program in the high profile cases, or a mentally disturbed person in the more low profile cases. And in the case of Sandy Hook the government hasn't provided proof a single death yet. The FBI crime reports don't even register the death. All they did was put a bunch of crisis actors and ran a black operation on the whole country. They staged the entire thing like it was the Manhattan Project except to run gun control advertisements.

Why did the FBI not include Sandy Hook in their crime statistics?
http://www.infowars.com/fbi-says-no-one-killed-at-sandy-hook/

For all we know the Oregon thing was the government trying to correct its terrorism they carried out on the US population during Sandy Hook. Operation Gladio - Schools, Malls, Churches.... and where was this shooting? When have we seen that before? Columbine...the Columbine shooter said are you a Christian..yes....bam. Same thing here. A government script.

Sandy Hook was a psychological warfare operation. It was anything but a mass shooting. But there is no doubt this Oregon incident is an Operation Gladio event. Vladimir Putin handed the New World Order its biggest blow in history by decimating ISIS, which is run by the US State Department. The news was only talking about that, now they can get a breather while the news can shift the talking points back to gun control to make Obama look pious again. Why would the community college have voted to get rid of armed security a year ago. Why did the administrators tell the conceal carry guy to get lost who could have helped? The next thing we'll be hearing about is how the school had drills mimicking the exact same thing days or weeks before the attack. Even if this was a real event, the guy was targeting Christians. He had something in common with schools. They both hate Christians. So does ISIS.

DRUG DEALERS WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT: (we've seen what the gun control did to the third world where they have the strictest gun control IN THE WORLD) A total gun ban in Mexico....yet.............the most dangerous place on Earth

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-t...d-to-HPD-officer-involved-Mexican-6197531.php

A veteran Houston Police Department officer charged with drug trafficking was involved with a well-known Mexican drug cartel, selling it firearms and cars and, according to court testimony, was asked to provide it information from police computer files.

Noe Juarez, 46, was arrested earlier this month by FBI and U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agents and Houston police after he was charged with trafficking at least 5 kilos of cocaine and using firearms to assist in the drug-trafficking conspiracy, according to a federal indictment.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Speaking of Australia...

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Nobody suggested doing nothing, except qaz. Nobody said anything about reducing the gun laws, although there are over 10K gun laws out there now, so it's not a reach to suggest that many are redundant. I merely said that Obama jumped the gun by suggesting that NEW gun laws were needed, because of this incident. Especially, since he had no details to support such an assertion.

Your last statement is too absurd to justify comment.

My last statement is absolutely absurd, but I think the question that I asked prior to that should inspire reflection for any conservative. I can't see how any second amendment proponent would sit there and say what they say - arm everyone, that solves it, and "because... freedom" - in the face of the untimely death of their child at the hands of a gun-wielding criminal, unstable or otherwise.

I agree with the sentiment that Bill posted where the reason Australia banned guns was a mass murder so abhorrent they finally got fed up with it. I fear that our country will need similar stimulus to actually take this seriously.

 

[atmafola]

My last statement is absolutely absurd, but I think the question that I asked prior to that should inspire reflection for any conservative. I can't see how any second amendment proponent would sit there and say what they say - arm everyone, that solves it, and "because... freedom" - in the face of the untimely death of their child at the hands of a gun-wielding criminal, unstable or otherwise.

I agree with the sentiment that Bill posted where the reason Australia banned guns was a mass murder so abhorrent they finally got fed up with it. I fear that our country will need similar stimulus to actually take this seriously.

GI man you have more faith than I do. When nothing happened after Sandy Hook elementary, that was when I lost hope that we can make progress on this issue in this generation. If kids dying doesn't spur us to face this madness, nothing will. I have grudginly accepted that our crazy gun culture is here to stay, we should do the next best thing. Find a way to make us all safer in spite of it. Possible ideas, yearly gun registrations, fingerprint technology, mandating firearm insurance, bigger focus on identifying and addressing potential nuts, etc

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

GI man you have more faith than I do. When nothing happened after Sandy Hook elementary, that was when I lost hope that we can make progress on this issue in this generation. If kids dying doesn't spur us to face this madness, nothing will. I have grudginly accepted that our crazy gun culture is here to stay, we should do the next best thing. Find a way to make us all safer in spite of it. Possible ideas, yearly gun registrations, fingerprint technology, mandating firearm insurance, bigger focus on identifying and addressing potential nuts, etc

Oh sure, America knows the plan. The Batman shooter was a PHD in a government mind control program. School shootings, malls, and churches. Operation Gladio. Sandy Hook was staged, nobody died. Even the national head of school security said it was staged. The FBI didn't even include the deaths in their crime statistics. Liberals all get up there and say haha a shooting hand in the guns. Drug dealers are loosing billions since they legalized just weed in Colorado. And arming the public and requiring teachers be armed will stop mass shootings in schools. This is why you never see these type of things happening in places where people are armed. Restricting the public strengthens criminals. Making them illegal has turned 20 plus million US citizens hooked on hardcore narcotics. That is why 1st amendment and 2nd amendment represent freedom in the country. You don't have a first without a second, you don't have freedom without either. It is a government operation. Why is it everywhere else like Israel they arm the teachers? Because the Israeli government knows their enemies will stage Operation Gladio attacks. You stop it by arming the teachers not by disarming the population so that a coup d'etat goes unchallenged. The reason the impostor government wants to get the guns is so they can fully conduit the country under foreign international control. They don't want to risk an American uprising when they move the US population off the land and into the city control grids like it is a Total Recall movie. They are planning this.

By the way at Sandy Hook they had signs for people to check in before they ran the operation. That is documented. The 2nd amendment guarantees US citizens the right to a gun. If everybody in the US had a gun mass shootings would be impossible because too many people would be able to react instantly to stop it. Disarming everyone makes mass shooting guaranteed and unchallenged because you can't disarm someone who doesn't obey the law. How do you think drug dealers get fully automatic weapons and military missile launchers? You can't buy those at the store anywhere in the world. But the drug dealers seem to have them.


Drug dealers are armed by the government. They want our guns and they won't be getting them. The British tried that in 1776 disarming the US population when they shot up churches and pulled these same Gladio like operations and it kicked off the Revolutionary war. When they try it a second time a second war is what they'll get. Americans are not going to surrender their freedoms and their guns.

How does a drug dealer get grenade launchers? There is a ban on these type of weapons worldwide. There is your gun control for you. Nobody else gets grenade launchers except the drug dealers. How'd that law stop them? Got some news, it didn't.

http://www.businessinsider.com/robert-swift-grenade-launcher-2014-11

According to police, Swift had a grenade launcher and a sawed-off shotgun in his room at the home of Trygve Bjorkstam, a 54-year-old alleged heroin dealer.



THESE SHOOTINGS ARE STAGED

SANDY HOOK - A STAGED OPERATION (PSYCHOLOGICAL WARFARE)

 

[BoilerMadness]

My last statement is absolutely absurd, but I think the question that I asked prior to that should inspire reflection for any conservative. I can't see how any second amendment proponent would sit there and say what they say - arm everyone, that solves it, and "because... freedom" - in the face of the untimely death of their child at the hands of a gun-wielding criminal, unstable or otherwise.

I agree with the sentiment that Bill posted where the reason Australia banned guns was a mass murder so abhorrent they finally got fed up with it. I fear that our country will need similar stimulus to actually take this seriously.

The "arm everyone" argument is usually a strawman thrown out by the Left. They like to deal in extremes. I've never said that, nor do I think that any responsible Second Amendment advocate would say that either.

I thought your comment "Would they really answer with, "my kid should've been armed!"?" was a bit over the top, since none of us know how we'd react, if one of our kids were killed, until it actually happened. I can say with reasonable certainty, that the vast majority of people would NOT have responded with "my kid should have been armed." That wouldn't even be in my Top 100 thoughts in that circumstance.

Although the media spends little time talking about it, the vast majority of the shootings in this country are gang related. Unfortunately, most police departments leave them alone, as long as they're just shooting each other. Even more unfortunately, it takes more than a few civilian casualties to get police to want to go to war with the gangs. In the current "anti-police" climate, that Obama has helped create, I can understand their reticence for wanting to risk their lives for people who don't support them.

If you look at the places that the mass shootings have occurred, you'll find that they were mostly "gun free" zones (schools, theaters, etc,). This is a little placebo, that the Left has offered us, so we could feel safe. The Left looks at a "gun free" zone as an area where we can feel safe, because there are no guns. A criminal or deranged person looks at a "gun free" zone as an area, in which he has absolute control, because he'll have the only gun. If you owned a business, would you put a sign in your window stating "NO guns on premises", or would you rather leave a semblance of doubt in the minds of those who might want to rob or harm you?

If you compare the areas with the most restrictive gun laws, with the areas that allow the most easy access to concealed carry permits, you'll find a lot more gun crime in the former. Think about why that is the case.

The Left would have you believe, if there were more people with concealed carry permits, we'd be having gunfights in the streets. Apparently, that must not be happening much, if at all, since the media would make such an incident Headline News and I don't recall ever hearing of such a case. Perhaps people can own guns and behave responsibly too. Most of them do.

If you don't feel comfortable around guns, NO ONE will make you get one, but just because some people don't like guns, doesn't mean that I or the other 99.99% of the legal gun owners, who have never misused a gun, should surrender ours.

If the politicians really wanted to clean up the gang problems and illegal gun trafficking, they could, using existing laws to get it done.

 

[BoilerMadness]

But an assault weapon sure makes it a lot easier for the deranged anti-social person to kill a lot of people real fast. As some one said if the gun manufacturers weren't exempt from prosecution for the harm their guns cause and we let the trial lawyers at them we probably would see reform pretty darn quick.

So does a bomb or driving a car at high speed into a group of pedestrians.

By the same token, you should make the car manufacturers responsible for all the deaths incurred by vehicles, which BTW is a much larger number than gun deaths.

I've always been perplexed at how the Left can compartmentalize things. If a crazy person uses a gun and shoots a half dozen people, it's the gun's fault. If the same guy took a car and drove it into a crowd, killing a half dozen people, it's the guys fault. If that same guy used a bomb to kill a half dozen people, it's the guys fault. Does anyone else see the disconnect? Is it possible, that there is a deeper agenda here?

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

The "arm everyone" argument is usually a strawman thrown out by the Left. They like to deal in extremes. I've never said that, nor do I think that any responsible Second Amendment advocate would say that either.

I thought your comment "Would they really answer with, "my kid should've been armed!"?" was a bit over the top, since none of us know how we'd react, if one of our kids were killed, until it actually happened. I can say with reasonable certainty, that the vast majority of people would NOT have responded with "my kid should have been armed." That wouldn't even be in my Top 100 thoughts in that circumstance.

Although the media spends little time talking about it, the vast majority of the shootings in this country are gang related. Unfortunately, most police departments leave them alone, as long as they're just shooting each other. Even more unfortunately, it takes more than a few civilian casualties to get police to want to go to war with the gangs. In the current "anti-police" climate, that Obama has helped create, I can understand their reticence for wanting to risk their lives for people who don't support them.

If you look at the places that the mass shootings have occurred, you'll find that they were mostly "gun free" zones (schools, theaters, etc,). This is a little placebo, that the Left has offered us, so we could feel safe. The Left looks at a "gun free" zone as an area where we can feel safe, because there are no guns. A criminal or deranged person looks at a "gun free" zone as an area, in which he has absolute control, because he'll have the only gun. If you owned a business, would you put a sign in your window stating "NO guns on premises", or would you rather leave a semblance of doubt in the minds of those who might want to rob or harm you?

If you compare the areas with the most restrictive gun laws, with the areas that allow the most easy access to concealed carry permits, you'll find a lot more gun crime in the former. Think about why that is the case.

The Left would have you believe, if there were more people with concealed carry permits, we'd be having gunfights in the streets. Apparently, that must not be happening much, if at all, since the media would make such an incident Headline News and I don't recall ever hearing of such a case. Perhaps people can own guns and behave responsibly too. Most of them do.

If you don't feel comfortable around guns, NO ONE will make you get one, but just because some people don't like guns, doesn't mean that I or the other 99.99% of the legal gun owners, who have never misused a gun, should surrender ours.

If the politicians really wanted to clean up the gang problems and illegal gun trafficking, they could, using existing laws to get it done.

Anyone should be allowed to have a weapon unless there is clear evidence that they are on psychotropic drugs. The second amendment guarantees that right. Two armed people are equals. One armed killer against an entire disarmed school is ruler and can kill anyone he feels like it. Teachers should be armed. Because just the threat that the teacher is armed will eliminate any chance of a school shooting. The government picks these targets very carefully. Just last year that Oregon college voted to get rid of armed security. This place was ripened for the attack like a fat hog on the Thanksgiving Day table for the killer. Had that armed security been there this guy would have never pulled this attack. No way. The blood is on their hands. They don't want to arm the teachers though and allow conceal carry because they don't want there to be an example for the public to see it work. They want the shootings so that they can attack the US population and ripen the country for takeover. What kind of political power does a disarmed voting public have? How about zero.

GUN CONTROL (no country in the 3rd world allows their public armed)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-police-helicopter-day-violence-Rio-slum.html

Drug traffickers in Rio de Janeiro shot down a police helicopter during a gunbattle between rival gangs yesterday.

Four officers were killed in a burst of violence just two weeks after the city was chosen to host the 2016 Olympic Games.

At least twelve suspected drug traffickers were also killed during the fighting in a shantytown, and two bystanders were injured, officials said.

 

[BoilerMadness]

GI man you have more faith than I do. When nothing happened after Sandy Hook elementary, that was when I lost hope that we can make progress on this issue in this generation. If kids dying doesn't spur us to face this madness, nothing will. I have grudginly accepted that our crazy gun culture is here to stay, we should do the next best thing. Find a way to make us all safer in spite of it. Possible ideas, yearly gun registrations, fingerprint technology, mandating firearm insurance, bigger focus on identifying and addressing potential nuts, etc

It's only a crazy gun culture to those who don't like guns and blame the guns for the acts of the deranged individuals, who misuse them.

As I said earlier, the majority of gun deaths are due to gang activity, which can be solved, if the will exists.

Most of your ideas wouldn't stop anything, but it would add expense and harassment to law abiding gun owners. I do agree with your last idea though.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

If you owned a business, would you put a sign in your window stating "NO guns on premises", or would you rather leave a semblance of doubt in the minds of those who might want to rob or harm you?

If you compare the areas with the most restrictive gun laws, with the areas that allow the most easy access to concealed carry permits, you'll find a lot more gun crime in the former. Think about why that is the case.

If you don't feel comfortable around guns, NO ONE will make you get one, but just because some people don't like guns, doesn't mean that I or the other 99.99% of the legal gun owners, who have never misused a gun, should surrender ours.

No, I would not put that sign in the window. It wouldn't be something that crossed my mind. Why? Because gun crimes, while always attention-grabbing, are still rare.

Yes, within the US your statement about most vs. least restrictive gun laws holds true. However in comparable countries to the US (i.e. not Mexico, North Korea, etc.), that comparison does NOT hold true. Australia and the UK, for example, have markedly lower gun crime and overall murder rates than the US, especially when considering per million people, and their gun laws are remarkably strict.

I'm perfectly comfortable with guns. I have a big fat E on my pistol marksmanship ribbon for a reason. I have never had cause to believe that I needed to OWN my own handgun for any reason, and if I did I suspect I would rather move. If someone invades my home tomorrow, I would rather they take what they want and leave than risk a gunfight in my house. Otherwise, I try not to give people reason to want to come in my home and shoot me, and I think the chances that I will be the victim of a random violent crime are exceedingly small. I'm far, far more concerned about getting hit by a car while I run or ride my bike, and owning/carrying a handgun for "protection" seems about as rational and necessary as staying out of the ocean for fear of a shark attack.

 

[SDBoiler1]

"Sandy Hook was staged, nobody died. Even the national head of school security said it was staged."

You have got to me kidding. I lived in Newtown, CT up to year before the shooting took place. I personally know families affected by the shooting. Families that had to bury young children because a deranged, anti-social misfit decided he wanted to make a name for himself. I personally know a boy (and his family) who, by the grace of God, was able to run past Adam Lanza as he shot and killed their teacher (Ms. Soto) in her classroom, along with his classmates. Lanza wheeled and fired at this boy and a couple of other classmates, barely missing them as they ran for their very lives, to the very house of the man in the picture/video you have as part of your "evidence". This boy still has nightmares to the day.

For you to say the Sandy Hook shootings were staged is akin to Iranians saying the Jewish Holocaust was staged. Sandy Hook and Newtown, CT will never be the same because of Adam Lanza. The families of the slain children, teachers, and administrators will never be the same. Go f yourself.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

"Sandy Hook was staged, nobody died. Even the national head of school security said it was staged."

You have got to me kidding. I lived in Newtown, CT up to year before the shooting took place. I personally know families affected by the shooting. Families that had to bury young children because a deranged, anti-social misfit decided he wanted to make a name for himself. I personally know a boy (and his family) who, by the grace of God, was able to run past Adam Lanza as he shot and killed their teacher (Ms. Soto) in her classroom, along with his classmates. Lanza wheeled and fired at this boy and a couple of other classmates, barely missing them as they ran for their very lives, to the very house of the man in the picture/video you have as part of your "evidence". This boy still has nightmares to the day.

For you to say the Sandy Hook shootings were staged is akin to Iranians saying the Jewish Holocaust was staged. Sandy Hook and Newtown, CT will never be the same because of Adam Lanza. The families of the slain children, teachers, and administrators will never be the same. Go f yourself.

Well I know people deep inside the secret services of the US govt. Deep inside. Trust me when I tell you it was staged my friend. It was staged believe it. I also know they ripped that school down, and that prior to this shooting it is on record the school building was condemned. I also know there were no life flights called into the area. There has never been a mass shooting in modern history where not a single life flight was called in. Lets just focus on this one below because this one below is enough for anyone who is objective. How does a father who just supposedly lost a child smile like it is stand up comedy hour right before cameras go live as he reads his script? A lot of people don't know either, that the church of Satan has a major operation in Sandy Hook. The entire town is extremely strange.

Let me just start with this below. This is iron clad proof of this being a staged event by the way for anyone who is trained in intelligence. Any foreign intelligence officer in the world takes one look at this photo and he won't need to see more to know what happened. A real father losing their child doesn't act this way simply at all.

Does this look like the behavior of someone who just had his kid shot up hours ago?

How about this kid? He got killed twice. Once at Sandy Hook and then in a Pakistan school shooting. Pakistani black operations was so sloppy they just randomly picked kids photos out of their records and put them out there. That is how dumb the public is. If its on TV they'll believe it.

 

[BoilerMadness]

No, I would not put that sign in the window. It wouldn't be something that crossed my mind. Why? Because gun crimes, while always attention-grabbing, are still rare.

Yes, within the US your statement about most vs. least restrictive gun laws holds true. However in comparable countries to the US (i.e. not Mexico, North Korea, etc.), that comparison does NOT hold true. Australia and the UK, for example, have markedly lower gun crime and overall murder rates than the US, especially when considering per million people, and their gun laws are remarkably strict.

I'm perfectly comfortable with guns. I have a big fat E on my pistol marksmanship ribbon for a reason. I have never had cause to believe that I needed to OWN my own handgun for any reason, and if I did I suspect I would rather move. If someone invades my home tomorrow, I would rather they take what they want and leave than risk a gunfight in my house. Otherwise, I try not to give people reason to want to come in my home and shoot me, and I think the chances that I will be the victim of a random violent crime are exceedingly small. I'm far, far more concerned about getting hit by a car while I run or ride my bike, and owning/carrying a handgun for "protection" seems about as rational and necessary as staying out of the ocean for fear of a shark attack.

We each have a right to our own opinions, but be aware, that in many home invasions, people have been either beaten badly or killed. They don't only occur in "bad" neighborhoods. They have occurred across the economic spectrum.

My feeling about a gun, is the same as it was about my survival gear, when I was flying. I'd rather have it and NOT need it, than need it and NOT have it. Although the media never seems to report it, many people's lives have been saved, when they've had a gun to stop a robber or intruder. You're free to roll the dice and hopefully, you'll never be in a position where your life is in jeopardy. BTW, I taught my wife how to shoot and there was always a gun in the house, when I was on deployment. She was actually a very good shot.

Regarding the UK and Australia, we have a larger population, than both combined, which means if all countries considered have the same percentage of crazy people, we would have significantly more. Additionally, we have a much larger population of gang members in the US, which is the biggest source of gun crime.

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is, "If the government decided to eliminate the 2nd amendment and confiscate all guns, do you think we would be safer, than we already are? Who would comply with the request to confiscate weapons? Criminals? Law abiding citizens?

 

[kescwi]

"Sandy Hook was staged, nobody died. Even the national head of school security said it was staged."

You have got to me kidding. I lived in Newtown, CT up to year before the shooting took place. I personally know families affected by the shooting. Families that had to bury young children because a deranged, anti-social misfit decided he wanted to make a name for himself. I personally know a boy (and his family) who, by the grace of God, was able to run past Adam Lanza as he shot and killed their teacher (Ms. Soto) in her classroom, along with his classmates. Lanza wheeled and fired at this boy and a couple of other classmates, barely missing them as they ran for their very lives, to the very house of the man in the picture/video you have as part of your "evidence". This boy still has nightmares to the day.

For you to say the Sandy Hook shootings were staged is akin to Iranians saying the Jewish Holocaust was staged. Sandy Hook and Newtown, CT will never be the same because of Adam Lanza. The families of the slain children, teachers, and administrators will never be the same. Go f yourself.

Anyone who could deny that happened is not worth talking to. My wife still has trouble with what she felt that morning when she first heard and the worry about friends and their children.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Well I know people deep inside the secret services of the US govt. Deep inside. Trust me when I tell you it was staged my friend. It was staged believe it. I also know they ripped that school down, and that prior to this shooting it is on record the school building was condemned. I also know there were no life flights called into the area. There has never been a mass shooting in modern history where not a single life flight was called in. Lets just focus on this one below because this one below is enough for anyone who is objective. How does a father who just supposedly lost a child smile like it is stand up comedy hour right before cameras go live as he reads his script? A lot of people don't know either, that the church of Satan has a major operation in Sandy Hook. The entire town is extremely strange.

Let me just start with this below. This is iron clad proof of this being a staged event by the way for anyone who is trained in intelligence. Any foreign intelligence officer in the world takes one look at this photo and he won't need to see more to know what happened. A real father losing their child doesn't act this way simply at all.

Does this look like the behavior of someone who just had his kid shot up hours ago?

How about this kid? He got killed twice. Once at Sandy Hook and then in a Pakistan school shooting. Pakistani black operations was so sloppy they just randomly picked kids photos out of their records and put them out there. That is how dumb the public is. If its on TV they'll believe it.

You're going to still try and tell me that this was staged. And 29 funerals were staged? Some of which I attended and saw the DEAD bodies of children? Newtown must have some of the best actors in the world.

As for the no life flights, there's a reason. By the time the authorities got there, the victims were dead.

As for the father you mention, he's an odd character all right. Was before the shootings, too. But no one knows how a person will act when such a tragedy befalls a town.

As for Sandy Hook School, there was NOT a decision to tear the school down before the shootings. It was a somewhat older school with some capacity/infrastructure issues. There were discussions about replacing it, but there was never a decision to tear it down until well after the shootings.

You must be insane. Your conspiracy theory is so ridiculous I am absolutely dumbfounded. You should go to Sandy Hook/Newtown and meet the parents of the slain children. Some of whom I personally know. Where are they hiding them, if it was staged?