What's accidental about a mass shooting? There's apples and oranges, then there's apples and dump trucks. Sheesh.
Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?
I don't own guns for self-defense, though I would use one for that purpose if the need arises.
That being said, like most any other gun ever made, it's highly doubtful mine will ever be used to take a human life.I enjoy shooting them. That's why I bought them.
[Edited on 10/6/2015 by alloak41]
Yes you can use just about any object to hurt someone and yes there are many creations that are man made that cause death....but mans best creation for death is the gun....see it's the only real purpose it has..
What about bombs?
Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?
I don't own guns for self-defense, though I would use one for that purpose if the need arises.
That being said, like most any other gun ever made, it's highly doubtful mine will ever be used to take a human life.I enjoy shooting them. That's why I bought them.
Well, that's the most important thing.
Yes you can use just about any object to hurt someone and yes there are many creations that are man made that cause death....but mans best creation for death is the gun....see it's the only real purpose it has..
What about bombs?
Too indiscriminate. Guns are much more efficient, not to mention easier to get.
quote:
quote:
Yes you can use just about any object to hurt someone and yes there are many creations that are man made that cause death....but mans best creation for death is the gun....see it's the only real purpose it has..What about bombs?
Too indiscriminate. Guns are much more efficient, not to mention easier to get.
Also easier to conceal and transport.
Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?
Having known many gun owners they all speak with a brave voice that is drenched in fear of everything....the unknown.....the boogie man waiting for them.....the secret intruder....It's the only reason they own a gun.....fear
Exactly! How many lives do you sustain with your gun? Oh, wait..........
Please stop talking common sense it confuses those who use wild exaggerations to try to prove a point
Like nobody would die in car accidents if there were no cars?
Sorry friend that is a such a sorry comparison since no one drives their car into a college/school and runs people down....there's difference between accidents and murder....
Yes you can use just about any object to hurt someone and yes there are many creations that are man made that cause death....but mans best creation for death is the gun....see it's the only real purpose it has..
What about bombs?
why do you always use extremes to prove a point....It shows you have no real connection to whats happening and it makes you look like a fool
Exactly! How many people live in your gun? How many kids do you take to school in your gun? Guns are made for killing. And if one is not afraid of being shot, why would one need a gun?
I don't own guns for self-defense, though I would use one for that purpose if the need arises.
That being said, like most any other gun ever made, it's highly doubtful mine will ever be used to take a human life.I enjoy shooting them. That's why I bought them.
Well, that's the most important thing.
Guns provide a lot of enjoyment and you don't even have to kill anything.
I'm not a big hunter. I enjoy Dove hunting to some degree, but I shot a
deer once and felt so bad I never did it again. The last thing I killed was
some kind of unidentified snake. Target shooting is very challenging and
something to work at and get better at.I even enjoy the side tasks. Polishing, cleaning, oiling...It's just a fun hobby
IMO.
This is the part that folks should realize they're just being needled for someone's entertainment...
We really just need to get used to the fact that mass shooting are going to be a normal part of living in America. There are so many guns out there already that the wrong people will already have access to them. I'd like to see more common sense background checks and training requirements for gun ownership, but realistically we are just closing the barn door after the animals have already left.
I'm curious how many of you have had a friend or aquantence shot or killed? I have had two friends murdered, one with a gun. Even if my friend had a gun himself, it would not have helped. I also had a client kill his son and then commit suicide. I never thought my client would have been able to do such a thing at the time, although he did always have anger issues. I'm not sure if stricter background checks might have kept him from owning a gun, but I do know that he would not have killed his son had he needed to use a different weapon. I also had a friend in collage get shot by a random bullet in his own bed. He is lucky that he was only grazed. Had he been sitting up in bed he would have been dead.
I find more logical discourse far more entertaining. Alloak's arguments have been nothing but illogical non-sense on this matter.
No one has suggested sane, mentally balanced should not be allowed to target practice or oil and stroke their "gun". The debate is about keeping guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed individuals. The debate is about licensing firearms and finding ways to make sure the people with the gun licenses aren't mentally impaired, drug addled, and booze soaked nut jobs. The debate should be about getting the guns out of the hands of the criminals and gang members. Mass confiscation of all guns? I haven't heard that proposed by anyone except paranoid right wingers.
Yet, who wouldn't support a mass roundup of illegal guns in Chicago? Or a national mass confiscation of unregistered weapons? The right wants to get rid of all the "illegal, unregistered immigrants" where is the call to get rid of all the "illegal, unregistered guns"?
A little consistency would be nice.
Anyone notice Obama’s presser immediately after the Umpqua Community College shooting? The residents of Roseburg sure did hear what they call Obama standing on the corpses of their fallen to push his politically motivated gun control rhetoric. They were not at all happy that Obama was speaking before the victims had all been identified and the families notified.
The people of Roseburg, after hearing that Obama would be visiting their town on Friday, have said Obama is not welcome there.
Obama called yet again for gun safety laws and chastised Congress for not getting the legislation done. Of course and as usual, Obama offered no proposed legislation himself.
The tragedy in Roseburg is front page news but it is nothing more than an average weekend in Chicago. Over the least two weekends in Chicago there were 111 shootings. Since 2012 there have been over 6,000 shootings in Chicago. This in a city with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. But Obama never mentions these facts. Obama’s selective outrage is appalling.
People have been posting “45 mass murders… blah blah blah” Much of that misleading data comes from websites like shooter tracker. Look beyond the list and to the actual reasons for these shootings. By far, most are gang related. Gang bangers don’t acquire guns at a gun store. So where are the politicians calling for a crack down on gang violence?
One of the glaring problems in the epidemic of shootings in the U.S. is the failed mental health system and the complete disconnect between the mental health system and the federal background check system After Sandy Hook Obama promised the country he would fix this problem and then promptly did nothing.
In addition to the mental health issue is an obvious failure of the judicial system to prosecute the criminals who commit crimes using a gun and the handcuffs politicians put on law enforcement precluding them from doing their job. It is much more popular for politicians to call for police officers to be investigated than to call for law enforcement.
The vote-for-me politicians have been using this shooting as they usually do:
We need a “universal gun background system!
- What good is that when the federal system does not work? The FBI admitted so in the Charleston Church shooting.
Gun Free Zones!
- A gun free zone is nothing more than a criminal protection zone
Close the gun show loophole!
- The FBI reports that less than two-tenths of one percent of the shootings in the U.S. was committed by someone using a gun purchased at a gun show.
Ever notice that not one of the politicians calling for these knee-jerk control laws offers a bill? These politicians much like the celebrities who parrot the same are all surrounded by armed security personnel?
Gun control laws are only obeyed by law abiding citizens. Criminal do not follow the law.
Many Democrats who are socialists in a suit call for gun control laws and even the seizure of the peoples guns because a disarmed population is compliant.
A way to lower gun violence:
1.) Strengthen and enforce the federal gun purchase background check system.
2.) Fix the mental health/background check system disconnect.
3.) Start actually enforcing the laws already on the books and modify them as law enforcement identifies deficiencies.
4.) Prosecute criminals who use a gun and lock them up for x-# of years for using a gun in addition for the crime committed.
5.) Police Departments know where the crime zones are where the shooting are happening. Raid them, arrest the people holding illegal guns and prosecute them with no plea-bargains.
6.) Do not vote for any politician who “calls for” but never offers legislation.
Do you even know if your congressman and senators have actually proposed and fought for a bill that would in reality reduce gun violence?
Do you even know if your state legislator or Governor have actually proposed and fought for a bill that would in reality reduce gun violence?
What is the politician you voted for doing about this problem?
Source? 😛
Source?
Inner-city gun violence is not relevant to the gun control debate IMO. Apples and oranges. Any attempt to establish a link between the two is an intentional effort to misrepresent the actual issue.
Criminals and gangsters will always get guns, no matter what. No law will ever stop gang warfare in our cities. Stop and frisk would help, and I oppose the liberal's POV on this. It worked in NYC and I simply don't care if you are wrongly stopped. I was falsely arrested once and it was a mere slight inconvenience. A small price for safer streets. 2nd, thugs CHOOSE a life of crime and know that murder is likely if you CHOOSE to put yourself in that situation. I would imagine that an overwhelming majority of inner city victims were involved in criminal activity. Therefore, we shouldn't be focusing on people who choose that life. Maybe I'm wrong to characterize these victims as such, but my gut tells me they are not random innocents.
This debate is to protect innocent Americans who choose a life of good. This debate is about preventing homegrown terrorists (mass shooters) from killing random innocents. These shooters CAN be identified before a rampage - our police do it all the time. All police recruits undergo a psychological evaluation to determine stability, and I have proof that they work - they weeded out someone I know to be bipolar and violent. This person was denied by THREE major city police departments for failing the psychological evaluation - IT WORKS. The problem? This person went on to not only get a license to purchase, but also a concealed carry permit. I fear that person now.
Knowing these tests exist and work, and used daily by our nation's finest, there is no reason not to do the same for aspiring gun owners. This would absolutely prevent dangerous people from buying a gun so easily.
Inner-city gun violence is not relevant to the gun control debate IMO. Apples and oranges. Any attempt to establish a link between the two is an intentional effort to misrepresent the actual issue.
Criminals and gangsters will always get guns, no matter what. No law will ever stop gang warfare in our cities. Stop and frisk would help, and I oppose the liberal's POV on this. It worked in NYC and I simply don't care if you are wrongly stopped. I was falsely arrested once and it was a mere slight inconvenience. A small price for safer streets. 2nd, thugs CHOOSE a life of crime and know that murder is likely if you CHOOSE to put yourself in that situation. I would imagine that an overwhelming majority of inner city victims were involved in criminal activity. Therefore, we shouldn't be focusing on people who choose that life. Maybe I'm wrong to characterize these victims as such, but my gut tells me they are not random innocents.
This debate is to protect innocent Americans who choose a life of good. This debate is about preventing homegrown terrorists (mass shooters) from killing random innocents. These shooters CAN be identified before a rampage - our police do it all the time. All police recruits undergo a psychological evaluation to determine stability, and I have proof that they work - they weeded out someone I know to be bipolar and violent. This person was denied by THREE major city police departments for failing the psychological evaluation - IT WORKS. The problem? This person went on to not only get a license to purchase, but also a concealed carry permit. I fear that person now.
Knowing these tests exist and work, and used daily by our nation's finest, there is no reason not to do the same for aspiring gun owners. This would absolutely prevent dangerous people from buying a gun so easily.
Really?
http://fox8.com/2015/10/02/enough-is-enough-four-young-children-shot-in-cleveland-in-a-month/
Anyone notice Obama’s presser immediately after the Umpqua Community College shooting? The residents of Roseburg sure did hear what they call Obama standing on the corpses of their fallen to push his politically motivated gun control rhetoric. They were not at all happy that Obama was speaking before the victims had all been identified and the families notified.
The people of Roseburg, after hearing that Obama would be visiting their town on Friday, have said Obama is not welcome there.
The source is one man, David Jacques, who writes for a tiny tiny online newsletter called the Roseburg Beacon. I doubt he speaks for the entire community. Bill O'Reilly decided to pick it up as if this man's politically motivated rhetoric was a fact.
The corpses are the motivation for gun control.
[Edited on 10/6/2015 by porkchopbob]
Tbomike, I said an overwhelming majority - still believe it to be true.
I still can't figure out why people are focused on Obama's reaction. Who cares what he said or did? You have choices about what to write in this thread. We have terrorists killing children on a regular basis and some only seem to care about Obama. He hasn't done anything on gun control since he started. What agenda? What do you think he is going to do before he leaves office? He will do NOTHING!!! So why worry?
Anyone notice Obama’s presser immediately after the Umpqua Community College shooting? The residents of Roseburg sure did hear what they call Obama standing on the corpses of their fallen to push his politically motivated gun control rhetoric. They were not at all happy that Obama was speaking before the victims had all been identified and the families notified.
The people of Roseburg, after hearing that Obama would be visiting their town on Friday, have said Obama is not welcome there.The source is one man, David Jacques, who writes for a tiny tiny online newsletter called the Roseburg Beacon. I doubt he speaks for the entire community. Bill O'Reilly decided to pick it up as if this man's politically motivated rhetoric was a fact.
The corpses are the motivation for gun control.
[Edited on 10/6/2015 by porkchopbob]
_________________________________________________________________________
"I doubt he speaks for the entire community"
- How would you know what the towns people think?
"The corpses are the motivation for gun control"
- All the weapons the Roseburg shooter had were purchased legally. Exactly what "gun control" legislation do you propose?
It is easy to yell "gun control", "universal background checks", "gun free zones" and all the other very general, unspecific lines. Those who speak such things never seem to have any thing to offer that would actually begin to solve the problem.
How would you get it done?
I still can't figure out why people are focused on Obama's reaction. Who cares what he said or did? You have choices about what to write in this thread. We have terrorists killing children on a regular basis and some only seem to care about Obama. He hasn't done anything on gun control since he started. What agenda? What do you think he is going to do before he leaves office? He will do NOTHING!!! So why worry?
_________________________________________________________________________
Because Obama is, sadly, the current president who, when it fits his political and social justice agenda goes running to the TV cameras when these incidents happen. Of course as hundreds are slaughtered on the street of the cities democrats run he has nothing to say.
Leadership matters and The U.S. currently has a void there.
Anyone notice Obama’s presser immediately after the Umpqua Community College shooting? The residents of Roseburg sure did hear what they call Obama standing on the corpses of their fallen to push his politically motivated gun control rhetoric. They were not at all happy that Obama was speaking before the victims had all been identified and the families notified.
The people of Roseburg, after hearing that Obama would be visiting their town on Friday, have said Obama is not welcome there.The source is one man, David Jacques, who writes for a tiny tiny online newsletter called the Roseburg Beacon. I doubt he speaks for the entire community. Bill O'Reilly decided to pick it up as if this man's politically motivated rhetoric was a fact.
The corpses are the motivation for gun control.
[Edited on 10/6/2015 by porkchopbob]
_______________________________________________________________________
"a tiny tiny online newsletter"
- Do you really need to lie to cover for Obama?
The Roseburg Beacon is the local print newspaper which, as most others do, has an online edition.
There have been numerous interviews with the local residents and they do not want Obama in their town.
Roseburg Newspaper Publisher Delivers Brutal Message to Obama Ahead of President’s Plans to Visit Shooting Victims’ Families
Oct. 6, 2015 10:02am Jon Street – The Blaze
The publisher of a local newspaper in Roseburg, Oregon, says President BarackObama isn’t welcome there.
Obama will travel to Roseburg on Friday to meet with victims’ families one week after a gunman fatally shot nine people on the campus of Umpqua Community College.
David Jaques, the publisher of the conservative Roseburg Beacon, said on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday that if Obama makes the trip, he will be “stand[ing] on the corpses” of those who died in the mass shooting.
“Well, I think the president, first of all, is not welcome in the community,” Jaques said. “And that isn’t just my opinion. We’ve talked to dozens upon dozens of citizens, some family members of the victims, our elected officials.”
Jaques referred to Obama’s White House news conference on Friday in which the president said of the shooting, “this is something we should politicize.” Obama renewed his call for stricter gun control measures, calling on Congress, governors and state legislators to act on the gun control issue.
“Now he wants to come to our community to stand on the corpses of our loved ones to make some kind of a political point and it isn’t going to be well-received,” Jaques said.
I still can't figure out why people are focused on Obama's reaction. Who cares what he said or did? You have choices about what to write in this thread. We have terrorists killing children on a regular basis and some only seem to care about Obama. He hasn't done anything on gun control since he started. What agenda? What do you think he is going to do before he leaves office? He will do NOTHING!!! So why worry?
_________________________________________________________________________
Because Obama is, sadly, the current president who, when it fits his political and social justice agenda goes running to the TV cameras when these incidents happen. Of course as hundreds are slaughtered on the street of the cities democrats run he has nothing to say.
Leadership matters and The U.S. currently has a void there.
As soon he runs to the cameras, he gives the firearm industry another boost. His speech
on the Oregon incident probably sold 100,000 additional guns. He's done more for the
firearm industry than Edison for electricity.
I still can't figure out why people are focused on Obama's reaction. Who cares what he said or did? You have choices about what to write in this thread. We have terrorists killing children on a regular basis and some only seem to care about Obama. He hasn't done anything on gun control since he started. What agenda? What do you think he is going to do before he leaves office? He will do NOTHING!!! So why worry?
_________________________________________________________________________
Because Obama is, sadly, the current president who, when it fits his political and social justice agenda goes running to the TV cameras when these incidents happen. Of course as hundreds are slaughtered on the street of the cities democrats run he has nothing to say.
Leadership matters and The U.S. currently has a void there.
As soon he runs to the cameras, he gives the firearm industry another boost. His speech
on the Oregon incident probably sold 100,000 additional guns. He's done more for the
firearm industry than Edison for electricity.
_________________________________________________________________________
The TV cameras must have an effect on Obama and telling the truth:
President Obama Contradicts Gun Violence Statistics Mentioned After UCC Shooting
Heather Tooley - 10/2/2015 1:20pm EDT
President Obama contradicted a few things in his speech on gun violence following the UCC shooting in Oregon on Thursday. The nation's leader was understandably and visibly upset when he responded to the mass shooting in Roseburg that took the lives of 13 people and injured 20 others at Umpqua Community College.
There are speculative reports that UCC is a gun-free zone. Unfortunately, it didn't stop yet another crazed gunman to show up and open fire.
When Obama gave his scathing speech in wake of the UCC shooting, he emphasized that states with the toughest firearm laws have statistically lower rates of gun violence. This gave several members of the media a chance to do some fact-checking of Obama's statements.
According to Yahoo News, Oregon is "above average in terms of gun regulation." This information comes from Laura Cutilletta, a senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which is a leading advocacy group in California. Cutilletta reveals that elected officials in the state made universal background checks mandatory before the sale of any firearm in Oregon earlier this year. This makes Oregon one of the 18 out of 50 states to implement this regulation.
After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2013, congress failed to pass stronger laws designed to cut down on gun violence. Cutilletta told AFP that this why her advocacy group tries to focus on the states making changes instead.
Chicago, where Obama is from, is in a state where some of the most stringent gun control laws exist in America. Shootings there are notoriously rampant.
"You don’t even mention the carnage in Chicago. You mention the individual things, like what happened in Oregon. But Chicago, it’s like it doesn’t even exist."
President Obama made contradictory comments in his speech following the UCC shooting. Clearly, this is a hot button issue in the nation and in politics that won't disappear anytime soon.
Chicago Killing Fields data:
As soon he runs to the cameras, he gives the firearm industry another boost. His speech
on the Oregon incident probably sold 100,000 additional guns. He's done more for the
firearm industry than Edison for electricity.
That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that it's the melon headed ass napkins, like the shooter's Mom, who are actually buying the guns because of Right Wing incitement.
Hey Muleman... guess what... the guns in Chicago are being purchased in other States and brought across State lines. Your argument totally discounts reality.
Sheesh. The king of the ass napkins.
We have terrorists killing children on a regular basis and some only seem to care about Obama. He hasn't done anything on gun control since he started. What agenda? What do you think he is going to do before he leaves office? He will do NOTHING!!! So why worry?
Please don't confuse the mutant trolls with facts. 😛
And if Obama didn't say anything, he would be vilified for not caring or not speaking out.......
Can anyone answer why you would oppose a mandatory classroom training course, exam, and physical demonstration on safety and accuracy in order to get a gun license?
