# And the shootings go on and on , and on, and on...



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 1, 2019)

We've done this to death- gun violence. I was going to talk about the 10, who were wounded yesterday, but now , another mass shooting, there are more dead and wounded. only moments ago. We have a monstrous hurricaine bearing down on the US. But this holiday weekend, more people will meet death at the end of a barrel of a gun than in an Act of God. We are the ones killing ourselves. We've had over 30 years of mass shootings. And for  everyday we stick our heads in the sand, and look the other way, waiting for our anger to vanish, the death toll piles up. How many more men, women and children have to be needlessly sacrificed before, we actually do something about it.
BTW, I meant to write this- what- at least 5 shootings ago.


----------



## rgp (Sep 1, 2019)

fuzzybuddy said:


> We've done this to death- gun violence. I was going to talk about the 10, who were wounded yesterday, but now , another mass shooting, there are more dead and wounded. only moments ago. We have a monstrous hurricaine bearing down on the US. But this holiday weekend, more people will meet death at the end of a barrel of a gun than in an Act of God. We are the ones killing ourselves. We've had over 30 years of mass shootings. And for  everyday we stick our heads in the sand, and look the other way, waiting for our anger to vanish, the death toll piles up. How many more men, women and children have to be needlessly sacrificed before, we actually do something about it.
> BTW, I meant to write this- what- at least 5 shootings ago.




 And what would you suggest we do about it ?


----------



## 911 (Sep 1, 2019)

The shooting all started with a routine traffic stop and ended with the shooter being killed. 

Today, Texas’ new gun laws took effect with looser restrictions for guns and ammo. I don’t know a lot about the new laws, but I remember reading that citizens of Texas will be less restricted to where and how they store guns. One part of the law did kind of surprise me. People will be allowed to store guns in their vehicles, even on school property. 

Last week, I wrote 6 letters to my home state’s members of Congress, both at the state and federal level, urging for stronger gun control laws. There isn’t much more that I can do by myself. I expect to get another form letter back like I always have before.


----------



## Pecos (Sep 1, 2019)

911 said:


> The shooting all started with a routine traffic stop and ended with the shooter being killed.
> 
> Today, Texas’ new gun laws took effect with looser restrictions for guns and ammo. I don’t know a lot about the new laws, but I remember reading that citizens of Texas will be less restricted to where and how they store guns. One part of the law did kind of surprise me. People will be allowed to store guns in their vehicles, even on school property.
> 
> Last week, I wrote 6 letters to my home state’s members of Congress, both at the state and federal level, urging for stronger gun control laws. There isn’t much more that I can do by myself. I expect to get another form letter back like I always have before.



That's what we get here in South Carolina, form letters and more form letters.


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 1, 2019)

911 said:


> One part of the law did kind of surprise me. People will be allowed to store guns in their vehicles, even on school property.



Growing up, it wasn't unusual to see guys at my high school that drove pickups and hunted to have a couple of rear window rifle mounts at school.  But that was during deer season, and they stuck to deer, not humans.    WTH has changed?


----------



## 911 (Sep 1, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> Growing up, it wasn't unusual to see guys at my high school that drove pickups and hunted to have a couple of rear window rifle mounts at school.  But that was during deer season, and they stuck to deer, not humans.    WTH has changed?



Same here, but for some kids, the guns don’t stay put.


----------



## Judycat (Sep 1, 2019)

rgp said:


> And what would you suggest we do about it ?


Keep your eyes open and your head down. It's becoming like the Old West when the law was a six gun. Now it's automatic weapons. Only the weapons have changed.


----------



## Timetrvlr (Sep 1, 2019)

rgp said:


> And what would you suggest we do about it ?


Outlaw *all* automatic weapons and *all *handguns for private citizens. They have no other use than to kill people. Rifles with 5 round magazines and long-barrel shotguns are used for hunting game. Declare the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and disband it. This is not 1870 Dodge City!


----------



## win231 (Sep 1, 2019)

Timetrvlr said:


> Outlaw *all* automatic weapons and *all *handguns for private citizens. They have no other use than to kill people. Rifles with 5 round magazines and long-barrel shotguns are used for hunting game. Declare the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and disband it. This is not 1870 Dodge City!


Yes, guns are made for killing.  And I'm very glad they are.  Sometimes, surviving an interaction with a criminal means killing.  Why do you suppose police officers carry guns? 
You're right about one thing - "This is not 1870 Dodge City."  Unlike 1870, we don't execute criminals; we parole them.


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 1, 2019)

911 said:


> Same here, but for some kids, the guns don’t stay put.



These days.    That wasn't the case when I was growing up.  What changed?    I've been looking at this mass shooting list by date (can select by date at the top of the column) and the uptick seems to start in the 80s. Westside Middle School shooting in 1998 seems to be the first time kids went hunting at school ...for their classmates.   Columbine was a little over a year after that.

1980s technology brought us cable TV and in-home video games.   Can't help but think that those were game changers.  The 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre would've been the first to generate cable TV coverage and it seems to snowball from there looking at the list linked above.


----------



## win231 (Sep 1, 2019)

911 said:


> The shooting all started with a routine traffic stop and ended with the shooter being killed.
> 
> Today, Texas’ new gun laws took effect with looser restrictions for guns and ammo. I don’t know a lot about the new laws, but I remember reading that citizens of Texas will be less restricted to where and how they store guns. One part of the law did kind of surprise me. People will be allowed to store guns in their vehicles, even on school property.
> 
> Last week, I wrote 6 letters to my home state’s members of Congress, both at the state and federal level, urging for stronger gun control laws. There isn’t much more that I can do by myself. I expect to get another form letter back like I always have before.


People will be allowed to carry guns in churches & synagogues & also during evacuations.  Texas is starting to get it.  A quote from a congressman:
"We have learned many times over that there is no such thing as a gun free zone. Those with evil intentions will violate the law and carry out their heinous acts no matter what," state Sen. Donna Campbell, co-sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. "It makes no sense to disarm the good guys and leave law-abiding citizens defenseless where violent offenders break the law to do great harm."


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 1, 2019)

delete


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Sep 1, 2019)

Let's be honest. While we talk about "gun control", the NRA & friends have made Swiss Cheese out of those laws, so that enforcement is laughable.
And the gun nuts in places like Texas, want to implant weapons in fetus's hands at the moment of conception. Having a weapon is a license to kill, and we really don't care who gets one.


----------



## Trade (Sep 1, 2019)

911 said:


> Last week, I wrote 6 letters to my home state’s members of Congress, both at the state and federal level, urging for stronger gun control laws. There isn’t much more that I can do by myself. I expect to get another form letter back like I always have before.




I did that a few times in the distant past on several different issues. Got responses on about 1/2 of them all of which were form letters obviously written by some $10 an hour legislative aide. Decided not to waste any more of my time on that.


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 1, 2019)

Timetrvlr said:


> Outlaw *all* automatic weapons and *all *handguns for private citizens. They have no other use than to kill people. Rifles with 5 round magazines and long-barrel shotguns are used for hunting game. Declare the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and disband it. This is not 1870 Dodge City!





win231 said:


> People will be allowed to carry guns in churches & synagogues & also during evacuations.  Texas is starting to get it.  A quote from a congressman:
> "We have learned many times over that there is no such thing as a gun free zone. Those with evil intentions will violate the law and carry out their heinous acts no matter what," state Sen. Donna Campbell, co-sponsor of the bill, said in a statement. "It makes no sense to disarm the good guys and leave law-abiding citizens defenseless where violent offenders break the law to do great harm."



'Solutions' from polar opposite views and both would bring about full out war zone scenarios.


----------



## Knight (Sep 1, 2019)

Why not put this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercomputer 
to use analyzing gun laws? The quantity of gun laws isn't working. I think analyzing what does work would be a step forward. In putting the type of murders, everything from single to mass murders by guns & the guns used should come up with some usable info. 

Next would be presenting the unbiased analysis to all Americans. If the general public were shown what laws the analysis generated as one set of gun laws  calculated to be the best option to prevent "most" deaths by guns. The other factors generated would help to identify & work towards a process to "reduce" whatever those might be.  Then adoption by all 50 states should be up to the voting public. 


Note I posted "most" & "reduce". I doubt there ever will be complete stoppage of death by use of a gun.


----------



## rgp (Sep 1, 2019)

Timetrvlr said:


> Outlaw *all* automatic weapons and *all *handguns for private citizens. They have no other use than to kill people. Rifles with 5 round magazines and long-barrel shotguns are used for hunting game. Declare the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and disband it. This is not 1870 Dodge City!




 There are so many already out there, "out-lawing" wouldn't make a dent in accessibility . 

 Quicker & more harsh prosecution & punishment of the guilty would have more impact on the situation {IMO} And make it known on national media.

 Myself & I'll assume you are law-abiding people, with no nefarious thoughts or feelings. A such, I have no idea how to obtain one of these weapons now, & or after your suggested law would go into effect. But those that are a-tad off ? Could very likely obtain a half-dozen by supper time. 

And before you suggest confiscation .... just think about the bloodshed that would bring about! Out & out war between the gov, and the gun owners / holders.


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 1, 2019)

rgp said:


> ...And before you suggest confiscation .... just think about the bloodshed that would bring about! Out & out war between the gov, and the gun owners / holders.



Agreed.  We desperately need some sort of fix, but that's not it.  No one I've ever seen suggest it says they're willing to knock on doors to take guns away.  Not even on message boards.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2019)

US is a democracy, is it not? There are apparently two bills that have been passed in the Reps but being kept from consideration in the Senate. Would it hurt to debate them and put them to a vote?


----------



## win231 (Sep 1, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> 'Solutions' from polar opposite views and both would bring about full out war zone scenarios.


When something doesn't work, we can't just keep doing it & expect different results.  Much like the fly that keeps trying to get out but he keeps hitting the window.
The scenario now:  Armed psycho who ignores gun restrictions walks in & kills whoever he wants & no one can stop him because it's a "Gun Free Zone" & law-abiding citizens won't break the law that prohibits guns.  Police are called, but during the few minutes before they arrive, many are killed.  Result is a high death toll of innocents.

Possible future scenario:  Armed psycho who ignores gun restrictions walks in & starts shooting.  Several armed people are able to stop him (or at least distract him) before the death toll is high.
I prefer the 2nd "war zone" scenario.


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 1, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> US is a democracy, is it not? There are apparently two bills that have been passed in the Reps but being kept from consideration in the Senate. Would it hurt to debate them and put them to a vote?



The problem is that hardly any legislation is straightforward in Congress.  Too many political games.  And then "United States" means just that.  State's rights to set their own legislation comes into play.


----------



## win231 (Sep 1, 2019)

fuzzybuddy said:


> Let's be honest. While we talk about "gun control", the NRA & friends have made Swiss Cheese out of those laws, so that enforcement is laughable.
> And the gun nuts in places like Texas, want to implant weapons in fetus's hands at the moment of conception. Having a weapon is a license to kill, and we really don't care who gets one.


If criminals obeyed laws, more laws would work.  How simple that would be.


----------



## 911 (Sep 1, 2019)

Back when I was part of the Governor’s security team, I had one on one access with several different legislators. There were times when we would have some really good discussions on some issues of that era such as, tax reform and education. Anytime I would bring up gun control, whoever I was speaking with, would give me the stop sign and tell me not to even go there. 

On one such occasion when that happened, I asked the person if he was afraid of the NRA like we always hear about. This particular person told me that it’s not so much about the NRA as it is about the 2000+ gun dealers in this state. They can be even more ruthless than the NRA. He said that they put up signs in their business that so and so Senator wants to take away or limit the number of guns that you may own.  Then, he says, “They just aren’t people you know, they are also votes.”


----------



## Trade (Sep 1, 2019)

911 said:


> Back when I was part of the Governor’s security team, I had one on one access with several different legislators. There were times when we would have some really good discussions on some issues of that era such as, tax reform and education. Anytime I would bring up gun control, whoever I was speaking with, would give me the stop sign and tell me not to even go there.
> 
> On one such occasion when that happened, I asked the person if he was afraid of the NRA like we always hear about. This particular person told me that it’s not so much about the NRA as it is about the 2000+ gun dealers in this state. They can be even more ruthless than the NRA. He said that they put up signs in their business that so and so Senator wants to take away or limit the number of guns that you may own.  Then, he says, “They just aren’t people you know, they are also votes.”



That reminds me of a sign I saw in front of a Florida gun shop a few weeks before the 2016 election. It read "Get your guns before Hillary does".


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2019)

win231 said:


> When something doesn't work, we can't just keep doing it & expect different results.  Much like the fly that keeps trying to get out but he keeps hitting the window.
> The scenario now:  Armed psycho who ignores gun restrictions walks in & kills whoever he wants & no one can stop him because it's a "Gun Free Zone" & law-abiding citizens won't break the law that prohibits guns.  Police are called, but during the few minutes before they arrive, many are killed.  Result is a high death toll of innocents.
> 
> Possible future scenario:  Armed psycho who ignores gun restrictions walks in & starts shooting.  Several armed people are able to stop him (or at least distract him) before the death toll is high.
> I prefer the 2nd "war zone" scenario.


That didn't happen in the Walmart shooting even though the law in that state allowed open carry. Am I wrong?


----------



## Don M. (Sep 1, 2019)

Something is going seriously wrong in our society in the past few years.  Unfortunately, most of these mass shooters are killed, and their motivation remains a mystery.  I suspect there is a "copycat" element in some of these incidents...as the shooter see's all the media attention the other killers are getting.  I have no idea of what a possible solution might be, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that this situation cannot be allowed to grow.  Increased Gun Control measures would most likely affect only those who are law abiding and quite unlikely to ever commit a crime.  Mental Health has been neglected for decades, and it has become "politically incorrect" to even Infer that someone might be unstable.  There have been a couple of recent incidents where someone has made some really disturbing comments on Social Media, and those comments have been reported to the law...and probably stopped even more shootings.  I guess for now, the best advice is "see something, say something".


----------



## norman (Sep 1, 2019)

Timetrvlr said:


> Outlaw *all* automatic weapons and *all *handguns for private citizens. They have no other use than to kill people. Rifles with 5 round magazines and long-barrel shotguns are used for hunting game. Declare the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and disband it. This is not 1870 Dodge City!


Don't agree with your thinking, but after the revolution you may get your wish.  When guns become illegal,  expect oppression.  A very alarming phenomenal known as disrespect for law and order appears to be on the horizon.  If the pendulum swings to far in any direction and reaches the point of no return....we just might be, what do you think?


----------



## win231 (Sep 1, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> That didn't happen in the Walmart shooting even though the law in that state allowed open carry. Am I wrong?


I'm not familiar with the laws in that state, but I'm not in favor of open carry.  I'm in favor of concealed carry for qualified individuals.


----------



## 911 (Sep 1, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> That didn't happen in the Walmart shooting even though the law in that state allowed open carry. Am I wrong?



I apologize, but I’m not sure that I fully understand your question. In my state and in most other states, commercial property is considered as private property and therefore; the 2nd Amendment does not apply. Even if I have a carry permit, Walmart would be entitled to post a “No Weapons Allowed” sign and if anyone is carrying, they would be asked or made to leave. Of course, everyone knows that Walmart does allow guns into their stores, so long as the holder has a carry permit.

The argument has usually been that if malls and the like disallowed guns, they may become a target. No one is going to walk up to another person and ask them if they are carrying a gun, but if someone should see it and is uncomfortable with it being so available, that person may ask a Walmart Supervisor if they would ask the person carrying the gun to please return it to their vehicle.

I have seen manufacturing companies having signs on their fence stating, “No Weapons Permitted.” And, we all know that schools do not allow guns into their buildings. Even having a pen knife may be a violation in some schools. I have been called to schools because a kid came to school with a knife. What boy didn’t carry a pocketknife, even to school back in the day?

I carry my weapon most every time I go away from the house and my neighbor has his strapped on around the house. I used to ask him, “Expecting trouble?” He would say, “You never know.”


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 1, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> Growing up, it wasn't unusual to see guys at my high school that drove pickups and hunted to have a couple of rear window rifle mounts at school.  But that was during deer season, and they stuck to deer, not humans.    WTH has changed?



I often see this type of post.;

So then.  Why not go back to the guns that the guys at high school had? 

The guns now can kill ten people in 30 seconds.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 1, 2019)

rgp said:


> And what would you suggest we do about it ?



The average individual can't do a thing about it.

It's up to the representatives.  And they don't want to do anything about it.


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 1, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> I often see this type of post.;
> 
> So then.  Why not go back to the guns that the guys at high school had?
> 
> The guns now can kill ten people in 30 seconds.




The type of gun wasn't the point of the post.  The point was kids didn't shoot people back in those days regardless of what type gun.

And I continued that in post 10 -- can't do a damn thing about it, but it's something I'm trying to understand.  Where was the cultural shift?

Post 10:

What changed?    I've been looking at this mass shooting list by date (can select by date at the top of the column) and the uptick seems to start in the 80s. Westside Middle School shooting in 1998 seems to be the first time kids went hunting at school ...for their classmates.   Columbine was a little over a year after that.​​1980s technology brought us cable TV and in-home video games.   Can't help but think that those were game changers.  The 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre would've been the first to generate cable TV coverage and it seems to snowball from there looking at the list linked above.​


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2019)

> The argument has usually been that if malls and the like disallowed guns, they may become a target.



This makes no sense to me at all because no-one walks around shopping centres where I live carrying any sort of gun, law enforcement excepted. We don't need a sign saying no guns because no-one would even think that they had the right to walk around in a mall ready to shoot someone else. It is just crazy. Malls are places where families come to shop bringing their toddlers and babies in strollers. If guns are allowed, how about a sign advising people not to bring the family, or better still, for maximum personal safety, to shop online.

We did have one random shooting attack at a mall in Sydney about 30 years ago. That is it and since then national legislation has been enacted and peace has been restored.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...1/news-story/0b2dc758349ba16431a2ded805746c3a


----------



## Sunny (Sep 1, 2019)

Instead of confiscation, how about buy-back?


----------



## 911 (Sep 1, 2019)

win231 said:


> When something doesn't work, we can't just keep doing it & expect different results.  Much like the fly that keeps trying to get out but he keeps hitting the window.
> The scenario now:  Armed psycho who ignores gun restrictions walks in & kills whoever he wants & no one can stop him because it's a "Gun Free Zone" & law-abiding citizens won't break the law that prohibits guns.  Police are called, but during the few minutes before they arrive, many are killed.  Result is a high death toll of innocents.
> 
> Possible future scenario:  Armed psycho who ignores gun restrictions walks in & starts shooting.  Several armed people are able to stop him (or at least distract him) before the death toll is high.
> I prefer the 2nd "war zone" scenario.



*“When something doesn’t work, we can’t just keeping doing it and expect different results.”*

Didn’t Einstein say that? Or, something like that?


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 1, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Instead of confiscation, how about buy-back?



You'd have to stop the appx 30 billion $ a year manufacturing and sales before that would work.   And there's something like 1.2 guns per person out there; that's one of the official stats that I'm guessing is lower than reality.  Assuming that's correct, you're looking at close to 400 million guns.


----------



## C'est Moi (Sep 1, 2019)

911 said:


> *“When something doesn’t work, we can’t just keeping doing it and expect different results.”*
> 
> Didn’t Einstein say that? Or, something like that?


The definition of insanity.   Einstein is widely credited with a definition of insanity which says that *it is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results*.


----------



## rgp (Sep 1, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Instead of confiscation, how about buy-back?




  Most gun owners I know would say .......... hell no! 

  If a guy , or a gal really believes that the only thing between them & gov, oppression is their gun ........... the ones I know would want so much for it, we tax payers couldn't afford to buy it back.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 1, 2019)

Buy backs are optional. Confiscation is for illegal weapons. Amnesty periods are designed to allow people to surrender illegal weapons without penalty. Every little bit helps. There is, pardon the pun, no silver bullet that fixes everything all at once.


----------



## 911 (Sep 1, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> This makes no sense to me at all because no-one walks around shopping centres where I live carrying any sort of gun, law enforcement excepted. We don't need a sign saying no guns because no-one would even think that they had the right to walk around in a mall ready to shoot someone else. It is just crazy. Malls are places where families come to shop bringing their toddlers and babies in strollers. If guns are allowed, how about a sign advising people not to bring the family, or better still, for maximum personal safety, to shop online.
> 
> We did have one random shooting attack at a mall in Sydney about 30 years ago. That is it and since then national legislation has been enacted and peace has been restored.
> 
> https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...1/news-story/0b2dc758349ba16431a2ded805746c3a



It makes perfect sense over here. If you do not allow guns into a mall, the peaceful, law abiding souls that do carry guns will leave them at home and those that would go to the mall to “make their rounds” (IOW, go on a shooting spree) would have free reign over everyone else, knowing that there is only a slight chance that someone may be carrying. 

I have to tell you, with being in law enforcement for 37 years, I was really tired of all the shootings. Parents killing their kids, kids killing their parents, friends killing friends, wives killing husbands, husbands killing wives, bad guys killing innocent people and on and on it goes with no end to the madness in sight. 

You don’t realize the depth of the depravity until you see what murder does up close and the families that are left behind have to also pay a heavy price. It’s bad enough to investigate an accident that involves kids, but when you have to go to a parent’s home at 3 in the morning and tell them that Jacob or Sarah was killed by gunfire earlier that evening, the parents let out screams that you will never forget. Then you go home and try to sleep, but all you do is to lie there thinking about what could’ve or should’ve been. And, that may last for the next few nights. 

Then, you go to the ME’s office to retrieve the bullet that killed your victim and you look at this small piece of metal in your hand and you wonder, “How can such a small piece of lead do so much damage, both physically and emotionally?” You shake your head and think, “This is insane.”


----------



## win231 (Sep 1, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> I often see this type of post.;
> 
> So then.  Why not go back to the guns that the guys at high school had?
> 
> The guns now can kill ten people in 30 seconds.


A very good reason.  The bad guys have those "guns that can kill ten people in 30 seconds."


----------



## win231 (Sep 1, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Instead of confiscation, how about buy-back?


Well, you are expecting a sick psycho to think like a normal human being.  A bit of logic would explain why a buy-back wouldn't help.
A nut case is planning a mass shooting & probably a suicide.  He hears about a gun buy-back where he can get a gift card for a couple of meals or maybe $100.00 for his gun (that's what they pay).
So....he has a change of heart & cancels his mass murder plan for a free meal or $100.00??


----------



## win231 (Sep 1, 2019)

911 said:


> *“When something doesn’t work, we can’t just keeping doing it and expect different results.”*
> 
> Didn’t Einstein say that? Or, something like that?


I think it was Einstein's definition of insanity.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

911 said:


> *“When something doesn’t work, we can’t just keeping doing it and expect different results.”*
> 
> Didn’t Einstein say that? Or, something like that?


Possible scenario? You are depending on luck. That hasn't worked either. A rifle against a handgun? And you can't shoot first.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

win231 said:


> A very good reason.  The bad guys have those "guns that can kill ten people in 30 seconds."


So then? Why even mention the way things 'used to be' if you can't go back to single shot .22's.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

win231 said:


> Well, you are expecting a sick psycho to think like a normal human being.  A bit of logic would explain why a buy-back wouldn't help.
> A nut case is planning a mass shooting & probably a suicide.  He hears about a gun buy-back where he can get a gift card for a couple of meals or maybe $100.00 for his gun (that's what they pay).
> So....he has a change of heart & cancels his mass murder plan for a free meal or $100.00??


So are you happy with the current status quo?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

norman said:


> Don't agree with your thinking, but after the revolution you may get your wish.  When guns become illegal,  expect oppression.  A very alarming phenomenal known as disrespect for law and order appears to be on the horizon.  If the pendulum swings to far in any direction and reaches the point of no return....we just might be, what do you think?


I often read about the 'oppression' theory. Homeowners against the armed forces? Say your prayers. Who determines oppression? Overthrowing the government by force is treason.


----------



## treeguy64 (Sep 2, 2019)

You are missing the reason for all of the horrible things going on: There are simply too many people in the world, today. Unconscionable over-breeding is the main reason we are in the horrendous situation that exists. Too many people are disenfranchised, finding themselves adrift in a sea of people who don't care about them, who ignore them or, worse, bully/mock them. Up close and personal interactions, especially those that provide comfort, relief and support, are hard to come by, even in one's own family, when said family consists of a brood whose offspring breed like rabbits. Confused and bitter, the rejected seek revenge.

Yeah, guns are readily available, easy to get for those planning a final reckoning with their imagined and/or real tormentors. That's beside the point, though. Read up on multiple killings involving knives, bombs, etc. Our species is good at improvising: If guns aren't available, then the rage of the deranged will find other ways to carry out mass killings.

When it comes to guns and their availability, there can be only one, unarguable truism to be stated, and restated: If owning guns is outlawed, only outlaws will own guns! No debate possible, sorry
​The rodent cage experiments of the late 50's, early 60's, on overpopulation, greatly effected my way of thinking about our world.  Those experiments helped explain so much of what we're seeing, now. The terrible thing is, they also show that things will only get worse, as our population continues to swell.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 2, 2019)

911 said:


> It makes perfect sense over here. If you do not allow guns into a mall, the peaceful, law abiding souls that do carry guns will leave them at home and those that would go to the mall to “make their rounds” (IOW, go on a shooting spree) would have free reign over everyone else, knowing that there is only a slight chance that someone may be carrying.
> 
> I have to tell you, with being in law enforcement for 37 years, I was really tired of all the shootings. Parents killing their kids, kids killing their parents, friends killing friends, wives killing husbands, husbands killing wives, bad guys killing innocent people and on and on it goes with no end to the madness in sight.
> 
> ...



Your post has me in tears, @911. How unspeakably dreadful for everyone.
As terrible as the planned massacres are - and they are indeed horrific - the majority of gun murders in this country seem to be spur-of-the-moment idiocy that only resulted in deaths because guns were handy.  (This recent shooting in Odessa, TX, would be a prime example.)  

Has that been your experience, or is my perspective skewed?


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 2, 2019)

The murderer/shooter identified as a Seth Ator. Had a a criminal record including evading police. He should be talked about as the killer or murderer of 7. Not the shooter or gunman-this isn't a movie or video game character.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...ecord-of-criminal-trespass-and-evading-arrest
And the look is someone who doesn't get it or doesn't care. Sadly confirmed.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 2, 2019)

When nothing was done after the Sandy Hook massacre of our little children it was obvious nothing will ever be one, ever!


----------



## chic (Sep 2, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> You are missing the reason for all of the horrible things going on: There are simply too many people in the world, today. Unconscionable over-breeding is the main reason we are in the horrendous situation that exists. Too many people are disenfranchised, finding themselves adrift in a sea of people who don't care about them, who ignore them or, worse, bully/mock them. Up close and personal interactions, especially those that provide comfort, relief and support, are hard to come by, even in one's own family, when said family consists of a brood whose offspring breed like rabbits. Confused and bitter, the rejected seek revenge.
> 
> Yeah, guns are readily available, easy to get for those planning a final reckoning with their imagined and/or real tormentors. That's beside the point, though. Read up on multiple killings involving knives, bombs, etc. Our species is good at improvising: If guns aren't available, then the rage of the deranged will find other ways to carry out mass killings.
> 
> ...



So what are we supposed to do about the disenfranchised masses?


----------



## win231 (Sep 2, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> So are you happy with the current status quo?


No one in their right mind is happy with the current status quo.  But that doesn't mean asinine suggestions will work.


----------



## treeguy64 (Sep 2, 2019)

a


chic said:


> So what are we supposed to do about the disenfranchised masses?


There is no solution to runaway population growth, except to discourage or legally prohibit the large families that keep expanding, unconscionably. China had a good idea that was implemented poorly, and then modified over time. 

As far as identifying those who may become crazed serial killers, it comes down to informing the correct parties when you come across those who are showing signs of being deeply disturbed and dangerous to themselves and others.  

Ultimately, there probably will not be a solution. Our species seems to be rushing towards its end. I expect that mass murders will become daily occurrences, in the coming years, and we will adjust as best we can.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 2, 2019)

Many other cities and countries are more densely populated than ours but they don't have the gun violence the US has.  The difference?  Their populations aren't armed to the teeth with the kinds of murder weapons that Americans have.


----------



## 911 (Sep 2, 2019)

StarSong said:


> Your post has me in tears, @911. How unspeakably dreadful for everyone.
> As terrible as the planned massacres are - and they are indeed horrific - the majority of gun murders in this country seem to be spur-of-the-moment idiocy that only resulted in deaths because guns were handy.  (This recent shooting in Odessa, TX, would be a prime example.)
> 
> Has that been your experience, or is my perspective skewed?



I was the second Trooper on the scene when a man entered an Amish school and initially took everyone inside the one-room school hostage. Once he secured the room, he released the boys, keeping the teacher and 10 girls. He shot 8 of the girls and killed 5 of the eight, 2 of them were sisters. After killing the girls, he then killed him self. There were no negotiations. I did not investigate this case because I was on patrol duty that day.

I did investigate a son killing his father. We also had a Trooper kill his pregnant wife accidentally. He did do jail time. How, or why do these things happen. There is no one-size fits all answer.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 2, 2019)

I remember well that horrific shooting at the Amish school and recall the Amish community's remarkable faith in the wake of it.  

What a heartbreaking scene that must have been for the families and first responders like yourself.


----------



## Knight (Sep 2, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> a
> 
> There is no solution to runaway population growth, except to discourage or legally prohibit the large families that keep expanding, unconscionably. China had a good idea that was implemented poorly, and then modified over time.
> 
> ...


Are you saying  saying our species seems to be rushing towards its end is God's plan?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

win231 said:


> No one in their right mind is happy with the current status quo.  But that doesn't mean asinine suggestions will work.


No suggestions won't work either.
If you suggest background checks the claim is they don't work. In fact any suggestion is turned down. So we are left with prayers and condolences.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

911 said:


> I was the second Trooper on the scene when a man entered an Amish school and initially took everyone inside the one-room school hostage. Once he secured the room, he released the boys, keeping the teacher and 10 girls. He shot 8 of the girls and killed 5 of the eight, 2 of them were sisters. After killing the girls, he then killed him self. There were no negotiations. If I’d not investigate this case because I was on patrol duty that day.
> 
> I did investigate a son killing his father. We also had Trooper kill his pregnant wife accidentally. He did do jail time. How, or why do these things happen. There is no one-size fits all answer.


If the Amish had a gun they wouldn't shoot the man.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

Knight said:


> Are you saying  saying our species seems to be rushing towards its end is God's plan?


God doesn't need a plan.


----------



## C'est Moi (Sep 2, 2019)

Personally, I blame the breakdown of family values coupled with the insane amount of hate and divisiveness on the various social media platforms.   Many parents are too busy taking selfies and worrying about their Kardashian-inspired lives to notice that their children are being raised as selfish, bullying, entitled brats without moral compass.   They allow computers, cellphones, etc. to be the "babysitter" instead of focusing on raising a responsible, even-tempered child.    Guns or no guns, the insanity is not going to stop.


----------



## win231 (Sep 2, 2019)

If guns are the problem, consider this:  If you handed the Pope an assault rifle, would he start shooting people?
And if I got my hands on a Ferrari, would I start racing it around my neighborhood?

I consider this a much-bigger factor in mass shootings & there is much evidence:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usne...-are-psychiatric-drugs-causing-mass-shootings


----------



## Knight (Sep 2, 2019)

As previously suggested why not feed a super computer all the information available like where, when, how many years, type of gun, gun laws in place, what country has the least death by guns and any other information that more learned people than me can think of to see what the analytical result is from a non human.


----------



## rgp (Sep 2, 2019)

People keep crying do something.........And again I ask, do what ?

Suggestions/demands......... end all gun sales, OK, and just how long do we think that will take . That will require a change in / amendment to, the constitution . Then the next thing will be the states appeals, etc. It would take 300 years for it to take effect .......... And make allot of rich lawyers along the way.

Next cry is to take away all existing guns. ....... OK, be ready for one of the bloodiest conflicts in American history......many,many innocents will die, on both sides of the conflict.

Then comes, gun buy-back.....yeah right, like that will happen. 

There is virtually nothing that can be done when some half crazed/fully crazed person decides that the taking of someone else's life, or the lives of several someone else's is somehow going to correct what he sees as wrong in their own life. 

IMO , once again , the only thing that makes any sense is swift & sure prosecution & severe punishment after such horrible incidents . And again let the public know that it has happened. Maybe then, these people will realize what is waiting for them , and ........ they will die at the hand of the people ....... so-to-speak................jmo


----------



## rgp (Sep 2, 2019)

C'est Moi said:


> Personally, I blame the breakdown of family values coupled with the insane amount of hate and divisiveness on the various social media platforms.   Many parents are too busy taking selfies and worrying about their Kardashian-inspired lives to notice that their children are being raised as selfish, bullying, entitled brats without moral compass.   They allow computers, cellphones, etc. to be the "babysitter" instead of focusing on raising a responsible, even-tempered child.    Guns or no guns, the insanity is not going to stop.




 I agree here, but how do we change [other] peoples behavior ? And their chosen way of life ?


----------



## rgp (Sep 2, 2019)

Knight said:


> As previously suggested why not feed a super computer all the information available like where, when, how many years, type of gun, gun laws in place, what country has the least death by guns and any other information that more learned people than me can think of to see what the analytical result is from a non human.




 And then do what with this information ?


----------



## win231 (Sep 2, 2019)

rgp said:


> People keep crying do something.........And again I ask, do what ?
> 
> Suggestions/demands......... end all gun sales, OK, and just how long do we think that will take . That will require a change in / amendment to, the constitution . Then the next thing will be the states appeals, etc. It would take 300 years for it to take effect .......... And make allot of rich lawyers along the way.
> 
> ...


The problem with that is....most of these perpetrators are not only willing to die, they WANT to die.  They frequently commit suicide before they're arrested.


----------



## rgp (Sep 2, 2019)

win231 said:


> The problem with that is....most of these perpetrators are not only willing to die, they WANT to die.  They frequently commit suicide before they're arrested.




 I agree it might not have effect on all the potential killers , but it might 'reach' a few of them. Besides, doing as I suggest saves tax dollars. By ending the seemingly endless appeals process . If they are beyond doubt guilty? Put'em in the ground.

Everything we are doing .... does not seem to work. Time to change . And anything involving the 'removal' of weapons is IMO out of reality.


----------



## jerry old (Sep 2, 2019)

The problem lies in the American Character, the elements of the problem can be pieced together and defined, if we do not throw
up our hands and say, 'That won't work in America.'

Switzerland: every able bodied male does 265 days of military training, target shooting is a national pastime, many, many citizens own their rifles, no automatic weapons, shooting range activities are a family active.  Yet, no mass shootings.

The Aussies, one mass killing, 38 people...Govt enacted gun control seized 600,000 weapons (voluntary turn-ins)
Killings were in 1996, none since that time.

There are many solutions, we must try them all.  Some won't work, some partial, do not give up, combine the elements that have limited success until you have a semi-solution; then keep amending, amending.  
Our politicians posture, lie, are for sale-- cheap, -big problem, plus the elections bring new blood in ever two years-how do we keep the
problem on the congressional table?

I am part of the problem, currently have several firearms; I've never lived in a home without guns.  You want me to give up my firearms?
That is a problem.

The problem can be solved, with resolve, on-going resolve from each political administration to the next administration,
We must hold those that enact  legislation perpetual attention.  That we do not lies in the lack of resolve with you and I.

The problem can be solved, it will take 10-20 years.  American's are notorious for their short attention spans.

Mental Illness is not the problem, other nations have as many people with mental illness (per capita) as we do.
It is a combination of traits, that involve you and me, because we live here.

There is a post regarding the 'duck and roll-,for school kids in the 1950's (A-bombs).
When rounds from a weapon are heard, 'GO TO GROUND,' then determine the source of the gun fire.  Those standing upright
are easy targets.
We have open carry in Texas,; those like me do not merit a license.  How do you measure one's temper control before issuing an open carry
license?  That's a problem that can be solved, but it will take money and perseverance...We are short on both traits.
 We can find a solution, but were too lazy to expend the labor, time (several years) and money.


----------



## jerry old (Sep 2, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> Growing up, it wasn't unusual to see guys at my high school that drove pickups and hunted to have a couple of rear window rifle mounts at school.  But that was during deer season, and they stuck to deer, not humans.    WTH has changed?


A      high dollar rifle in pickup was a status symbol.  Males and females lusted for a deer rifle that others would 'OOooohh and ahhhhh' over.
In the 1970's they disappeared, don't know the status now but with open carry, if not open carry, then it is legal to have a firearm in your car, it can't be illegal.  
To me, a person with a gun openly displayed is    saying, "I will shoot you.'


----------



## jerry old (Sep 2, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> 'Solutions' from polar opposite views and both would bring about full out war zone scenarios.


            People will be allowed to carry guns in churches & synagogues

On the lighter side, regarding several TV  preachers, a bullet in the butt may be helpful in correcting  their theological stance of 'send me money.'


----------



## Knight (Sep 2, 2019)

rgp said:


> And then do what with this information ?


Present the results to the American public. For example suppose the analysis came back with a list of laws that showed the most promise country wide. Also recommending deletion of those hat haven't worked at all in any state. The analysis showed a method of identifying those most likely to misuse a gun.

If mankind can be shown how to build, guide, fuel & set a mechanical explorer on Mars.  I tend to think analysis of the factors involved in why gun deaths are on the rise could use some Artificial Intelligence

Unlike polls inputting factual data to be analyzed is as far as I know not been tried. Relying on human instinct doesn't seem to be working.


----------



## Trade (Sep 2, 2019)




----------



## CallmeIshmael (Sep 2, 2019)

Hard to see how all the resistance to gun legislation has helped us - seems we've given this particular experiment a good run and it's not done too well.  A smart person once said: "insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results."


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 2, 2019)

I can't let this pass without comment. 


rgp said:


> People keep crying do something.........And again I ask, do what ?
> Whatever is to be done must be uniform across the entire country. Legislation needs to be measured and unable to be circumvented by crossing state lines.
> Suggestions/demands......... end all gun sales, OK, and just how long do we think that will take . That will require a change in / amendment to, the constitution . Then the next thing will be the states appeals, etc. It would take 300 years for it to take effect .......... And make allot of rich lawyers along the way.
> End all gun sales? Of course that won't work. No-one in their right mind would suggest that. If that is what you are hearing, there is something wrong with your ears.
> ...


----------



## CallmeIshmael (Sep 2, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> I can't let this pass without comment.



Agree with your responses.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

rgp said:


> People keep crying do something.........And again I ask, do what ?
> 
> Suggestions/demands......... end all gun sales, OK, and just how long do we think that will take . That will require a change in / amendment to, the constitution . Then the next thing will be the states appeals, etc. It would take 300 years for it to take effect .......... And make allot of rich lawyers along the way.
> 
> ...


After the fact is no solution at all.And I know you won't agree with me but no one needs an AR type of rifle other than a military. That seems to be the weapon of choice for mass murders. Please don't give me that argument that vehicles kill more people. I don't agree that there will be a bloody conflict over it.


----------



## rgp (Sep 2, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> I can't let this pass without comment.



 I can't let your comments pass without rebuttal......


Things are different here than in your country...........

   You said ........" Most massacres end in the death of the shooter or their permanent incarceration. It does not seem to be much of a deterrent."

IMO, it is the fame these killers want.

"Not true. If firearms are licensed and registered and a person is exhibiting dangerous or threatening behaviour then, if reported to the police, something can be done.  "

  One of the latest killers displayed as a loving brother, just hours before he killed his sister.


"Look to other countries. It has happened where I live and people did co-operate even though some resented it at first. Some people I know vowed to bury their rifles as the Scots did with their claymores but in the end they decided to remain law abiding citizens by registering their weapons. Very few needed to be confiscated because hunting weapons are perfectly allowable.  "

Again, things are different here....it would never work.


"End all gun sales? Of course that won't work. No-one in their right mind would suggest that. If that is what you are hearing, there is something wrong with your ears.  "

There is nothing wrong with my ears. That is exactly what has been suggested, even demanded. I live here, you do not , please do not try & tell me what I hear quite often on our news, talk radio, etc.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

rgp said:


> And then do what with this information ?


Well it's simple. Without a computer. Males are the ones who are the mass killers. So don't sell guns to males under 55 till they grow up.


----------



## rgp (Sep 2, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Well it's simple. Without a computer. Males are the ones who are the mass killers. So don't sell guns to males under 55 till they grow up.




   Didn't someone just say something about asinine comments not helping ?


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 2, 2019)

I certainly have little or no answers to today's society and arms control as a deterrent.
Seems if guns aren't available, bombs/explosives are very makeable
What I do know, is when some renegades came around my place in the hills to try to terrorize me and mine, I shot back.
Never challenged again in the remaining years at the cabin.

I'd be pro carry...anywhere, but too many cowboys with itchy trigger fingers


----------



## rgp (Sep 2, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> I certainly have little or no answers to today's society and arms control as a deterrent.
> Seems if guns aren't available, bombs/explosives are very makeable
> What I do know, is when some renegades came around my place in the hills to try to terrorize me and mine, I shot back.
> Never challenged again in the remaining years at the cabin.
> ...




   No expert here either but .......... which is the more dangerous ? the "carry cowboy" or the stealthy whack-job.....I wonder?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

rgp said:


> Things are different here than in your country...........
> 
> You said ........" Most massacres end in the death of the shooter or their permanent incarceration. It does not seem to be much of a deterrent."
> 
> ...


You don't know if he killed his sister on purpose.


rgp said:


> Didn't someone just say something about asinine comments not helping ?


There's a lot of truth in what I stated about males being the marauders and it's never old guys. Why is there an age limit? Insults accomplish nothing.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 2, 2019)

rgp said:


> No expert here either but .......... which is the more dangerous ? the "carry cowboy" or the stealthy whack-job.....I wonder?



Haven't had to deal with the 'carry cowboy', but my imagination sees some parking lot scenarios

My limited considerations go to quick resolution
End 'em early, on the spot
No trial
No glory
No whys (poor things)

Rather clean

It may be after the fact for that incidence, but I'm talking next times

Maybe sharpshooters in shopping malls...sounds extreme, but I think we're there


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 2, 2019)

That is extreme to say the least. Third world country style.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 2, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> That is extreme to say the least. Third world country style.


No argument


----------



## win231 (Sep 3, 2019)

rgp said:


> Didn't someone just say something about asinine comments not helping ?


LOL.  IT WAS ME!


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 3, 2019)

win231 said:


> LOL.  IT WAS ME!


And what did you accomplish that you are so proud of with that remark?


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 3, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> That is extreme to say the least. Third world country style.


And 2-3 hundred mass killings in a year isn't?

I'm for doing......something


Not good at hand wringing 





I don't think a guard or two with marksman skills in every big mall, and even schools is such a rash thing
Not now
Maybe some years back
But, not now

If I were king, I'd declare war on those goofballs 


I'd give 'em as much mercy as they give
None
Take a few out
Bag and tag
No hoopla

...see what the stats are then


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 3, 2019)

I think the goofballs would welcome a shoot out.  They would go looking for it to demonstrate their heavy equipment and 100 round magazines.  

Walmart should install metal detecting entrances like airports.  

Are we there at that stage yet? Check them in.  They are already checking them out.


----------



## 911 (Sep 3, 2019)

How about:
1. Legislation that would limit the type of guns Americans could possess 
2. Meaningful background checks
3. Disallow the manufacture of certain assault weapons, except for those used by the military and law enforcement 
4. Gun owners could not possess a gun that used a detachable magazine
5. Maximum size magazine would be 10 bullets 
6. Mandate that all gun owners be required to complete a safety course
7. Any prior felon caught having a gun in their possession would automatically be returned to prison to serve out the remainder of any sentence and if there was no sentence to serve out, a minimum sentence of 15 years would be imposed, plus fine if found guilty 
8. Heavy jail sentence and fine for anyone breaking any of the above stated rules 

Even imposing these rules would not guarantee that there would never be another mass shooting. But, it’s a start, a foothold, if you will. Something to build on.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 3, 2019)

treeguy64 said:


> There is no solution to runaway population growth, except to discourage or legally prohibit the large families that keep expanding, unconscionably. China had a good idea that was implemented poorly, and then modified over time.
> 
> As far as identifying those who may become crazed serial killers, it comes down to informing the correct parties when you come across those who are showing signs of being deeply disturbed and dangerous to themselves and others.
> 
> Ultimately, there probably will not be a solution. Our species seems to be rushing towards its end. I expect that mass murders will become daily occurrences, in the coming years, and we will adjust as best we can.



I used to worry terribly over this, too. Eventually I stopped listening to headlines and started doing some research. Turns out that the solution to bringing population growth down to roughly replacement rates is well known among statisticians. Educate a population, particularly the girls, provide access to birth control, lower the infant mortality rate, and the birth rate drops like a rock. The data proves this without exception. Regardless of government system, religious bent or geographical region. 

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate


----------



## rgp (Sep 3, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> You don't know if he killed his sister on purpose.
> 
> There's a lot of truth in what I stated about males being the marauders and it's never old guys. Why is there an age limit? Insults accomplish nothing.




  "You don't know if he killed his sister on purpose."

 He killed her first so..........


----------



## doat (Sep 3, 2019)

Complete social instability. Don’t just focus on guns look at all the human interaction that’s been going on.  We are falling into the abyss.


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 3, 2019)

It turns out the shooter who went on a driving killing spree in Texas was recently fired and contacted the authorities before his spree. That's anger management and lack of coping skills.

 Part of the issue in the US is the pace of life where many have grown to expect instant satisfaction to their problems. Many also can't handle disappointment or non lethal negative events hence many drug addicts and alcoholics. It's not the thing people use to display their rage and anger is that they want to physically do it in the first place. Throw in those ginned up politically, socially, economically etc there are too many that are out there ready to pop like this driving killer.

https://www.dailypress.com/nation-w...0190901-xvbqch45yrf4xo4el2ldxhleva-story.html


----------



## StarSong (Sep 3, 2019)

WhatInThe said:


> It turns out the shooter who went on a driving killing spree in Texas was recently fired and contacted the authorities before his spree. That's anger management and lack of coping skills.
> 
> https://www.dailypress.com/nation-w...0190901-xvbqch45yrf4xo4el2ldxhleva-story.html


If he hadn't had a weapon in his vehicle this event would likely have unfolded as an unremarkable traffic stop or at most, a police chase.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 3, 2019)

rgp said:


> "You don't know if he killed his sister on purpose."
> 
> He killed her first so..........


Do you have a link where he killed her first?


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 3, 2019)

StarSong said:


> If he hadn't had a weapon in his vehicle this event would likely have unfolded as an unremarkable traffic stop or at most, a police chase.



That's an 'if'. The fact that he wants to kill others is the issue. He could've gone on a car ramming spree which could've been just a deadly. Or done nothing for days and simmered started manufacturing bombs and morph his personal injustice into a political cause.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 3, 2019)

Of course it's an if.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 3, 2019)

win231 said:


> Well, you are expecting a sick psycho to think like a normal human being.  A bit of logic would explain why a buy-back wouldn't help.
> A nut case is planning a mass shooting & probably a suicide.  He hears about a gun buy-back where he can get a gift card for a couple of meals or maybe $100.00 for his gun (that's what they pay).
> So....he has a change of heart & cancels his mass murder plan for a free meal or $100.00??


A question for you.
Does the United States have a higher rate of mental illness than other countries?


----------



## rgp (Sep 3, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Do you have a link where he killed her first?




 No, but it was reported on the news more than once that he did.

 If you do not believe me ?...... you look it up.


----------



## win231 (Sep 3, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> A question for you.
> Does the United States have a higher rate of mental illness than other countries?


I don't know.  What does that have to do with a gun buy-back?


----------



## Don M. (Sep 3, 2019)

And, today, a 14 yr. old killed all five of his family.  Hardly a day goes by anymore without a report of gun violence.  
https://www.yahoo.com/news/14-old-confesses-killing-5-124155642.html


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 3, 2019)

911 said:


> How about:



YES!
Something
Now


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 3, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Walmart should install metal detecting entrances like airports.


I'd be for that


----------



## Sassycakes (Sep 3, 2019)

911 said:


> How about:
> 1. Legislation that would limit the type of guns Americans could possess
> 2. Meaningful background checks
> 3. Disallow the manufacture of certain assault weapons, except for those used by the military and law enforcement
> ...



*I believe your answer is the best answer I have ever heard.*


----------



## Knight (Sep 3, 2019)

Prohibit manufacture of assault weapons. Works if every country is banned from manufacturing. Other limits on ownership work if all are confiscated and illegal imports are 100% effective. Neither will happen so I doubt as a solution that would work. It's nice but not practical. I'll go with Albert Einstein's thinking.

As Albert Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Technology hasn’t created all of those problems – but it could provide some of the answers.

An example of technology combining factual input.  https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

I didn't read anywhere what laws are effective in that presentation. What was there is LEGISLATORS ENACTED A RECORD 67 NEW GUN SAFETY LAWS IN 26 STATES AND DC

I don't think quantity is what the criteria should be. As a start  IMO inputting factual statistics using technology to determine what works then implementing those in all 50 states what has been shown to work would be the way to go.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 3, 2019)

IMO we need to focus on the criminal and not the criminal's weapon.

These atrocities have been committed for different reasons but it seems like in many of these cases the criminals have exhibited odd behavior, had previous run-ins with the law, taken to social media with rants and manifestos, made threats to family friends and employers, etc... and no one has taken them seriously enough to properly follow-up with them, confiscate their weapons, request a 72 hour psychiatric hold, etc...


----------



## StarSong (Sep 3, 2019)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO we need to focus on the criminal and not the criminal's weapon.
> 
> These atrocities have been committed for different reasons but it seems like in many of these cases the criminals have exhibited odd behavior, had previous run-ins with the law, taken to social media with rants and manifestos, made threats to family friends and employers, etc... and no one has taken them seriously enough to properly follow-up with them, confiscate their weapons, request a 72 hour psychiatric hold, etc...



I think we need to focus on the motive as well as the means.  Facts are facts.  Other countries have the same mental health problems we do, but since they don't have the kinds of liberal gun ownership we have, their gun death rates are dramatically lower than ours.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 3, 2019)

win231 said:


> I don't know.  What does that have to do with a gun buy-back?


That's one of the excuses used by the gun lobby for mass shootings. 


Knight said:


> Prohibit manufacture of assault weapons. Works if every country is banned from manufacturing. Other limits on ownership work if all are confiscated and illegal imports are 100% effective. Neither will happen so I doubt as a solution that would work. It's nice but not practical. I'll go with Albert Einstein's thinking.
> 
> As Albert Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Technology hasn’t created all of those problems – but it could provide some of the answers.
> 
> ...


The claim is that background checks don't work.
But how would you know that someone turned down didn't stop a gun crime?
Without a background check proven previous violators would be able to buy a gun legally.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 3, 2019)

StarSong said:


> I think we need to focus on the motive as well as the means.  Facts are facts.  Other countries have the same mental health problems we do, but since they don't have the kinds of liberal gun ownership we have, their gun death rates are dramatically lower than ours.


I understand what you are saying but I don't believe that we will ever be able to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to gun ownership in America.  The vast majority of American gun owners are not part of this problem and shouldn't be penalized for the behaviour of a few.  I do agree with some controls like background checks, red flag laws, elimination of fully automatic weapons or aftermarket accessories that increase the capacity of a gun but I do not believe that eliminating gun ownership is the answer.


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 3, 2019)

41 shot, 7 dead,in chicago this weekend..sounds like a "Mass Shooting" to me..
This is like EVERY weekend in some Cities that have some of the strictest gun controls.  More Proof, that Gun Control works, right???
Funny, where I live, just about EVERYONE has guns.. And nobody has been shot in decades.. Odd huh???


----------



## doat (Sep 3, 2019)

This isn’t a case of all or nothing at all.  There is plenty of room on both sides for compromise.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 3, 2019)

Aunt Bea said:


> I understand what you are saying but I don't believe that we will ever be able to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to gun ownership in America.  The vast majority of American gun owners are not part of this problem and shouldn't be penalized for the behaviour of a few.  I* do agree with some controls like background checks, red flag laws, elimination of fully automatic weapons or aftermarket accessories that increase the capacity of a gun but I do not believe that eliminating gun ownership is the answer*.



This is precisely what most people are saying should happen, myself included.


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 3, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> A question for you.
> Does the United States have a higher rate of mental illness than other countries?



I looked at several sites and it doesn't seem as though we do by diagnosis; one study showed slightly elevated rates of schizophrenia than other industrialized nations.    But we do have a very high rate of people on psychotropic meds including kids on ADHD meds.   The numbers of adults on them don't correlate with rates of mental illness--looks like many more are taking them than the diagnosis rates warrant.   But that's not surprising since Big Pharma skews research studies with grants, sponsors most healthcare continuing education _and _throws the most money to politicians; they're at the top when you look at lobbying dollars by industry. I can't help but think that all those meds play a roll.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 3, 2019)

Fine but is it only males taking meds? They are the ones taking lives including their own. Something doesn't add up.


----------



## win231 (Sep 3, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Fine but is it only males taking meds? They are the ones taking lives including their own. Something doesn't add up.


https://www.insideedition.com/women-who-kill-americas-most-shocking-female-mass-shooters-42142


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 3, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Fine but is it only males taking meds? They are the ones taking lives including their own. Something doesn't add up.



I don't know if anyone has looked at how the use of the med impacts a child's developing brain in a meaningful way since a negative finding would be the sort of thing pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want known.   Gender hormones may play into it.  And I don't think there's anything published as to whether males who commit violent acts ever took them.  Or whether it's socialization.   Are these males the product of parents who are well to do enough to get them psych meds, buy them the tech to play first person shooter games_ and_ afford guns. I just don't know. We need to strengthen gun laws, and we need to know the factors behind what makes someone a mass murderer as well.

Edited to say ...before the widespread use of psych meds in kids, white males were more likely to become serial killers regardless of their method of killing.  Lots that preyed on women strangled them.  Then there's Ted Kaczynski who preferred to blow people up.


----------



## win231 (Sep 3, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> I don't know if anyone has looked at how the use of the med impacts a child's developing brain in a meaningful way since a negative finding would be the sort of thing pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want known.   Gender hormones may play into it.  And I don't think there's anything published as to whether males who commit violent acts ever took them.  Or whether it's socialization.   Are these males the product of parents who are well to do enough to get them psych meds, buy them the tech to play first person shooter games_ and_ afford guns. I just don't know. We need to strengthen gun laws, and we need to know the factors behind what makes someone a mass murderer as well.
> 
> Edited to say ...before the widespread use of psych meds in kids, white males were more likely to become serial killers regardless of their method of killing.  Lots that preyed on women strangled them.  Then there's Ted Kaczynski who preferred to blow people up.


They're not interested in looking at Rx drugs because they make huge profits from antidepressants.  Why look at something that will hurt profits when they already have a scapegoat that's free?  And treating people with mental health issues costs money.
They also won't look at our pathetic revolving-door justice system.  Releasing violent felons after they serve a fraction of their sentence is cost effective - especially with aging inmates whose costs increase as they age.  And when they commit mass murder, just blame the gun they used.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 3, 2019)

Is it a problem of criminality? Looking at incarceration rates by population of different countries, US has an awful lot of people locked up. How many more can be squeezed into existing prisons and how many more prisons are needed?

Half of the world's prison population of about nine million is held in the US, China or Russia.



*Country**Prison population**Population* per 100,000US2,193,798 737CHINA1,548,498118RUSSIA874,161615BRAZIL371,482193

*** Australia has a prison population of 172/100,000, so not too far below Brazil. Canada is 114, UK 140

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate*** Perhaps not the same year as the above figures but you can search the list for a better comparison.

This may look like a red herring but is it? Is there an underlying problem in US society that does not exist in other countries that you have such a big problem with gun violence? Is it, as some people suggest, a problem of medication? How does the medication rate compare with other countries? Does this correlate with their incarceration and gun violence rate? 

People are screaming out "Do Something". Making excuses for doing nothing is not going to last very much longer. Something needs to be done but it must address the root cause of the problem and it will need to be uncomfortable for some. Nowhere near as uncomfortable as having a family member taken out but an angry man with a gun. 

To really decide whether the problem is the number of guns per 100,000, or the easy access to assault weapons, or some other societal factor, a serious study needs to be undertaken. Perhaps it already has been and is being ignored because of political pressure from powerful industries.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 3, 2019)

The stupid, worn out saying "Guns don't kill people, people do" should answer these questions. When the autopsies are performed do the doctors find people in the bullet wounds or bullets? Second question is during murder trials when a firearm is used is that firearm ever presented as evidence during the trials?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 3, 2019)

There is going to be a big turnaround coming soon. The president can't go into an election based on promises. Today Walmart announced they would no longer be selling ammunition for AR type weapons. Also no one will be allowed to carry a weapon into Walmart. The claim that a gun is an inert object. When it is activated it's no longer inert.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 4, 2019)

The issue isn't whether the U.S. has more mental illness or not.  I imagine the frequency of mental illness is about the same all over the world.  The big difference is the gun-worshipers here, who are holding the rest of us hostage to the violence and tragedy caused by their puppet-like following of the
NRA's nonsense.  An unarmed mentally ill person is much less of a threat.  Even a mentally ill person armed with a knife is much less of a threat. The variable is not mental illness, it's the guns.


----------



## Trade (Sep 4, 2019)

Sunny said:


> The issue isn't whether the U.S. has more mental illness or not.  I imagine the frequency of mental illness is about the same all over the world.  The big difference is the gun-worshipers here, who are holding the rest of us hostage to the violence and tragedy caused by their puppet-like following of the
> NRA's nonsense.  An unarmed mentally ill person is much less of a threat.  Even a mentally ill person armed with a knife is much less of a threat. The variable is not mental illness, it's the guns.



I don't think it's the guns at all. I think it's our culture and our economic system that by it's very nature leaves millions of people left out and marginalized. A certain small percentage of these are going to crack under the stress and act out.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 4, 2019)

Yes, but Trade, where else are the "culture" and economic system so much better?  Are there no people being left out and marginalized in other countries?  Of course, there are many things about this country that are not perfect, but that theory is too over-generalized.

The variable is easy access to guns. That's the only variable that makes sense. Without that, the "left out and marginalized" people would not be able to enter crowded spaces and kill multiple people, and terrify hundreds of others, within a minute or two.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 4, 2019)

Plagues have done the job years back and more than likely they have not disappeared from the earth. If one arises today with the daily mass transportations of the world's people it may be nearly unstoppable. Nature has always had a way of fixing things.


----------



## WhatInThe (Sep 4, 2019)

I just saw 'a' study where patience is at all time low. Lack of patience in combination with an undesired outcome can lead to frustration and/or anger pretty quick. Such as the driving Texas killer.

https://www.studyfinds.org/hurry-up-modern-patience-thresholds-lower-than-ever-before-survey-finds/


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 5, 2019)

fmdog44 said:


> The stupid, worn out saying "Guns don't kill people, people do" should answer these questions. When the autopsies are performed do the doctors find people in the bullet wounds or bullets? Second question is during murder trials when a firearm is used is that firearm ever presented as evidence during the trials?



Here, the firearm is presented as evidence during trials if the prosecution decides to do so.  Usually it does.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 5, 2019)

rgp said:


> No, but it was reported on the news more than once that he did.
> 
> If you do not believe me ?...... you look it up.


Not up to me to look it up.
If you state something you should be able to back it up.


----------



## rgp (Sep 5, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Not up to me to look it up.
> If you state something you should be able to back it up.




 You question me ? You look it up.........I substantiated my statement , [it was reported on the news] Take it or leave it.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 5, 2019)

rgp said:


> You question me ? You look it up.........I substantiated my statement , [it was reported on the news] Take it or leave it.


If you are happy that's fine.  But just claiming you heard it on the news is not substantiating anything.
I don't believe he shot his sister first.  It has never been reported on any of the news outlets I subscribe to.
NBC,CBS,ABC, etc.,etc,


----------



## rgp (Sep 5, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> If you are happy that's fine.  But just claiming you heard it on the news is not substantiating anything.
> I don't believe he shot his sister first.  It has never been reported on any of the news outlets I subscribe to.
> NBC,CBS,ABC, etc.,etc,




 I don't care what you believe . I am not [claiming] I heard it on the news.....I heard it on the news. 

 This all happened about 45 miles north of me, it was all over the news here......local & national.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 5, 2019)

rgp said:


> I don't care what you believe . I am not [claiming] I heard it on the news.....I heard it on the news.
> 
> This all happened about 45 miles north of me, it was all over the news here......local & national.


If you are happy with hearing it over the news who am I to disturb you.  It's obviously very important to you that he shot her first.
But this is what I get on the written word.
_Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said during a Tuesday afternoon news conference it was still too early in the investigation and there was too much disagreement between those examining evidence to definitively say whether Megan Betts was an intended target of her brother, Connor Betts. _


----------



## rgp (Sep 5, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> If you are happy with hearing it over the news who am I to disturb you.  It's obviously very important to you that he shot her first.
> But this is what I get on the written word.
> _Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said during a Tuesday afternoon news conference it was still too early in the investigation and there was too much disagreement between those examining evidence to definitively say whether Megan Betts was an intended target of her brother, Connor Betts. _




 OK, fine but it was first reported that "she" was his first target/his first "kill" . If you look at the pictures posted, [reportedly taken just hours before] You see what appears to be a happy brother & sister. As such [if all is true] ? & { _*I *} _believe that it is........then he just went nuts in a flash? or had been harboring dark thoughts all along , or at the least for some time.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 5, 2019)

It has been my experience that all those mass shootings are a planned affair and everyone is shocked when they are carried out.
Of course they have to be nice so people don't become suspicious.


----------



## win231 (Sep 5, 2019)

fmdog44 said:


> The stupid, worn out saying "Guns don't kill people, people do" should answer these questions. When the autopsies are performed do the doctors find people in the bullet wounds or bullets? Second question is during murder trials when a firearm is used is that firearm ever presented as evidence during the trials?


Such a question is irrelevant & lacks logic.  The idea behind the quote "Guns don't kill people, people do" has to do with the fact that inanimate objects (like guns, bullets, cars, fire, bombs) are under human control & have no will of their own, therefore they can't kill unless a human makes them kill.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 5, 2019)

Win, what would you say about a person who somehow got hold of a vial of the smallpox virus, or some other similar killer, and pumped the contents into the air conditioning system of a crowded theater?  Would you say the problem isn't the vials, which exist in research labs, but let's say they were sold to anyone who wanted them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions? And would the inane justification be something like:  "Smallpox viruses don't kill people, people do. If people just handled those vials responsibly, no one would get killed. So 1000 people in that theater got infected? Well, the perp must have been mentally ill; that's the problem. But don't take away my right to buy (and use) the vials of smallpox, it's guaranteed in the Second Amendment!"


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 5, 2019)

win231 said:


> Such a question is irrelevant & lacks logic.  The idea behind the quote "Guns don't kill people, people do" has to do with the fact that inanimate objects (like guns, bullets, cars, fire, bombs) are under human control & have no will of their own, therefore they can't kill unless a human makes them kill.


But it is so irrelevant. Eliminating car deaths which are extremely accidents have nothing to do with gun deaths which are primarily not accidental. And vice versa. Eliminating gun deaths would not mitigate car deaths. So those are mainly lame excuses. The NRA is the author of that motto.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 5, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Win, what would you say about a person who somehow got hold of a vial of the smallpox virus, or some other similar killer, and pumped the contents into the air conditioning system of a crowded theater?  Would you say the problem isn't the vials, which exist in research labs, but let's say they were sold to anyone who wanted them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions? And would the inane justification be something like:  "Smallpox viruses don't kill people, people do. If people just handled those vials responsibly, no one would get killed. So 1000 people in that theater got infected? Well, the perp must have been mentally ill; that's the problem. But don't take away my right to buy (and use) the vials of smallpox, it's guaranteed in the Second Amendment!"



This is an example of carrying an argument to an absurdity.  The right to possess vials of a deadly virus is NOT guaranteed in the constitution!  And having vials of a deadly virus has no value to the average person, as opposed to firearms, which are used for hunting and self-defense, target shooting, etc.

It's like saying what if everyone had the right to have nuclear weapons . . . .  But, we are NOT guaranteed the right to have nuclear weapons, or bazookas or flame throwers or mortars or guided missiles etc.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 5, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> This is an example of carrying an argument to an absurdity.  The right to possess vials of a deadly virus is NOT guaranteed in the constitution!  And having vials of a deadly virus has no value to the average person, as opposed to firearms, which are used for hunting and self-defense, target shooting, etc.
> 
> It's like saying what if everyone had the right to have nuclear weapons . . . .  But, we are NOT guaranteed the right to have nuclear weapons, or bazookas or flame throwers or mortars or guided missiles etc.


The Constitution says Arms which is everything available.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 5, 2019)

Well now, titillating confab
Thank gawd politics are not allowed


....anybody up for pizza?


----------



## win231 (Sep 5, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Win, what would you say about a person who somehow got hold of a vial of the smallpox virus, or some other similar killer, and pumped the contents into the air conditioning system of a crowded theater?  Would you say the problem isn't the vials, which exist in research labs, but let's say they were sold to anyone who wanted them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions? And would the inane justification be something like:  "Smallpox viruses don't kill people, people do. If people just handled those vials responsibly, no one would get killed. So 1000 people in that theater got infected? Well, the perp must have been mentally ill; that's the problem. But don't take away my right to buy (and use) the vials of smallpox, it's guaranteed in the Second Amendment!"


Sunny, you are living in fantasy land.
On the planet earth, guns are not legally "sold to anyone who wants them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions."
I'm in CA.  I undergo a detailed background check by the Dept. of Justice & Police Dept. for each gun I purchase.  And I pay for each background check; it's added to the price of the gun.  I have to pass a written exam & obtain a FSC (Firearms Safety Card) before the purchase.  I also don't take possession of any gun until a 10-day wait to complete the background check.  If any felonies or violent misdemeanors are found, the gun is not released to me.  A domestic violence conviction or being the object of a restraining order - again, the gun is not released.
Some states have a quick computerized check for criminal records or other issues, so they don't have a 10-day wait.  Those regulations also apply to gun show purchases, at least in CA.  And they also apply to private sales - the buyer & seller appear at a licensed dealer, the dealer stores the gun for 10 days & the same detailed background check is completed on the new owner before the gun is released.

That is the procedure for a LEGAL sale.  Of course, as with illegal drugs or any contraband, illegal sales happen on street corners; what do you suggest we do about that?


----------



## StarSong (Sep 5, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Well now, titillating confab
> Thank gawd politics are not allowed
> 
> 
> ...



Still got plenty in my freezer from my marathon pizza-making event a couple of weeks ago. Trike on over!


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 5, 2019)

StarSong said:


> Still got plenty in my freezer from my marathon pizza-making event a couple of weeks ago. Trike on over!


Pizza

should be banned

from everywhere

need I say why?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 5, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Pizza
> 
> should be banned
> 
> ...


Of course. There must be  a message there somewhere.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 5, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Of course. There must be a message there somewhere.


By the recent dialogue in this thread, somebody will surely come up with a doozy


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 5, 2019)

OK, being serious;
With technology moving at light speed, why can't we (the US) spend some tax dollars toward the development of a non-obtrusive scanner patrons will naturally pass thru when entering a mall or Walmart?


----------



## 911 (Sep 6, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Here, the firearm is presented as evidence during trials if the prosecution decides to do so.  Usually it does.



I have never known the murder weapon NOT to be presented during trial here in Pennsylvania at the trails I have attended, if it is located. Sometimes the murder weapon is either destroyed or tossed into a body of water or garbage. The murder weapon represents the "manner of death," but not the "cause of death."


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 6, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> The Constitution says Arms which is everything available.



This is arguable.  However, even if true, ATF regulations regarding "destructive devices" regulate these items and tax them as to manufacture, sale, possession and storage; the regulation is quite onerous and expensive and hence nearly impossible to find a place to buy them, even if you could get approved to own them.  Perhaps your "everything available" might be true in the sense that such items are not "available" to private citizens.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 6, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> OK, being serious;
> With technology moving at light speed, why can't we (the US) spend some tax dollars toward the development of a non-obtrusive scanner patrons will naturally pass thru when entering a mall or Walmart?


I think that the hardening of soft targets like shopping malls, schools, etc... provides some peace of mind to people and creates the illusion of safety but the bad guy will always have the ability to pick the time and the place.  I don't see a way to get around that element of surprise other than teaching people how to act/react, evaluate situations, be aware of their surroundings, etc...


----------



## StarSong (Sep 6, 2019)

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  

As long as we hold onto defeatist attitudes like "the bad guys will always get the guns" we prohibit ourselves from moving forward. Some bad guys will figure out how to get guns. That doesn't mean we should continue to arm them to the teeth. 

Like global warming, the longer we delay serious interventions, the worse these crises become. When confronted with enormous problems, one of the worst strategies is to do nothing. (Offering the ever-useful thoughts and prayers excepted, of course.)


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 6, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> This is arguable.  However, even if true, ATF regulations regarding "destructive devices" regulate these items and tax them as to manufacture, sale, possession and storage; the regulation is quite onerous and expensive and hence nearly impossible to find a place to buy them, even if you could get approved to own them.  Perhaps your "everything available" might be true in the sense that such items are not "available" to private citizens.


I know. but the point is the Constitution might be used as a defense.  There are those who do believe everything should be available.  They fight the banning of bump stocks which help a semi automatic increase the rate of fire. They fight everything which has to do of banning anything as violating the 2nd Amendment with infringement.


----------



## win231 (Sep 6, 2019)

StarSong said:


> A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
> 
> As long as we hold onto defeatist attitudes like "the bad guys will always get the guns" we prohibit ourselves from moving forward. Some bad guys will figure out how to get guns. That doesn't mean we should continue to arm them to the teeth.
> 
> Like global warming, the longer we delay serious interventions, the worse these crises become. When confronted with enormous problems, one of the worst strategies is to do nothing. (Offering the ever-useful thoughts and prayers excepted, of course.)


Well, your post doesn't include any useful suggestions; only cutesy quotes.  What do you suggest we do about the problem?


----------



## Knight (Sep 6, 2019)

I think it's safe to say that our government has learned a lesson concerning guns. No recent media stories like the disaster of Fast & Furious.


----------



## rgp (Sep 6, 2019)

Can we, will we, ever get back to the problem ? That being the mentally challenged / mentally disturbed people buying guns, obtaining guns. The gun is not the problem, those people are the problem. Can we get back to a "tuff-love" approach, and get back to institutionalizing these folks ? And start doing so early , when they start to display questionable behavior. We hear it all the time it seems, after the fact,after the incident, how they displayed this & or that behavior that raised concern among those that knew them.

Yes I know some do not display outstanding behavior of concern until the deed ... but as i read & hear on the news , most of them do.

There is no way all the currently owned guns will ever be collected .... period. And to actually stop gun sales is ludicrous. Thousands of people would be put out of work , not just in the manufacture of the guns themselves, but in the ancillary businesses as well.

The root of the problem is in our society , can we refocus on that, and as a society put our efforts , angers, and emotions there?

Instant fix ? No! but it is a viable start. Arguing over guns, one group fantasizing about getting their way concerning them, is but a huge waste of time. We can't afford the time, these things are happening at a very scary rate. I know folks who no longer 'go-out' , anymore than they must. They're scared. We have never had a time / mood in America like this before, and guns have been here since we have. It was in fact the gun that helped bring us here, keep us here, and repel those that might try to overpower us & take our homeland & our way of life. Hell, it is the gun that fed us for over a hundred of years !

What has changed ? the people have , our society has changed. What has caused this 'mentality' change ? I do not know. But they are out there walking among us. We need to find them, sort them out & contain them, as we once did...................jmo


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 6, 2019)

rgp:
_Can we, will we, ever get back to the problem ? That being the mentally challenged / mentally disturbed people buying guns, obtaining guns. The gun is not the problem, those people are the problem. Can we get back to a "tuff-love" approach, and get back to institutionalizing these folks ? And start doing so early , when they start to display questionable behavior. We hear it all the time it seems, after the fact,after the incident, how they displayed this & or that behavior that raised concern among those that knew them. _

Well there is the gun lobby that is opposed to any kind of control at all. They are opposed to background checks.  So how are you going to keep guns out the hands of undesirables when you can even have a background check?
How can you institutional these folks when anytime any thing is proposed like red flag laws is shot down immediately by the gun lobby and the NRA.

When they quote the 2nd Amendment they leave everything out except the "shall not be infringed" part of it.  They are radicals.  They want their guns and let the chips fall where they may.

Right now Remington is being sued by a group connected to the Newton massacre.

The NRA and the Republicans are supporting Remington.  

They can't even let the Newton group have their day in court.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 6, 2019)

> On the planet earth, guns are not legally "sold to anyone who wants them, no questions asked, no safeguards or restrictions."



So then, Win, how do you explain all the shootings committed by mentally disturbed people who DID buy their guns legally?  You're getting down into the nitty gritty of California gun law.  What about the rest of the country?  

Butterfly, of course people are not allowed to go out and buy vials of smallpox virus. I was using that as a metaphor.  It might help the gun worshippers see things more clearly if we can, just for a moment, step away from the oh-so-sacred guns and substitute some other item of mass killing.


----------



## rgp (Sep 6, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> rgp:
> _Can we, will we, ever get back to the problem ? That being the mentally challenged / mentally disturbed people buying guns, obtaining guns. The gun is not the problem, those people are the problem. Can we get back to a "tuff-love" approach, and get back to institutionalizing these folks ? And start doing so early , when they start to display questionable behavior. We hear it all the time it seems, after the fact,after the incident, how they displayed this & or that behavior that raised concern among those that knew them. _
> 
> Well there is the gun lobby that is opposed to any kind of control at all. They are opposed to background checks.  So how are you going to keep guns out the hands of undesirables when you can even have a background check?
> ...




 But we do have background checks in place. I support those, but more & more of them, is of no help. IMO that small group is little more than an annoyance. 

 You said........"How can you institutional these folks when anytime any thing is proposed like red flag laws is shot down immediately by the gun lobby and the NRA."

 Lets not wait until they apply for a gun, lets sanction them from society, not just the gun store/gun show.


 "Right now Remington is being sued by a group connected to the Newton massacre."

   "The NRA and the Republicans are supporting Remington. "

 because IT WAS NOT Remington's fault

 If I hit & kill you with my truck tonight  is it automatically Ford's fault ?


----------



## win231 (Sep 6, 2019)

rgp said:


> But we do have background checks in place. I support those, but more & more of them, is of no help. IMO that small group is little more than an annoyance.
> 
> You said........"How can you institutional these folks when anytime any thing is proposed like red flag laws is shot down immediately by the gun lobby and the NRA."
> 
> ...



Remington is the scapegoat - just as guns in general are the scapegoats.  People know where the deep pockets are.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 6, 2019)

rgp said:


> But we do have background checks in place. I support those, but more & more of them, is of no help. IMO that small group is little more than an annoyance.
> 
> You said........"How can you institutional these folks when anytime any thing is proposed like red flag laws is shot down immediately by the gun lobby and the NRA."
> 
> ...


Well give them their day in court. It's not the business of Congess and the NRA to stick their nose in the Supreme Courts business.

Not automatically is it Fords fault but it could be. All kinds of vehicle manufacturers have been found to be their fault.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 6, 2019)

win231 said:


> Well, your post doesn't include any useful suggestions; only cutesy quotes.  What do you suggest we do about the problem?


I think Starsong is saying that the problem must be addressed by first adopting a different mind set. If every idea is immediately knocked down as impractical then not only will the death rate not diminish, it will continue to rise. Things can change if people have the will to change. Do you want things to change for the better?


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 6, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Well give them their day in court. It's not the business of Congess and the NRA to stick their nose in the Supreme Courts business.
> 
> Not automatically is it Fords fault but it could be. All kinds of vehicle manufacturers have been found to be their fault.




Only when the collision was caused by a defect or bad engineering which was the proximal cause of the crash.  Auto manufacturers have never been held liable simply because they made the vehicle.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 6, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> rgp:
> _Can we, will we, ever get back to the problem ? That being the mentally challenged / mentally disturbed people buying guns, obtaining guns. The gun is not the problem, those people are the problem. Can we get back to a "tuff-love" approach, and get back to institutionalizing these folks ? And start doing so early , when they start to display questionable behavior. We hear it all the time it seems, after the fact,after the incident, how they displayed this & or that behavior that raised concern among those that knew them. _
> 
> Well there is the gun lobby that is opposed to any kind of control at all. They are opposed to background checks.  So how are you going to keep guns out the hands of undesirables when you can even have a background check?
> ...



Liability of manufacturers and sellers of firearms is protected  by:

"The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act* (*PLCAA*) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. ... The *PLCAA* is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.
Long title: An Act to prohibit civil liability actions ...
Titles amended: 15 U.S.C.: Commerce and Tra...
Enacted by: the 109th United States Congress"

The premise of the Remington lawsuit to which you refer is that Remington and the seller of the particular weapon engaged in some kind of misleading advertising about the weapon, which the plaintiffs argue puts Remington outside the PLCAA in this instance.

It's not a straight civil liability action, against which the PLCAA would hold Remington harmless.


----------



## win231 (Sep 6, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Well give them their day in court. It's not the business of Congess and the NRA to stick their nose in the Supreme Courts business.
> 
> Not automatically is it Fords fault but it could be. All kinds of vehicle manufacturers have been found to be their fault.


You are confusing a manufacturing defect (which likely is a car manufacturer's fault) with intentional misuse of a product.  How can you blame a car manufacturer for reckless driving?  That would be like blaming General Motors for Ted Kennedy's drunk driving that resulted in his passenger's death.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 6, 2019)

win231 said:


> You are confusing a manufacturing defect (which likely is a car manufacturer's fault) with intentional misuse of a product.  How can you blame a car manufacturer for reckless driving?  That would be like blaming General Motors for Ted Kennedy's drunk driving that resulted in his passenger's death.


This case is all about how they advertised their product.

Remember the tobacco advertising?

Why do you introduce irrelevant topics that have nothing to do with current events?

How can you do anything? It's up to the courts to decide.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 6, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Liability of manufacturers and sellers of firearms is protected  by:
> 
> "The *Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act* (*PLCAA*) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. ... The *PLCAA* is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903.
> Long title: An Act to prohibit civil liability actions ...
> ...



It has been ruled they the plaintiffs can have their day in court.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 6, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Only when the collision was caused by a defect or bad engineering which was the proximal cause of the crash.  Auto manufacturers have never been held liable simply because they made the vehicle.


No. Not only a defect in manufacturing. It depends on the case.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 7, 2019)

Not all people who kill others with guns could be classified as mentally unstable.  With notable exceptions, most perpetrators' acquaintances say, "This is shocking!  I never would have thought he'd do this - he was a nice neighbor, a bit quiet, but never caused any trouble."

People snap or plan these deeds without much warning. It's beyond me why we continue to allow folks to be armed with military-style weapons KNOWING that this has happened repeatedly and will continue to happen.

Addressing global warming and the need to stem America's gun violence have caught the attention of Millennials (as well as many in other generations) and are apt to be focal points of the 2020 local, state and federal elections.


----------



## JustBonee (Sep 7, 2019)

StarSong said:


> *Addressing global warming and the need to stem America's gun violence have caught the attention of Millennials (as well as many other generations) and are apt to be focal points of the 2020 local, state and federal elections.*



Hope you are right about that ...  time for the mentality of the general population to change course.  It's definitely overdue.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

StarSong said:


> Not all people who kill others with guns could be classified as mentally unstable.  With notable exceptions, most perpetrators' acquaintances say, "This is shocking!  I never would have thought he'd do this - he was a nice neighbor, a bit quiet, but never caused any trouble."
> 
> People snap or plan these deeds without much warning. It's beyond me why we continue to allow folks to be armed with military-style weapons KNOWING that this has happened repeatedly and will continue to happen.
> 
> Addressing global warming and the need to stem America's gun violence have caught the attention of Millennials (as well as many in other generations) and are apt to be focal points of the 2020 local, state and federal elections.



I find when it's analyzed that most of these mass shootings have been planned well in advance and the person doesn't raise suspicion because it's obvious.

The person in Texas recently was turned down on a background check.  He bought the gun privately for which there is no background check.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

_"Lets not wait until they apply for a gun, lets sanction them from society, not just the gun store/gun show."_

You cannot do that easily.  To commit someone is a lengthy process.
The best you can hope for at this stage is that it is picked up in a background check.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Well give them their day in court. It's not the business of Congess and the NRA to stick their nose in the Supreme Courts business.
> 
> Not automatically is it Fords fault but it could be. All kinds of vehicle manufacturers have been found to be their fault.




 Doesn't count, you're referring to a faulty vehicle, and I agree. The gun suits are all about the sales of the guns........nothing more.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> I think Starsong is saying that the problem must be addressed by first adopting a different mind set. If every idea is immediately knocked down as impractical then not only will the death rate not diminish, it will continue to rise. Things can change if people have the will to change. Do you want things to change for the better?




 The mind set towards guns is not the problem. The mind set towards killing people with them is the problem. 

 Hence guns are _not the problem_.....people are.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> Doesn't count, you're referring to a faulty vehicle, and I agree. The gun suits are all about the sales of the guns........nothing more.


This gun suit is all about how they advertise the gun. Remington is bankrupt.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> The mind set towards guns is not the problem. The mind set towards killing people with them is the problem.
> 
> Hence guns are _not the problem_.....people are.


As long as you keep believing that, the shootings will go on and on and on and on.
The guns are a mean to an end.
They are the modus operandi.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

Arming those people is the problem.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

StarSong said:


> Not all people who kill others with guns could be classified as mentally unstable.  With notable exceptions, most perpetrators' acquaintances say, "This is shocking!  I never would have thought he'd do this - he was a nice neighbor, a bit quiet, but never caused any trouble."
> 
> People snap or plan these deeds without much warning. It's beyond me why we continue to allow folks to be armed with military-style weapons KNOWING that this has happened repeatedly and will continue to happen.
> 
> Addressing global warming and the need to stem America's gun violence have caught the attention of Millennials (as well as many in other generations) and are apt to be focal points of the 2020 local, state and federal elections.





   "It's beyond me why we continue to allow folks to be armed with military-style weapons KNOWING that this has happened repeatedly and will continue to happen. "

 So then we should stop certain types of car sales, because they are known to have been used irresponsibly ?

 Global warming [what ever that is] has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

Aunt Bea said:


> I think that the hardening of soft targets like shopping malls, schools, etc... provides some peace of mind to people and creates the illusion of safety but the bad guy will always have the ability to pick the time and the place.  I don't see a way to get around that element of surprise other than teaching people how to act/react, evaluate situations, be aware of their surroundings, etc...


Has it gotten to that point already?  Duck and cover when the atomic bomb was a threat?Remember.
The solution was to ban atomic bombs. It's a tough call but someone has to do it.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> This gun suit is all about how they advertise the gun. Remington is bankrupt.




 Don't know where you live ? But around here gun adverts are almost never heard. Henry rifles does do a sales pitch near Christmas. That's it. The suits are about stopping the sale of the guns.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> "It's beyond me why we continue to allow folks to be armed with military-style weapons KNOWING that this has happened repeatedly and will continue to happen. "
> 
> So then we should stop certain types of car sales, because they are known to have been used irresponsibly ?
> 
> Global warming [what ever that is] has nothing to do with this topic.


Well no. Because one has nothing to do with the other.  It's false logic. If you ban car sales it will not influence deaths by guns and vice versa.
Cars were not designed to kill people and safety factors have been built in since they were invented.
On the other hand guns have been improved to enable the guns to kill more people in as short a time as possible.
I'm surprised you can't see what is happening.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> Don't know where you live ? But around here gun adverts are almost never heard. Henry rifles does do a sales pitch near Christmas. That's it. The suits are about stopping the sale of the guns.


Then you need to read about the case and what the survivors of Newton are suing about.
The NRA and some of the Republicans in Congress are trying to stop the suit.
They are backing Remington and in my opinion they have no business in trying to circumvent the courts.
It's actually no different then when people were suing the tobacco companies.


----------



## Trade (Sep 7, 2019)

Sunny said:


> The variable is easy access to guns. That's the only variable that makes sense.



Not really. I expect that if you looked at countries with universal health care you would also find that they have much less gun violence than we do. I would not be surprised if the correlation was even stronger.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Has it gotten to that point already?  Duck and cover when the atomic bomb was a threat?Remember.
> The solution was to ban atomic bombs. It's a tough call but someone has to do it.


I wondered when you would get around to me.  

The world is full of atomic bombs.

https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
I will always believe that the focus should be on identifying the criminal in order to prevent these types of crimes and that our best defense against them is learning how to protect ourselves as best we can in any situation.  In my mind, it is no different than learning how to protect ourselves against the impact of fires, floods, hurricanes, etc...

If for some reason guns are ever banned the people intent on committing murder and mayhem will hijack a plane, blow up a truck filled with fertilizer, drive a truck through a crowded public place, etc... 

We all have a responsibility to learn and teach the people we love to use our wits and be survivors in life.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

Aunt Bea said:


> I wondered when you would get around to me.
> 
> The world is full of atomic bombs.
> 
> ...


I don't think you have an idea what we are up against with the gun lobbyists.
They do not want any restrictions whatsoever so how can you "identify the criminal" before the fact.
Their solution is to arm people but that's an after the fact solution.
What I would be looking for is prevention.
If you want to read what I am talking about look up the shooting in Sutherland Hills church.
That to me was the most heinous crime I could ever imagine.
The shooter went through the church shooting crying babies execution style.
It was so bad that the tape recording of the shooting which was recorded by the church for later transmission has never been released.
If Sutherland Hills has never changed anyone's mind then there is plainly no hope.

And an NRA instructor after he was exiting the church and  shot the guy but it was too late.  He got away and then committed suicide.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Well no. Because one has nothing to do with the other.  It's false logic. If you ban car sales it will not influence deaths by guns and vice versa.
> Cars were not designed to kill people and safety factors have been built in since they were invented.
> On the other hand guns have been improved to enable the guns to kill more people in as short a time as possible.
> I'm surprised you can't see what is happening.




I never said car sales had anything to do with gun deaths.......But the car is an inanimate object that is used to kill sometimes. Should we ban it ?

I can see what is happening, half crazed / fully crazy people are killing for no reason. At the very least no reason that the rest of us can grasp.

Guns are improved to give the gun holder [soldier] the advantage in a war situation......Do we not want that for our soldiers?


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> I don't think you have an idea what we are up against with the gun lobbyists.
> They do not want any restrictions whatsoever so how can you "identify the criminal" before the fact.
> Their solution is to arm people but that's an after the fact solution.
> What I would be looking for is prevention.
> ...


You do tend to jump around like a flea on a hot stove.  

I think I have a pretty good understanding of the issue.

The only weapon I have is casting my vote for the people that represent my feelings on the issue.


----------



## win231 (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> This case is all about how they advertised their product.
> 
> Remember the tobacco advertising?
> 
> ...



Not even close.  Tobacco is harmful without being misused.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Then you need to read about the case and what the survivors of Newton are suing about.
> The NRA and some of the Republicans in Congress are trying to stop the suit.
> They are backing Remington and in my opinion they have no business in trying to circumvent the courts.
> It's actually no different then when people were suing the tobacco companies.



  IMO the Newtown folks are doing as so many do. They are just turning their kids into cash-cows. Remington has deep pockets.

Backing/supporting the company is not circumventing the courts, it is just backing the appeal.

Huge difference comparing to tobacco. Tobacco advertised in a very attractive manner , in/on just about every form of media, TV, radio, billboards, etc.

Like I said, don't know where you live ? but here for guns , [almost] never seen.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> I never said car sales had anything to do with gun deaths.......But the car is an inanimate object that is used to kill sometimes. Should we ban it ?
> 
> I can see what is happening, half crazed / fully crazy people are killing for no reason. At the very least no reason that the rest of us can grasp.
> 
> Guns are improved to give the gun holder [soldier] the advantage in a war situation......Do we not want that for our soldiers?


Of course. That's where guns were designed for and where they belong. Not in the hands of civilians. Fully crazed people? Why are you arming them? 
Should you ban cars? I have already pointed out that they don't influence gun deaths . Should we ban guns for the same reasons. You made the point about cars so yes you are comparing.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> IMO the Newtown folks are doing as so many do. They are just turning their kids into cash-cows. Remington has deep pockets.
> 
> Backing/supporting the company is not circumventing the courts, it is just backing the appeal.
> 
> ...


Remington has declared bankruptcy. Supporting the company shows where the loyalty lies. Tobacco is no longer advertised on t.v. It has been banned on television and radio. Gun advertising? Online.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

win231 said:


> Not even close.  Tobacco is harmful without being misused.


So are guns. Toddlers have used them.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

Aunt Bea said:


> You do tend to jump around like a flea on a hot stove.
> 
> I think I have a pretty good understanding of the issue.
> 
> The only weapon I have is casting my vote for the people that represent my feelings on the issue.


Tell that to the parents of the victims.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

Aunt Bea said:


> You do tend to jump around like a flea on a hot stove.
> 
> I think I have a pretty good understanding of the issue.
> 
> The only weapon I have is casting my vote for the people that represent my feelings on the issue.


The moderators have been kind enough to let us discuss this topic.
But when it gets personal, I am out of here.


----------



## jerry old (Sep 7, 2019)

Black humor:

Yea, here in Texas when the lone gunman killed five cops last winter (was it two winter’s ago?) in downtown Dallas
Citizens gather close to the scene totaling long guns. It’s legal…
The cops were stressed; mad, darn lucky a shooting riot did not brake out.



New deer rifles, any long gun as well as pistols are exhibited to friends, neighbors so they can ‘Oooh and Ahhh’

There is a plant, 75 miles south of Amarillo, Tx. where A-bombs and the other toys
of our culture are assembled.

Longhorn Folkhorn says, “Guns are piker’s, if you want’a see the real thing go to Amarillo, rub up against them A-bombs and other toys we got. That ought’s grease your
bacon. Listen son, now listen, I’m a talking, maybe you can slip a guard a few bucks
and get one them A-bombs that’s old, or needs repair…their gonn’a chunk it out anyway
‘cause it’s obsolete.
 Don’t get one’a them suitcase A-bombs, the bigger the better.
Load it in your pickup, tote it home, store it in you garage, cover it with a tarp, make sure those radiation symbols are face up.
When one them fell’a comes over to show off his new gun, ask him do he want’a see a real whiz/bang gun; take him to your garage, jerk of the tarp.

“Clem that there little baby will kill all the deer in a couple hundred miles. I’m gonn’a take it to my deer lease and get me a bunch of deer.”

“Can I come?”


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Of course. That's where guns were designed for and where they belong. Not in the hands of civilians. Fully crazed people? Why are you arming them?
> Should you ban cars? I have already pointed out that they don't influence gun deaths . Should we ban guns for the same reasons. You made the point about cars so yes you are comparing.




    I'm comparing cars to cars , only . Cars kill people I never compared them to, or said they influenced gun deaths...

     "Why are you arming them?"

 Because the second amendment of the constitution says they have a right to have them.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Remington has declared bankruptcy. Supporting the company shows where the loyalty lies. Tobacco is no longer advertised on t.v. It has been banned on television and radio. Gun advertising? Online.




OK, so they are loyal to / support the company that is not circumventing the courts. Yes tobacco was advertised for years.....the law suits took that away. But the right to have tobacco was never in the constitution .

  "Gun advertising? Online.".........Online ? IMO one must "go-there" to see it. Not exactly in your face like tobacco was.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> So are guns. Toddlers have used them.



 Allowing a toddler access to a gun IS misuse .


----------



## Pepper (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> IMO the Newtown folks are doing as so many do. *They are just turning their kids into cash-cows. *Remington has deep pockets.


Truly Pathetic and Disgusting.  Walk a mile in the shoes of a parent losing a (young) child, especially through unnatural means, like violence.


----------



## CallmeIshmael (Sep 7, 2019)

Trade said:


> I don't think it's the guns at all. I think it's our culture and our economic system that by it's very nature leaves millions of people left out and marginalized. A certain small percentage of these are going to crack under the stress and act out.



Being able to act out with guns seems pretty different than being able to act out without guns.  The optionality presented with the former is a little distressing.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Pepper said:


> Truly Pathetic and Disgusting.  Walk a mile in the shoes of a parent losing a (young) child, especially through unnatural means, like violence.




 And money is going to bring that child back ??? Punishing a third party is going to bring that child back ??? Either one eases the pain ???...BS!


----------



## CallmeIshmael (Sep 7, 2019)

Trade said:


> I don't think it's the guns at all. I think it's our culture and our economic system that by it's very nature leaves millions of people left out and marginalized. A certain small percentage of these are going to crack under the stress and act out.



And if we take your point one step further, if our society has so many deeply rooted issues, then maybe our society is not responsible enough to allow easy access to guns.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> Allowing a toddler access to a gun IS misuse .


Perhaps the manufacturer could have installed a safety feature and didn't?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> I'm comparing cars to cars , only . Cars kill people I never compared them to, or said they influenced gun deaths...
> 
> "Why are you arming them?"
> 
> Because the second amendment of the constitution says they have a right to have them.


Did the Constitution say it's o.k. to arm crazy people because they have a right. Does the Constitution have an age limit?
The Second Amendment stated that the reason for arming is for the security of the state.
It says nothing about personal protection.
I know what you are saying and I know what you are intimating without saying it.
You are comparing car deaths to gun deaths and absolving the gun deaths with your comments.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> And money is going to bring that child back ??? Punishing a third party is going to bring that child back ??? Either one eases the pain ???...BS!


Though the heavens may fall, let* justice* be done.
And with that I am out of this discussion and you can have the last word.


----------



## win231 (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> So are guns. Toddlers have used them.


Toddlers can only use guns when they have ignorant, brain-dead parents who leave them lying around or "hidden."  No different than toddlers who set the house on fire with matches or drink bleach that their stupid parents left unsecured.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> It has been ruled they the plaintiffs can have their day in court.


Yes, but only because their claim is outside the PLCAA.  Unless and until the PLCAA is repealed or modified, manufacturers and sellers are immune from liability on a claim based on the fact that they legally manufactured or sold firearms.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> No. Not only a defect in manufacturing. It depends on the case.



Sorry, but  you are wrong -- car manufacturers have never been held liable in this country for legally making a vehicle, unless the crash or whatever was caused by bad engineering, a fault in the manufacture vehicle, etc.  You can't sue Ford just because it made the vehicle that was being driven when some  idiot crashed into a busload of nuns.   Nobody would ever make cars if that were the case.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 7, 2019)

rgp said:


> Doesn't count, you're referring to a faulty vehicle, and I agree. The gun suits are all about the sales of the guns........nothing more.



Actually, the Remington suit is about the advertising about the gun.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Has it gotten to that point already?  Duck and cover when the atomic bomb was a threat?Remember.
> The solution was to ban atomic bombs. It's a tough call but someone has to do it.


  Atomic weapons are not banned -- they are very closely regulated.  Several countries have atomic weapons.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 7, 2019)

Impressed with your legal knowledge Butterfly.  Most of my working life was in the field of law, so I know for sure you know your stuff.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Perhaps the manufacturer could have installed a safety feature and didn't?



It isn't  up to a manufacturer to install safety features that will apply to any and all scenarios you can think up.   It is up to users to use products judiciously -- like locking up weapons when there are toddlers around.  That's only common sense.  

Blaming manufacturers of things for what is actually the negligence of the user is just a way to say nobody is ever responsible for their own personal negligence. -- like "if Ford hadn't manufactured that car it wouldn't have been there so I couldn't have gotten drunk and driven it into that busload of nuns."  Or "if Remington hadn't manufactured that firearm it wouldn't have been there so I couldn't have left it laying around loaded where my kid could get it and shoot his brother."


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 7, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> It isn't  up to a manufacturer to install safety features that will apply to any and all scenarios you can think up.   It is up to users to use products judiciously -- like locking up weapons when there are toddlers around.  That's only common sense.
> 
> Blaming manufacturers of things for what is actually the negligence of the user is just a way to say nobody is ever responsible for their own personal negligence. -- like "if Ford hadn't manufactured that car it wouldn't have been there so I couldn't have gotten drunk and driven it into that busload of nuns."  Or "if Remington hadn't manufactured that firearm it wouldn't have been there so I couldn't have left it laying around loaded where my kid could get it and shoot his brother."


That is not what this case is about.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Perhaps the manufacturer could have installed a safety feature and didn't?




 Perhaps the owner should take responsibility and secure the gun.


----------



## rgp (Sep 7, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Did the Constitution say it's o.k. to arm crazy people because they have a right. Does the Constitution have an age limit?
> The Second Amendment stated that the reason for arming is for the security of the state.
> It says nothing about personal protection.
> I know what you are saying and I know what you are intimating without saying it.
> You are comparing car deaths to gun deaths and absolving the gun deaths with your comments.




Exactly, the constitution says the right to bear arms ...... what one does with one , or what intends to do with one is not noted.

If you know what  am_ "saying" _other than what I am typing ? Please inform me to what that is.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 8, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> That is not what this case is about.


I know, but you had said perhaps the manufacturer could have installed a safety feature and didn't, and I was replying to that.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 8, 2019)

rgp said:


> Exactly, the constitution says the right to bear arms ...... what one does with one , or what intends to do with one is not noted.
> 
> If you know what  am_ "saying" _other than what I am typing ? Please inform me to what that is.


*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
Says right there arms are kept as they are necessary to the security of a free State, nothing more.  We don't have militias, either.


----------



## rgp (Sep 8, 2019)

Pepper said:


> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> Says right there arms are kept as they are necessary to the security of a free State, nothing more.  We don't have militias, either.




 Not sure I get your point ? That is just a flowered up way of saying what I did. And BTW I'm not sure all militias are disbanded ?


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 8, 2019)

Pepper said:


> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*



That pesky little comma is what gives the people the right to keep and bear arms. The well regulated militia is secondary. Let's not forget, the founding fathers had just thrown off an oppressive government and definitely wanted to make sure it never happened again. I just can't see what is so hard to understand. By the way, (not aimed at you Pepper) there are some other FACTS that kind of get in the way of all this hand wringing about gun deaths. Maybe some people should educate themselves before spewing distorted facts. Since most seem too lazy to look it up, I've done the leg work for you. Let's look at the most recent statistics. Long winded but well worth reading. 


Consider Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statistics from 2017, the most recent year of complete data. The total number of firearm-related deaths was 39,773. Roughly two-thirds of that figure, 23,854, were firearm-related suicides, with the remaining 15,919 being a combination of the approximately 500 accidental gun deaths that occur annually coupled with just over 15,000 firearm-related homicides.

If we break down the firearm-related homicides via FBI crime statistics, we see that handguns were far and away the common firearm for murder. The FBI reported 7,032 murders with a handgun verses 403 murders with a rifle, and 264 with a shotgun, in cases where the firearm was identifiable.

If we take the 403 rifle murders a year and divide by 365 it comes out to 1.1, which means 1.1 Americans die in a rifle-related murder each day. We must not overlook the fact that the 403 murders with a rifle are murders with rifles of all kinds, i.e., bolt action, lever action, breech action, pump, and semiautomatic. If we narrowed the category to only include AR-15s, AK-47s, or similar semiautomatics, the number of Americans killed daily would be even lower than 1.1.

Now, with the aid of charts released by the CDC, as well as CDC special reports, studies by schools such as Johns Hopkins University, crime statistics from the FBI, and coverage from Breitbart News, consider 10 other causes of death that literally eclipse the number of daily deaths involving a rifle: 

1. Daily Heart Disease Deaths: 1,773
2. Daily Cancer Deaths: 1,641
3. Daily Medical Malpractice Deaths: 685
4. Daily Accident Deaths: 465 
5. Daily Lower Respiratory Disease Deaths: 439
6. Daily Stroke Deaths: 401
7. Daily Alzheimer Deaths: 332
8. Daily Diabetes Deaths: 229
9. Daily Drug Deaths: 192
10. Flu: 152

For those who argue that rifle deaths ought to be compared to deaths by other voluntary activities, rather than disease, consider the following six examples:
1. Daily Drunk Driving Deaths: 29
2. Daily Deaths from Crossing the Street: 16
3. Daily Distracted Driving Deaths: 9
4. Daily Deaths by Knives and Other Sharp Instruments: 4
5. Daily Deaths from Bicycles: 2.7
6. Daily Deaths by Hammers and Other Blunt Objects: 1.27
Again, the daily number of deaths from all types of rifles combined is 1.1.


----------



## gennie (Sep 8, 2019)

rgp said:


> And then do what with this information ?



And then we emulate any country that seems to have conquered the problem.


----------



## gennie (Sep 8, 2019)

Some young shooters grew up in the 'you get a trophy for just showing up' society and then learned that real life does not work that way.   Living an adult good life is not always as easy as they were lead to believe and they don't want to put in the work to make it happen.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Atomic weapons are not banned -- they are very closely regulated.  Several countries have atomic weapons.


Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have never been any atomic bombs used in warfare so banned or not the treaties are being honored.
The gun lobby is against any type of regulation because it infringes on the Second Amendment.
So the nation is stuck with the response from the people in power with prayers and condolences.


----------



## Knight (Sep 9, 2019)

Taking time to read squatting dog's post 219 should help people to understand that death is individual and happens in different ways. Mass shootings shock people, but the reality is every death not the quantity should be the concern. 

A lot has been posted about cars & gun manufacturers liability. Death by being run over, shot, stabbed, poisoned, or beat with something. All have the common denominator of using an object that is static. Once the decision is made by a person with ill will towards others, that inanimate object is somehow to blame? It's the person not the object.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2019)

Knight said:


> Taking time to read squatting dog's post 219 should help people to understand that death is individual and happens in different ways. Mass shootings shock people, but the reality is every death not the quantity should be the concern.
> 
> A lot has been posted about cars & gun manufacturers liability. Death by being run over, shot, stabbed, poisoned, or beat with something. All have the common denominator of using an object that is static. Once the decision is made by a person with ill will towards others, that inanimate object is somehow to blame? It's the person not the object.


Try telling that to the survivors.  There's a difference between accidental deaths and deliberate killing.
The gun is the modus operandi.  You simply cannot ignore it as part of the problem by calling it an inert object.  That's NRA talk.
A child should be able to go to school without the danger of being shot.
You should read what happened at Sutherland Hills church shooting and then see if you will be so blaise about it.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2019)

rgp said:


> Exactly, the constitution says the right to bear arms ...... what one does with one , or what intends to do with one is not noted.



The purpose is noted.  It's for the security of the state. That's what the right was granted for.

It was drafted before the United States had an armed force.

Now it's the National Guard and the armed forces.  Times have changed.


----------



## Trade (Sep 9, 2019)




----------



## Giantsfan1954 (Sep 9, 2019)

Trade said:


> I did that a few times in the distant past on several different issues. Got responses on about 1/2 of them all of which were form letters obviously written by some $10 an hour legislative aide. Decided not to waste any more of my time on that.


Since I can kill you with my car, a kitchen knife, baseball bat or golf club, are we outlawing them too?
The "big fix" now is all the stores outlawing open carry in their stores, Walmart, Kroger, Walgreen's, etc, open season on grocery shopping!
Ever heard the expression "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?"
24 hour news media, no supervision in the home at 3p.m. is a root cause of this issue which is a mental health issue, not a gun issue!
My late husband had a CCW permit, he took a safety course, had a state and federal background check, no one who jumps through the hoops are going to jeopardize their 2nd amendment right,this never-ending,lets grab all the guns irritates the crap out of me,all you're doing is jumping on the bandwagon not offering any viable solutions.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2019)

Giantsfan1954 said:


> Since I can kill you with my car, a kitchen knife, baseball bat or golf club, are we outlawing them too?
> The "big fix" now is all the stores outlawing open carry in their stores, Walmart, Kroger, Walgreen's, etc, open season on grocery shopping!
> Ever heard the expression "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?"
> 24 hour news media, no supervision in the home at 3p.m. is a root cause of this issue which is a mental health issue, not a gun issue!
> My late husband had a CCW permit, he took a safety course, had a state and federal background check, no one who jumps through the hoops are going to jeopardize their 2nd amendment right,this never-ending,lets grab all the guns irritates the crap out of me,all you're doing is jumping on the bandwagon not offering any viable solutions.


Grabbing all the guns is NRA propaganda as is the bad guy with a gun motto which was the NRA response to the Newton school massacre when 20 children died. If children can't be protected, then what hope is there in this world?
Kitchen knives, baseball bats, and golf club were not designed to kill people.  And we are not talking all guns. The ones that were designed and made for the military primarily.
Yes you can kill me with a knife or a baseball bat or a golf club but I will take my chances that I can run from them.  I can't run from a bullet even from one far away.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 9, 2019)

"Ever heard the expression "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun?""

So, where was this good guy in the El Paso Walmart, GF?  Being Texas, you know for sure there were people in that situation who were carrying.


----------



## Knight (Sep 9, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Try telling that to the survivors.  There's a difference between accidental deaths and deliberate killing.



Try telling what to survivors? My post was about each death having meaning. The thread began with guns but thanks to you it morphed into cars, manufactures liability & a single mass shooting at Sutherland Hills church. 




Camper6 said:


> The gun is the modus operandi.  You simply cannot ignore it as part of the problem by calling it an inert object.  That's NRA talk.



I'm not ignoring the use of a gun. I could be wrong but a gun will stay wherever it is put until someone picks it up. You seem to know a lot about guns so maybe I'm missing a way a gun can move, point at and shoot a person without a human  providing the actions needed. 

  As for "NRA talk" please explain that for me. 



Camper6 said:


> A child should be able to go to school without the danger of being shot.


 On that we can all agree. 



Camper6 said:


> You should read what happened at Sutherland Hills church shooting and then see if you will be so blaise about it.


Recognizing every untimely death caused by a person or persons with a gun, car, knife, or any means is hardly blase. I don't think the massive quantity of laws that vary all over America are working, but some have an impact. Quantity doesn't translate to quality for me. Defining what, where & how the ones that are working IMO would be a good 1st. step in "reducing" what we are seeing now. Key word is "reducing" because I don't think were to the point of being able to discover the mindset of this kind of population statistics.
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/da...70,573,869,36,868,867,133,38/39,40,41/416,417


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2019)

Knight said:


> Try telling what to survivors? My post was about each death having meaning. The thread began with guns but thanks to you it morphed into cars, manufactures liability & a single mass shooting at Sutherland Hills church.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know what? It was you that introduced knives and baseball bats and I really am not interested in what other deaths are from when the topic is guns.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2019)

Trade said:


>


Feb 17, 2018 - Chris Riddell on Donald _Trump's_ response to the Florida school ... Florida shooting: howls of grief fall upon deaf ears - _cartoon_ ... We won't have _gun_ control because we should arm school children to shoot .... As Charlton Heston said about someone trying to take his _guns_ away: 'From my _cold_, dead _hands_.


----------



## 911 (Sep 9, 2019)

Pepper said:


> *A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*
> Says right there arms are kept as they are necessary to the security of a free State, nothing more.  We don't have militias, either.



The National Guard is regarded as *a “well regulated Militia “ *


----------



## win231 (Sep 9, 2019)

Warrigal said:


> I think Starsong is saying that the problem must be addressed by first adopting a different mind set. If every idea is immediately knocked down as impractical then not only will the death rate not diminish, it will continue to rise. Things can change if people have the will to change. Do you want things to change for the better?


Same question for you:  What do you suggest?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 9, 2019)

911 said:


> The National Guard is regarded as *a “well regulated Militia “ *


Thanks. It has replaced the one mentioned in the Constitution?


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 9, 2019)

win231 said:


> Same question for you:  What do you suggest?


And I repeat my question to you - do you actually want things to change?

I could point to things that were done in my homeland after a very serious massacre last century that have made a difference here but US has seen many serious events since then and nothing has been done that is very effective. If Americans want to make changes to the carnage, for that is what it is, then they will have to be changes to the root causes of the problem.

I hesitate to say what I think these root causes are because I sense that that is what you are waiting for so that you can tell me why they cannot be addressed. Which brings me back to my question. Do you see any need for change or is change what you actually fear?


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 9, 2019)

The only change I fear is a knee jerk reaction from a country with a population of 19.98 million telling our population of 327.2 million what they think works and what won't. Guess that puts me in the category of be aware of your surroundings and accept the fact that there are nefarious people in the world that want to do you harm.


----------



## win231 (Sep 9, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> The only change I fear is a knee jerk reaction from a country with a population of 19.98 million telling our population of 327.2 million what they think works and what won't. Guess that puts me in the category of be aware of your surroundings and accept the fact that there are nefarious people in the world that want to do you harm.


^^^  One of several important factors those with the easy solutions leave out of the mix.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 9, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> The only change I fear is a knee jerk reaction from a country with a population of 19.98 million telling our population of 327.2 million what they think works and what won't. Guess that puts me in the category of be aware of your surroundings and accept the fact that there are nefarious people in the world that want to do you harm.


And how do you think that a country with a much smaller population is going to do US any harm at all?
Do you fear invasion?
Do you fear some ideas?
And if you are talking about Australia, with a population of about 25 million in 2018, one of the US' most steadfast allies and trading partners, and *think that this continent is full of nefarious people wanting to do you harm, then you need to get a grip on reality. That thought is truly paranoid.

If you have been reading my posts you must have picked up that I state frequently state the US needs to find solutions that would work in USA, but first you have to want to*. I suspect that life is held rather cheaply in America if massacred children don't prompt serious efforts to end the carnage, or at least make it a rare occurrence.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 9, 2019)

If we could find a way to shut down the black market gun trafficking, it would help a whole lot.  Maybe a life sentence for gun trafficking and stop pleading down gun offenses?


----------



## win231 (Sep 9, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> If we could find a way to shut down the black market gun trafficking, it would help a whole lot.  Maybe a life sentence for gun trafficking and stop pleading down gun offenses?


I'm all for it.  But I know it will never happen.  If we could shut down the black market gun trafficking, we could also shut down illegal drug trafficking, along with every other illegal trafficking.  And pleading down gun offenses will also never happen because all offenses are pleaded down.  That's how attorneys & courts make money & that's how we save prisoner upkeep costs.

I just saw an incredible non-fiction movie about the corruption involving the parole system & payoffs:  "Marie."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_(film)


----------



## Sunny (Sep 10, 2019)

> I suspect that life is held rather cheaply in America if massacred children don't prompt serious efforts to end the carnage, or at least make it a rare occurrence.



Warrigal, I can see how you can come to that conclusion, based on some of the hysterical defenses of the almighty gun that have appeared in this thread, and many times before in this forum, always by the same small group of gun lovers. But rest assured, life is not held that cheaply here in America, particularly the lives of children. Last year, the young people who survived the massacre in Parkland, Florida led a nationwide movement, with people coming out in droves to voice their protest of the grip the NRA and its sycophants have on our legislators. Thousands of people took part in demonstrations, with millions more backing them.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/us/parkland-change-gun-control-legislation/index.html


----------



## doat (Sep 10, 2019)

As we see here on this forum, it’s a very controversial issue.  But I do believe with compromise on both sides we could come up with a fix for this problem.


----------



## rgp (Sep 10, 2019)

doat said:


> As we see here on this forum, it’s a very controversial issue.  But I do believe with compromise on both sides we could come up with a fix for this problem.



  "But I do believe with compromise on both sides we could come up with a fix for this problem."

 What compromise here, is going to stop the killing?

 Are you suggesting a  compromise will stop the evil thoughts of the killers ? I ask because it is indeed the evil mind that is doing the killing. The gun is merely the means, And it is reported to be some 400 million of them [guns] out there. A buy-back, while it might have worked in some other countries, will never work here. Stopping the manufacture of guns will put _thousands _out of work. So once again what compromise are we to reach that will solve the problem of killing ?

Swift , sure prosecution of the killers and harsh punishment after absolute guilt proven.


----------



## rgp (Sep 10, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Warrigal, I can see how you can come to that conclusion, based on some of the hysterical defenses of the almighty gun that have appeared in this thread, and many times before in this forum, always by the same small group of gun lovers. But rest assured, life is not held that cheaply here in America, particularly the lives of children. Last year, the young people who survived the massacre in Parkland, Florida led a nationwide movement, with people coming out in droves to voice their protest of the grip the NRA and its sycophants have on our legislators. Thousands of people took part in demonstrations, with millions more backing them.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/us/parkland-change-gun-control-legislation/index.html




  "But rest assured, life is not held that cheaply here in America, particularly the lives of children."

   You are correct, because each & every time a child is killed......the family sues for millions......so I suppose a child's life is worth a few million dollars ? Not cheap.


----------



## Knight (Sep 10, 2019)

I posted.



Knight said:


> A lot has been posted about cars & gun manufacturers liability. Death by being run over, shot, stabbed, poisoned, or beat with something. All have the common denominator of using an object that is static. Once the decision is made by a person with ill will towards others, that inanimate object is somehow to blame? It's the person not the object.



As you can see my post related to yours. Easy to see how you can twist content. 

How long is it going to take for you to explain how a gun can move, point at and shoot a person without a human providing the actions needed.

Really like to know what you meant by IRA talk


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 10, 2019)

Knight said:


> I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The gun is inert until activated.  Once it is activated there is no going back. It is the modus operandi and you can't leave it out of the question.  That is NRA talk. But let's move to why we are allowing guns like the AR15 to be acquired by civilians with huge magazines.  For what purpose?  And was that a Freudian slip when you stated IRA talk.  Last I saw here was NRA talk.
The NRA controls the president and congress by influencing with for want of a better word "money".  The president was all in favor of expanding background checks until the NRA got a hold of him and Congressmen and the NRA are trying to block the civil suit of the Newton survivor families. They have no business in the courts of the country and congress.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 10, 2019)

rgp said:


> "But rest assured, life is not held that cheaply here in America, particularly the lives of children."
> 
> You are correct, because each & every time a child is killed......the family sues for millions......so I suppose a child's life is worth a few million dollars ? Not cheap.


Misanthrope.


----------



## rgp (Sep 10, 2019)

Pepper said:


> Misanthrope.




  Excuse me, will you explain your comment ? If it is purely name calling ? I can get into that,.....and last for years. 

  Just let me know.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 10, 2019)

Years.  My my.


----------



## win231 (Sep 10, 2019)

doat said:


> As we see here on this forum, it’s a very controversial issue.  But I do believe with compromise on both sides we could come up with a fix for this problem.


I'm 100% in favor of any fix - that doesn't turn me into a helpless victim.


----------



## rgp (Sep 10, 2019)

Pepper said:


> Years.  My my.




 Well now, I guess your argument is losing / has lost any real merit.....since it appears name calling is what  you have resorted too.


----------



## Sassycakes (Sep 10, 2019)

I don't know the solution on how to stop the mass killings we are experiencing now. I read an article that said the Second Amendment to  the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Dec.15th 1791 as part of the bill of rights. The only thing about the Amendment was at that time I don't believe there were guns or riffles that could shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes. Without those type of weapons I believe we would be safer. I am not an authority on this issue, but I would feel safer if those types of guns were banned.


----------



## rgp (Sep 10, 2019)

Sassycakes said:


> I don't know the solution on how to stop the mass killings we are experiencing now. I read an article that said the Second Amendment to  the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Dec.15th 1791 as part of the bill of rights. The only thing about the Amendment was at that time I don't believe there were guns or riffles that could shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes. Without those type of weapons I believe we would be safer. I am not an authority on this issue, but I would feel safer if those types of guns were banned.



 The second amendment was ratified as it was so that we [the new nation] could repel  an attack on an equal basis toward any enemy seeking to attack us.

 Moving forward, we must maintain an equal, better yet a leading edge in this day. Hence the need for the firearms you note.


----------



## win231 (Sep 11, 2019)

Sassycakes said:


> I don't know the solution on how to stop the mass killings we are experiencing now. I read an article that said the Second Amendment to  the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Dec.15th 1791 as part of the bill of rights. The only thing about the Amendment was at that time I don't believe there were guns or riffles that could shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes. Without those type of weapons I believe we would be safer. I am not an authority on this issue, but I would feel safer if those types of guns were banned.


A dose of reality:  How could we guarantee that those types of guns were banned & there wasn't a single one in existence?  We couldn't.  That means law-abiding citizens would comply with the ban, but criminals won't.  Criminals don't obey laws; that's what makes them...criminals.
That would leave innocent, decent people (like me) at a terrible disadvantage - trying to defend myself with an antique single-shot gun, while criminals have guns that "shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes."
Not a position any sane gun owner would want to be in.  Or put his family in.  THAT is why restrictions are opposed.
What type of gun do police officers defend themselves with?  Guns from 1791?  In fact, you may have noticed that police departments no longer issue their officers revolvers - now they use 17-shot auto pistols.  Why?  Because criminals have 17-shot autos.  Revolvers have limited capacity- 6 - 8 rounds & they are slower to reload.  After officers were killed when they ran out of ammo, NO officers use revolvers in the US; they were replaced with high-capacity auto pistols.
And patrol cars have 30-round assault rifles in them - so they don't have to risk their lives waiting for the SWAT team to arrive.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

win231 said:


> A dose of reality:  How could we guarantee that those types of guns were banned & there wasn't a single one in existence?  We couldn't.  That means law-abiding citizens would comply with the ban, but criminals won't.  Criminals don't obey laws; that's what makes them...criminals.
> That would leave innocent, decent people (like me) at a terrible disadvantage - trying to defend myself with an antique single-shot gun, while criminals have guns that "shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes."
> Not a position any sane gun owner would want to be in.  Or put his family in.  THAT is why restrictions are opposed.
> What type of gun do police officers defend themselves with?  Guns from 1791?  In fact, you may have noticed that police departments no longer issue their officers revolvers - now they use 17-shot auto pistols.  Why?  Because criminals have 17-shot autos.  Revolvers have limited capacity- 6 - 8 rounds & they are slower to reload.  After officers were killed when they ran out of ammo, NO officers use revolvers in the US; they were replaced with high-capacity auto pistols.
> And patrol cars have 30-round assault rifles in them - so they don't have to risk their lives waiting for the SWAT team to arrive.


One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 11, 2019)

Sassycakes said:


> I don't know the solution on how to stop the mass killings we are experiencing now. I read an article that said the Second Amendment to  the U.S. Constitution was ratified on Dec.15th 1791 as part of the bill of rights. The only thing about the Amendment was at that time I don't believe there were guns or riffles that could shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes.



Sorry Sassy, but that statement is incorrect. While it was not used, there was a multi-shot gun as far back as 1718.


----------



## Sassycakes (Sep 11, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> Sorry Sassy, but that statement is incorrect. While it was not used, there was a multi-shot gun as far back as 1718.


*
If I'm understanding this correctly the multi-shot gun was invented in 1718 Yet the army refused to use it,but now ordinary citizens can use it. The Army obviously is much smarter then the average person.
*


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Sassycakes said:


> *If I'm understanding this correctly the multi-shot gun was invented in 1718 Yet the army refused to use it,but now ordinary citizens can use it. The Army obviously is much smarter then the average person.*




 I'm thinking the 'refusal' was likely budget oriented. Or perhaps a design flaw.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
> The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.




Remember the Los Angles bank robbery shoot out of 1997..... at that time the LAPD were so out gunned, that many of the officers went to a local gun store and commandeered automatic rifles to fight back.........[actually the store owner volunteered the weapons] If the weapons had not been there for _civilians_ to purchase .......... the outcome may have been entirely different.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
> The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.




   Someone needs to say it, so I will.

 You're in Canada , what we do here is frankly none of your business.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 11, 2019)

This forum is open to comments from people from all countries.  Many of us welcome wisdom, insight and experiences from citizens whose countries have better handles on various issues.  

We can learn from one another.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

StarSong said:


> This forum is open to comments from people from all countries.  Many of us welcome wisdom, insight and experiences from citizens whose countries have better handles on various issues.
> 
> We can learn from one another.



 OK, fine,.......apparently you are one of the many that do? I am one of the many that do not.

 Besides, what says they have a better handle on anything? We do things our way, they do things their way. If you like their way better ?......Move there.


----------



## win231 (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
> The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


What is "fictitious" is living in a world of your own making & ignoring reality (as you just did).


----------



## StarSong (Sep 11, 2019)

Who says they have a better handle on anything?  Data, statistics and facts.


----------



## win231 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> Remember the Los Angles bank robber shoot out of 1997..... at that time the LAPD were so out gunned, that many of the officers went to a local gun store and commandeered automatic rifles to fight back.........[actually the store owner volunteered the weapons] If the weapons had not been there for _civilians_ to purchase .......... the outcome may have been entirely different.


Yes, and it was a good thing that the store (B & B Sales) was so close to the bank.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

StarSong said:


> Who says they have a better handle on anything?  Data, statistics and facts.




 As i said, if all that appeals to you , move there.

  If we are so damn bad ? Why is it people try so hard to come here ?


----------



## Knight (Sep 11, 2019)

StarSong said:


> Who says they have a better handle on anything?  Data, statistics and facts.


While the United States does have an unusually high rate of gun violence and mass shootings for a highly developed and wealthy nation, it is a common misconception it is the worst country in the world in terms of mass shooting rates. The truth of the matter is that the United States is actually number sixty-six on the list of countries in terms of mass shooting rates per capita, but they have had more mass shootings than any other country in terms of overall numbers.

That finding rings true when all countries around the world are taken into consideration. Looking at the United States alongside all the countries in Europe alone, the United States has the twelfth highest mass shooting rate. A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate per capita than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland.

It certainly seems that the United States has the highest mass shootings rate of all the land, but this has been proven untrue. In recent years, the Crime Prevention Research Center released information regarding the annual death rates as a result of mass shootings around the world. The countries that were looked at in this data analysis were...

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/mass-shootings-by-country/
Comparing stats beats speculation, stats are part of the information in that URL.  Note  where Canada is.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> Remember the Los Angles bank robbery shoot out of 1997..... at that time the LAPD were so out gunned, that many of the officers went to a local gun store and commandeered automatic rifles to fight back.........[actually the store owner volunteered the weapons] If the weapons had not been there for _civilians_ to purchase .......... the outcome may have been entirely different.


Exactly ,and that's why civilians should not be able to buy certain weapons.
Automatic rifles for civilians have been banned for that exact reason.
It's funny that the civilians accept the ban on automatic rifles for civilian use and yet object to a ban on a rifle that is just as efficient as has been proven multiple times.

Whose fault was it that the LAPD were outgunned? It wasn't the law.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

win231 said:


> What is "fictitious" is living in a world of your own making & ignoring reality (as you just did).



These are your words, not mine.
_"That would leave innocent, decent people (like me) at a terrible disadvantage - trying to defend myself with an antique single-shot gun, while criminals have guns that "shoot loads of bullets in just a few minutes." _

That's pure speculation and fiction.  Your example of an antique single-shot gun is pure exaggeration.   

I doubt there is even one of the gun lovers of America with an antique single shot gun to defend themselves with. They possess much better now and they will always be there.

Connecticut has a ban on named rifles.  Is the population tthere not able to defend themselves with better than a single shot antique gun?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

win231 said:


> I'm 100% in favor of any fix - that doesn't turn me into a helpless victim.


Good lets start with universal background checks.  Are you in favor?  The NRA who represent the gun lobby of America are against.  How can a background check turn you into a helpless victim?

Now watch,  They won't work, yada, yada, yada.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> Sorry Sassy, but that statement is incorrect. While it was not used, there was a multi-shot gun as far back as 1718.
> 
> View attachment 76275


Ahem, that's long before the Revolution took place and the Constitution was written.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Exactly ,and that's why civilians should not be able to buy certain weapons.
> Automatic rifles for civilians have been banned for that exact reason.
> It's funny that the civilians accept the ban on automatic rifles for civilian use and yet object to a ban on a rifle that is just as efficient as has been proven multiple times.
> 
> Whose fault was it that the LAPD were outgunned? It wasn't the law.



 Fault ? I never mentioned fault. It was standard issue weapons that they had. It was that very issue that changed the standard.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Good lets start with universal background checks.  Are you in favor?  The NRA who represent the gun lobby of America are against.  How can a background check turn you into a helpless victim?
> 
> Now watch,  They won't work, yada, yada, yada.




  Where is it that we do not have background checks ? I favor them, they make sense , but they are already in place. So what are the ones that you keep calling for ?


----------



## win231 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> As i said, if all that appeals to you , move there.
> 
> If we are so damn bad ? Why is it people try so hard to come here ?


Yeah....I've heard that drivel many times - someone leaves their country & goes through a lot of hassle & expense to live here, then they'll talk about how much better things were in their original country.  I can't figure out why they don't realize how stupid they sound.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> Fault ? I never mentioned fault. It was standard issue weapons that they had. It was that very issue that changed the standard.


And so what?  I don't get your point.  The gangsters outshot the police with Thompson machine guns.  If automatics weren't banned for civilians, they would still have them.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

win231 said:


> Yeah....I've heard that drivel many times - someone leaves their country & goes through a lot of hassle & expense to live here, then they'll talk about how much better things were in their original country.  I can't figure out why they don't realize how stupid they sound.




 Well.......a-bit OT here but what the hell.

   There was a time when immigrants came to America , to be/become, American. Not just to reap our benefits. Now days it seems reaping what they can is all they care to do. And on top of that it seems they want America to follow the ways of their ex homeland, they want us to conform to their ways. ...........I refuse to !


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> Where is it that we do not have background checks ? I favor them, they make sense , but they are already in place. So what are the ones that you keep calling for ?


Universal background checks are not in force.  You can buy a semi automatic rifle privately or from a relative and no background checks are required. That's how the last perp got one after being turned down for a background check, through a private sale.

Even the ones that are in effect now are opposed by the gun lobby as infringing on the Second Amendment.

_The recent shooting in and around Odessa, Texas, is shining new light on an old problem: In some states, a person barred from owning a gun under the law can still buy one in a private sale, without a background check.
The West Texas shooter, Seth Ator, 36, failed a background check when he tried to purchase a gun in 2014, because he had been deemed "a mental defective" by a judge, according to law enforcement sources. He was later able to buy a gun from a private seller. He killed seven people and wounded 25 others on August 31 before being apprehended and killed by the police in a shootout. The person who sold Ator his gun is being investigated as an unlicensed dealer, according to a law enforcement source._


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> And so what?  I don't get your point.  The gangsters outshot the police with Thompson machine guns.  If automatics weren't banned for civilians, they would still have them.




 ?? I don't get your point.......The police were out-gunned, but better weapons were available in the gun store . Using those leveled the field & gave the police a fighting chance. Had the public/civilian gun store not been there, with those weapons...........the good guys might have lost the battle.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Universal background checks are not in force.  You can buy a semi automatic rifle privately or from a relative and no background checks are required. That's how the last perp got one after being turned down for a background check, through a private sale.
> 
> Even the ones that are in effect now are opposed by the gun lobby as infringing on the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...




  Well, for now I will oppose background checks in private sales.


----------



## 911 (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Universal background checks are not in force.  You can buy a semi automatic rifle privately or from a relative and no background checks are required. That's how the last perp got one after being turned down for a background check, through a private sale.
> 
> Even the ones that are in effect now are opposed by the gun lobby as infringing on the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


What do you mean “apprehended and killed?” Was he in custody when killed by the police?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

911 said:


> What do you mean “apprehended and killed?” Was he in custody when killed by the police?


I quoted that  in italics from a news source. Killed in a shootout. I'm not familiar with the case. I doubt if he was in custody. The word apprehended might have been misused, killed is o.k.


----------



## win231 (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Good lets start with universal background checks.  Are you in favor?  The NRA who represent the gun lobby of America are against.  How can a background check turn you into a helpless victim?
> 
> Now watch,  They won't work, yada, yada, yada.


I see nothing wrong with background checks.  I'm in California, where I have to pass a detailed background check for each gun purchase.  But we have to realize that background checks cannot prevent someone from obtaining a gun privately - legally or illegally.
I'm not concerned with the NRA; I'm not a member.  My only concern is my family's safety & mine.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> ?? I don't get your point.......The police were out-gunned, but better weapons were available in the gun store . Using those leveled the field & gave the police a fighting chance. Had the public/civilian gun store not been there, with those weapons...........the good guys might have lost the battle.


Don't get my point? Can you as a civilian buy an automatic rifle legally from a gun shop? If better weapons were available in a gun shop, so what?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

win231 said:


> I see nothing wrong with background checks.  I'm in California, where I have to pass a detailed background check for each gun purchase.  But we have to realize that background checks cannot prevent someone from obtaining a gun privately - legally or illegally.
> I'm not concerned with the NRA; I'm not a member.  My only concern is my family's safety & mine.


The NRA lobbies against background checks. Your families safety and yours is in jeopardy when you go out in public.


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> The NRA lobbies against background checks. Your families safety and yours is in jeopardy when you go out in public.



If you are referring to HR-8, yes, the NRA lobbied against it for this section alone.
 "It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection ".
 Translation... you as a private citizen who has legally purchased a firearm may not sell it to anyone unless you become a licensed FFL dealer, manufacturer, or importer. If you're going to blame the NRA, get all the facts first. Geeez.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> If you are referring to HR-8, yes, the NRA lobbied against it for this section alone.
> "It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection ".
> Translation... you as a private citizen who has legally purchased a firearm may not sell it to anyone unless you become a licensed FFL dealer, manufacturer, or importer. If you're going to blame the NRA, get all the facts first. Geeez.


I got it right. I said the NRA lobbies against background checks. What good are background checks if someone who is turned down can buy a gun privately. That just happened in Texas and he went out and committed a mass murder.


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper, I guess that's where you and I are different. You prefer to be the sheep being herded, while I prefer to blaze my own trail. Thus the reason you're there, and I'm here.  Be well.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> Camper, I guess that's where you and I are different. You prefer to be the sheep being herded, while I prefer to blaze my own trail. Thus the reason you're there, and I'm here.  Be well.


Funny.  I don't feel I am being herded at all.
On the contrary you are a slave to the wishes and foibles of the NRA. Talk about being sheep. 

You may not be a member but you follow suit and support them or you wouldn't be posting what you just did.
You are kidding yourself if you think you are blazing your own trail.


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 11, 2019)

Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.
> 
> View attachment 76308


The sheep remove their teeth?  Don't tell me another one that one is still hot.

Who gives you this stuff?  I hope your not paying for it.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Don't get my point? Can you as a civilian buy an automatic rifle legally from a gun shop? If better weapons were available in a gun shop, so what?




 Automatic ? No, semi auto ? yes, after passing a background check. 

 If the better weapons were not available there, the police officers would not have had the chance to acquire them & fight back as they did. 
 If the store were not permitted to sell them, the store would have had only single-shot , pistols, etc. The same thing the police already had.

Why are you not getting that ?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> Automatic ? No, semi auto ? yes, after passing a background check.
> 
> If the better weapons were not available there, the police officers would not have had the chance to acquire them & fight back as they did.
> If the store were not permitted to sell them, the store would have had only single-shot , pistols, etc. The same thing the police already had.
> ...


Look. The police primarily have handguns. As far as I am concerned they are always outgunned by a semi automatic short barrel rifle with a large magazine. Your point doesn't make sense. The weapons were available to the police obviously. They just didn't have them. It can happen anytime even now. There was no way they could stop the shooter in Las Vegas with a revolver against the arsenal Paddock had from the ground. I'm trying but I can't get your point. If the guns were available to the police, then they were available to the shooter. So then if they were not available to either what would be the outcome?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> The second amendment was ratified as it was so that we [the new nation] could repel  an attack on an equal basis toward any enemy seeking to attack us.
> 
> Moving forward, we must maintain an equal, better yet a leading edge in this day. Hence the need for the firearms you note.


Rgp.
The new nation did not have a standing army and they do now. I doubt the U.S. with the largest military in the world would rely on civilians to repel an attack.
Hence you don't need military style weapons.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Look. The police primarily have handguns. As far as I am concerned they are always outgunned by a semi automatic short barrel rifle with a large magazine. Your point doesn't make sense. The weapons were available to the police obviously. They just didn't have them. It can happen anytime even now. There was no way they could stop the shooter in Las Vegas with a revolver against the arsenal Paddock had from the ground. I'm trying but I can't get your point. If the guns were available to the police, then they were available to the shooter. So then if they were not available to either what would be the outcome?




 Well, first place it was Los Angles....Not Vegas, The better weapons were not standard issue to the police at the time.

   "The weapons were available to the police obviously."

 Only during mob actions / swat call outs etc.......Not during day-to-day patrol.


 The store owner was glad to hand them the 'equalizing' weapons when they were being attacked .  

 And again, it really is none of your business, how we deal with anything. I wish you well, in your country doing things your way.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Rgp.
> The new nation did not have a standing army and they do now. I doubt the U.S. with the largest military in the world would rely on civilians to repel an attack.
> Hence you don't need military style weapons.




   You do not _know_ that !


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> You do not _know_ that !


Just logic.


----------



## hearlady (Sep 11, 2019)

Someone needs to figure out how to prevent this so


fuzzybuddy said:


> We've done this to death- gun violence. I was going to talk about the 10, who were wounded yesterday, but now , another mass shooting, there are more dead and wounded. only moments ago. We have a monstrous hurricaine bearing down on the US. But this holiday weekend, more people will meet death at the end of a barrel of a gun than in an Act of God. We are the ones killing ourselves. We've had over 30 years of mass shootings. And for  everyday we stick our heads in the sand, and look the other way, waiting for our anger to vanish, the death toll piles up. How many more men, women and children have to be needlessly sacrificed before, we actually do something about it.
> BTW, I meant to write this- what- at least 5 shootings ago.


I  hope someone is studying the common denominators and looking for ways to prevent it.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Just logic.




   Your logic.....But not an absolute.


----------



## DaveA (Sep 11, 2019)

As a curiosity, have any of our gun owners attended a meeting of the "well regulated" militia in their area lately?  I own a couple of handguns but have never been able to locate my local militia group, let alone attend any drills.  

Sounds like horse-sh-t to me when folks trot out the militia stories from the 1700's.


----------



## rgp (Sep 11, 2019)

DaveA said:


> As a curiosity, have any of our gun owners attended a meeting of the "well regulated" militia in their area lately?  I own a couple of handguns but have never been able to locate my local militia group, let alone attend any drills.
> 
> Sounds like horse-sh-t to me when folks trot out the militia stories from the 1700's.




 I have never "trotted" out militia stories, I only noted that all of them had not been disbanded as far as I knew.

 But back-in-the-day, as they say. The entire nation was "expected" ? to become the national militia in the case of an attack by an enemy . Yes I know things have changed, but some do stick with the "old-days" way of thinking.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> Your logic.....But not an absolute.





rgp said:


> Your logic.....But not an absolute.


The armed forces now is as absolute as you are going to get.


----------



## win231 (Sep 11, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> Sometimes a picture really is worth a thousand words.
> 
> View attachment 76308


Exactly.  Another logical point:  Whenever there is a mass shooting, they want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.  Much like requiring me to have a vasectomy because my neighbor has too many kids.


----------



## Olivia (Sep 11, 2019)

win231 said:


> Exactly.  Another logical point:  Whenever there is a mass shooting, they want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.  Much like requiring me to have a vasectomy because my neighbor has too many kids.



How is that any different from Russian Roulette? Speaking of logic?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

win231 said:


> Exactly.  Another logical point:  Whenever there is a mass shooting, they want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.  Much like requiring me to have a vasectomy because my neighbor has too many kids.


Now that is not logical and the point of the pictures posted claimed that the sheep take their teeth out? What kind of logic is that? Whenever there is a mass shooting innocent people die and *those* *who care* would like to see that mitigated or stopped. No* 'they' *don't want to take the guns away from people who didn't do it. They want to stop those who do it from getting guns that were designed for the military with large magazines instead of prayers and condolences.

So what is your solution.  Let it continue?  Do nothing and hope for the best?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> I have never "trotted" out militia stories, I only noted that all of them had not been disbanded as far as I knew.
> 
> But back-in-the-day, as they say. The entire nation was "expected" ? to become the national militia in the case of an attack by an enemy . Yes I know things have changed, but some do stick with the "old-days" way of thinking.


Even though the United States has one of the largest military in the world and the National Guard as well? Why would one want to stick with the old-days ways of thinking?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

win231 said:


> ^^^  One of several important factors those with the easy solutions leave out of the mix.


What could be more nefarious than a guy with a rifle going through a church and killing crying babies execution style?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> Someone needs to say it, so I will.
> 
> You're in Canada , what we do here is frankly none of your business.


Oh here we go.  My family lives in the U.S. so what happens there is my business.
And this is an international forum so I'm going to make it my business.


----------



## Keesha (Sep 11, 2019)

rgp said:


> Someone needs to say it, so I will.
> 
> You're in Canada , what we do here is frankly none of your business.


It’s a universal forum. Whatever you discuss IS our business since WE are ALL members.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 11, 2019)

Keesha said:


> It’s a universal forum. Whatever you discuss IS our business since WE are ALL members.


Sooooooo, what kinda pizza do you like up there?
(please don't say Canadian bacon)


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 11, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Sooooooo, what kinda pizza do you like up there?
> (please don't say Canadian bacon)


Pizza Hut. Same as U.S. If you crossed the border into Canada you would think you are still in the U.S. Mc Donalds, Wendys,KFC,Arby's,Dominos,and others too numerous to mention


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 11, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Pizza Hut. Same as U.S. If you crossed the border into Canada you would think you are still in the U.S. Mc Donalds, Wendys,KFC,Arby's,Dominos,and others too numerous to mention


Now I'm sad
Thought Canucks had more class than that

Pizza Hut, Dominos.....blech


----------



## Keesha (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Pizza Hut. Same as U.S. If you crossed the border into Canada you would think you are still in the U.S. Mc Donalds, Wendys,KFC,Arby's,Dominos,and others too numerous to mention


WHAT??? Not sure where ‘you’ live in particular BUT when I cross the border, I can certainly tell that I’m in the United States and not Canada. Yes we have the same types of junk food places but there’s a distinct difference between the two countries. 

Here you go Camper. The top pizza places to go to in Canada which includes wood fired pizza. 

https://www.foodnetwork.ca/dining-out/blog/12-best-pizza-places-across-canada/35910/


----------



## Keesha (Sep 12, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Now I'm sad
> Thought Canucks had more class than that
> 
> Pizza Hut, Dominos.....blech


We DO!
And more space . Lol


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> Someone needs to say it, so I will.
> 
> You're in Canada , what we do here is frankly none of your business.



You don't speak for all Americans. 

And you definitely don't speak for me.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Now I'm sad
> Thought Canucks had more class than that
> 
> Pizza Hut, Dominos.....blech


Go to Quebec. French speaking.Different culture. I'm only thirty minutes from the U.S. Border.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Keesha said:


> WHAT??? Not sure where ‘you’ live in particular BUT when I cross the border, I can certainly tell that I’m in the United States and not Canada. Yes we have the same types of junk food places but there’s a distinct difference between the two countries.
> 
> Here you go Camper. The top pizza places to go to in Canada which includes wood fired pizza.
> 
> https://www.foodnetwork.ca/dining-out/blog/12-best-pizza-places-across-canada/35910/


Pizza is basically the same all over except for the topping. First one I had was home cooked and it was anchovies topping it.


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Pizza is basically the same all over except for the topping.




Like Hell it is. 

New Jersey Pizza is the best by far.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
> The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



How many more innocent lives would have been lost in the shooting at the church in Sutherland, Texas if a civilian had not been similarly armed and shot at the attacker, scared him away from the church and cornered him?  I would wager more than one.


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> How many more innocent lies would have been lost



Innocent* lies*? 

Freudian slip?


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> Innocent* lies*?
> 
> Freudian slip?




Nope, just a typo (arthritic hands).  I saw it and went back and fixed it.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 12, 2019)

I do not believe the framers of the constitution intended to predicate the right to own firearms on membership in some militia.  Had they meant to do so, they would have said that the right of militia members to keep and bear arms could not be infringed.  That's not what  the constitution says.


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Keesha said:


> It’s a universal forum. Whatever you discuss IS our business since WE are ALL members.




 Not when it comes to what may become policy in this country.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> Like Hell it is.
> 
> New Jersey Pizza is the best by far.



What makes New Jersey Pizza any different than any other pizza.

Basically you have dough.  You put toppings on it.  You bake it.

Is there a magic ingredient in New Jersey Pizza that no one else has?


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> You don't speak for all Americans.
> 
> And you definitely don't speak for me.




 Never said I did, But when it comes to American law, politics & policy , it is my position that any non Americans should keep their nose out of our business. They live in a different country..... concern themselves with it.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> I do not believe the framers of the constitution intended to predicate the right to own firearms on membership in some militia.  Had they meant to do so, they would have said that the right of militia members to keep and bear arms could not be infringed.  That's not what  the constitution says.


Well that is debateable of course.  There is a preamble that you cannot ignore. The reason for allowing the right is clear.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> Never said I did, But when it comes to American law, politics & policy , it is my position that any non Americans should keep their nose out of our business. They live in a different country..... concern themselves with it.


As the leader of the free world, with the largest military in the world, anything the U.S. does influences the entire globe.
The United States does not keep their nose out of world affairs.
We are just commenting here, not trying to set law, politics & policy.
What are you afraid of?


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> As the leader of the free world, with the largest military in the world, anything the U.S. does influences the entire globe.
> The United States does not keep their nose out of world affairs.
> We are just commenting here, not trying to set law, politics & policy.
> What are you afraid of?




 Not afraid of anything........just sick & tired of people around the world trying to tell us what to do . Again, if we're so bad, etc. Why is it that it seems everyone wants to be here, come here ?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> Not afraid of anything........just sick & tired of people around the world trying to tell us what to do . Again, if we're so bad, etc. Why is it that it seems everyone wants to be here, come here ?


Refer to my previous post.  Not everyone want's to be there or come there. No one is trying to tell you what to do.


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Refer to my previous post.  Not everyone want's to be there or come there. No one is trying to tell you what to do.




 In a way you are, you & others keep trying to dictate gun law..or at the least make a very strong suggestion as to what we should do...that is exactly trying to tell us what to do. Granted here, on group as you noted, it is merely suggestion but it comes off as sticking your noses in our business, and our business is not your business.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> In a way you are, you & others keep trying to dictate gun law..or at the least make a very strong suggestion as to what we should do...that is exactly trying to tell us what to do. Granted here, on group as you noted, it is merely suggestion but it comes off as sticking your noses in our business, and our business is not your business.


What I do is copy over your posts and reply to them.
As I stated before I have family living in the United States so I have a dog in the hunt so to speak.
You have no business telling a member of this forum to butt out of any thread or conversation.
I don't try to dictate gun law or tell you what to do.
You are being overly sensitive. Everyone here is anonymous. Management posts the rules.  Everyone is welcome from what I read.
If you want to defend your gun ownership, be my guest but not everyone has to agree with being intimidated from posting.
And that sir is why the politics was eliminated from this forum.


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> What makes New Jersey Pizza any different than any other pizza.



Because I said so, that's why.


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> Never said I did, But when it comes to American law, politics & policy , it is my position that any non Americans should keep their nose out of our business. They live in a different country..... concern themselves with it.



Well bless your heart.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> How many more innocent lives would have been lost in the shooting at the church in Sutherland, Texas if a civilian had not been similarly armed and shot at the attacker, scared him away from the church and cornered him?  I would wager more than one.


That Sutherland church shooting is the one that set me off. Killing crying babies execution style still bothers me to this day.
I followed that case.  The shooting was taped by the church  for the church service and was never shown.  It must have been really bad.
Now.  The civilian you speak of was an NRA instructor who lived not far away from the church so he did have the same type of weapon but (I'm not sure) the guy was wearing body armor.
When he got there the shooting was all over and the attacker was coming out of the church.  He exchanged gunfire with the shooter and the shooter took off in a vehicle and was chased and then crashed or took his own life.  That's what I read.
Now what surprised me was that the NRA instructor's daughter investigated the shots and came back from the church and told her father who rushed out.
What I don't get is why she didn't call 911 when she was at the church.. 
The shooter had his truck parked near the church for a getaway. It was all over at that point. 
The guy shouldn't have had a gun in the first place.  That would have saved lives.
This was a planned killing and the church was the intended target.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 12, 2019)

> One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
> The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.



Well put, Camper. I wouldn't even say, "the average citizen;" I'd say the overwhelming number of citizens of the U.S. agree with you.  It is only the fervent supporters of the NRA who would argue with what you said. They will go down with their sinking ship, shouting their loyalty to the almighty gun. No amount of sanity seems able to reach them.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> Because I said so, that's why.


That's a good reason.


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> Well bless your heart.




 And your asinine comment adds what to the conversation ?


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> What I do is copy over your posts and reply to them.
> As I stated before I have family living in the United States so I have a dog in the hunt so to speak.
> You have no business telling a member of this forum to butt out of any thread or conversation.
> I don't try to dictate gun law or tell you what to do.
> ...




 I have every bit as much business telling you to butt out of a thread , as you do suggesting gun owner policy in my country.

 I'm not overly sensitive about anything at all. Just fed up with all those that think they know best for us.


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> Just fed up with all those that think they know best for us.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Is there a magic ingredient in New Jersey Pizza that no one else has?


Evidently there is
Got a buddy there
All he can talk about
All I can think about 


Seriously, this ol' dawg knows good pizza from other (Dominos, Pizza Hut)
They're tossed dough, come from real pizza ovens, and served where buxom ladies never let yer pitcher of beer get too low


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> And your asinine comment adds what to the conversation ?


pure entertainment, of which is greatly lacking in this thread


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Evidently there is
> Got a buddy there
> All he can talk about
> All I can think about
> ...




  I thought Chicago [as for a town] was the king of pizza......?


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> pure entertainment, of which is greatly lacking in this thread




 To each his own I suppose ?


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> I thought Chicago [as for a town] was the king of pizza......?


I heard that too
No argument


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Evidently there is
> Got a buddy there
> All he can talk about
> All I can think about
> ...



I'm not big on chain pizza, but the Pizza Hut Big New Yorker with pepperoni is da bomb!


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> I'm not big on chain pizza, but the Pizza Hut Big New Yorker with pepperoni is da bomb!


Nice try, JayDub
Not gonna bite


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> I have every bit as much business telling you to butt out of a thread , as you do suggesting gun owner policy in my country.
> 
> I'm not overly sensitive about anything at all. Just fed up with all those that think they know best for us.



I would listen to anyone's advice on gun control if their country had a much lower level of gun violence than the US does. I think Camper being from Canada qualifies, at least for me he does. Canada's gun violence numbers are one of the lowest among 1st world countries.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Nice try, JayDub
> Not gonna bite



But it's only a phone call away G.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

Not terrible looking, gotta say
The pepperonis look a bit tiny, however

Next time I go by a Pizza Hut, I'll stop in...sniff...look for the ovens....and a guy tossing dough


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Not terrible looking, gotta say
> The pepperonis look a bit tiny, however
> 
> Next time I go by a Pizza Hut, I'll stop in...sniff...look for the ovens....and a guy tossing dough



The oil/grease that comes on one of those New Yorker's with pepperoni is enough to run a small diesel engine for a month. That's what makes it taste so good.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> The oil/grease that comes on one of those New Yorker's with pepperoni is enough to run a small diesel engine for a month


*I'M IN!*

The true test is from the fridge...the next week
Cold rancid grease...M-M-M


----------



## Knight (Sep 12, 2019)

While the United States does have an unusually high rate of gun violence and mass shootings for a highly developed and wealthy nation, it is a common misconception it is the worst country in the world in terms of mass shooting rates. The truth of the matter is that the United States is actually number sixty-six on the list of countries in terms of mass shooting rates per capita, but they have had more mass shootings than any other country in terms of overall numbers.

That finding rings true when all countries around the world are taken into consideration. Looking at the United States alongside all the countries in Europe alone, the United States has the twelfth highest mass shooting rate. A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate per capita than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland.

It certainly seems that the United States has the highest mass shootings rate of all the land, but this has been proven untrue. In recent years, the Crime Prevention Research Center released information regarding the annual death rates as a result of mass shootings around the world. The countries that were looked at in this data analysis were...

Mass Shootings By Country 2019
Comparing stats beats speculation, stats are part of the information in that URL. Note where Canada is.

As for me pizza qualifies as junk food. While tasty the junk food calories just don't fit my idea a way of staying healthy


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

Knight said:


> In recent years, the Crime Prevention Research Center released information regarding the annual *death rates *as a result of mass shootings around the world


We might be just bad aims



Knight said:


> the United States has the twelfth highest mass shooting rate. A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate per capita than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland.



I heard that bad pizza is rife in those countries
I noticed Italy is quite low in the ratings


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

Knight said:


> While the United States does have an unusually high rate of gun violence and mass shootings for a highly developed and wealthy nation, it is a common misconception it is the worst country in the world in terms of mass shooting rates. The truth of the matter is that the United States is actually number sixty-six on the list of countries in terms of mass shooting rates per capita, but they have had more mass shootings than any other country in terms of overall numbers.
> 
> That finding rings true when all countries around the world are taken into consideration. Looking at the United States alongside all the countries in Europe alone, the United States has the twelfth highest mass shooting rate. A few of the European countries with a higher mass shooting rate per capita than the United States include Russia, Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland.
> 
> ...




"There's Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Besides that, I would never trust a man that doesn't like Pizza.

And here's a link to a rebuttable of your bogus study.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/united-states-lower-death-shootings/


> The source of the list is a 2015 article published by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), a pro-gun rights nonprofit run by economist John Lott. In his research, Lott found that between 2009 and 2015, the number of people killed in a mass shooting in the United States (in relation to the overall population) was lower than it was in several European countries, including Norway, France, Switzerland and Finland.
> 
> 
> *Our conclusion is that this is accurate based on the CPRC’s definition of a mass shooting, but also extremely misleading. It uses inappropriate statistical methods to obscure the reality that mass shootings are very rare in most countries, so that when they do happen they have an outsized statistical effect. Of the countries chosen by Lott for his analysis, the United States is by some distance the most consistent site of mass shootings.
> ...


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> "There's Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
> 
> And the study you quoted above fits that quote like  a glove.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

Ironically I am not in favor of gun control at all. If it was up to me you would be able to go into any hardware store and buy guns and ammunition just as easily as you could buy a hammer and nails. That being said I find many arguments used by the pro-gun people to justtify their positions to be absurd.


----------



## Knight (Sep 12, 2019)

Trade said:


> "There's Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
> 
> Besides that, I would never trust a man that doesn't like Pizza.
> 
> ...


*Our conclusion is that this is accurate based on the CPRC’s definition of a mass shooting, but also extremely misleading.* Misleading is not the same as *Our conclusion is that this is accurate based on the CPRC’s definition of a mass shooting. *

You may not like the way it was done but that doesn't mean it's a fake.


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

Knight said:


> You may not like the way it was done but that doesn't mean it's a fake.



It's a crap study. The author of it decided what he wanted the conclusion to be and then manipulated cherry picked data to back into it. I worked for the Florida Department of Transportation for 31 years. I lost count of how many traffic studies I saw that did the exact same thing. In fact, I did a few myself. I can do a study that will say anything you want it to. So don't try to bullshit a bullshitter.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 12, 2019)

I'm in favor of some controls as I stated in posts #109 and #112 above.

I find the statistics interesting but of little value.

It's cold comfort that one country is worse, as bad, etc...


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

Knight said:


> You may not like the way it was done but that doesn't mean it's a fake.



You'll be hard pressed to find any other study that agrees with yours. I agree with Trade, the study you posted manipulated the facts to come to a pre-determined conclusion. The US gun death numbers rival 3rd world countries and are at the very bottom of any 1st world country list.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> I have every bit as much business telling you to butt out of a thread , as you do suggesting gun owner policy in my country.
> 
> I'm not overly sensitive about anything at all. Just fed up with all those that think they know best for us.


If you check back I have never suggested gun owner policy in your country.
And no regardless of the topic you have no business telling me to butt out of a thread.
That's the moderators job.  There is a Report feature that you can use.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

Keesha said:


> WHAT??? Not sure where ‘you’ live in particular BUT when I cross the border, I can certainly tell that I’m in the United States and not Canada. Yes we have the same types of junk food places but there’s a distinct difference between the two countries.
> 
> Here you go Camper. The top pizza places to go to in Canada which includes wood fired pizza.
> 
> https://www.foodnetwork.ca/dining-out/blog/12-best-pizza-places-across-canada/35910/



I gotta get me some Tim Bits!! Tim Hortons coffee is the best!


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> I gotta get me some Tim Bits!! Tim Hortons coffee is the best!


All those pizza places are located in big cities.  We need something for the Oakies from Muskogee.


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)




----------



## Sunny (Sep 12, 2019)

Could somebody please explain to me how this turned into a discussion about pizza?


----------



## Don M. (Sep 12, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Could somebody please explain to me how this turned into a discussion about pizza?



Good question!!


----------



## Trade (Sep 12, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Could somebody please explain to me how this turned into a discussion about pizza?



I thought it was a nice way of diverting the conversation away from a controversial issue.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Well that is debateable of course.  There is a preamble that you cannot ignore. The reason for allowing the right is clear.



You can't go rummaging around in the constitution to find things that you think support your position.  The constitution means exactly what it says -- nothing more.  If the framers had wanted to restrict firearms to militia members, they would have said so. Because they didn't say so, it means that's not what they meant to do.   They were certainly bright and educated enough folks to have been able to construct their language to their intent, had they actually meant to restrict firearms to the militia.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> That Sutherland church shooting is the one that set me off. Killing crying babies execution style still bothers me to this day.
> I followed that case.  The shooting was taped by the church  for the church service and was never shown.  It must have been really bad.
> Now.  The civilian you speak of was an NRA instructor who lived not far away from the church so he did have the same type of weapon but (I'm not sure) the guy was wearing body armor.
> When he got there the shooting was all over and the attacker was coming out of the church.  He exchanged gunfire with the shooter and the shooter took off in a vehicle and was chased and then crashed or took his own life.  That's what I read.
> ...



Stephen Middleford, the civilian, was a plumber who was sleeping at the time because he was on call that night at the hospital where he worked.  You can't know that the shooter was finished.  He ran for the truck when Mr. Middleford shot at him.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else can know what he had planned to do after he left the church, if, in fact he was planning to leave at that point.  Shoot up another church?  Go on a spree shooting at traffic?  Or nothing?  We will never know.  But what we do know that whatever the shooter was planning to do, Mr. Middleford disrupted his plans, followed him, and led the police to him.


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> If you check back I have never suggested gun owner policy in your country.
> And no regardless of the topic you have no business telling me to butt out of a thread.
> That's the moderators job.  There is a Report feature that you can use.




You voiced opinion regarding guns/gun sales in this country. In posts #30 & 78 you do indeed indicate what you think we need regarding guns. So yes I have every right to tell you to butt out.....it is none of your business.


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> You can't go rummaging around in the constitution to find things that you think support your position.  The constitution means exactly what it says -- nothing more.  If the framers had wanted to restrict firearms to militia members, they would have said so. Because they didn't say so, it means that's not what they meant to do.  * They were certainly bright and educated enough folks to have been able to construct their language to their intent,* had they actually meant to restrict firearms to the militia.



Most of them were also slave owners, I don't get too carried away with how intelligent they were.


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> Most of them were also slave owners, I don't get too carried away with how intelligent they were.




 Here we go again......another diversion..LOL!


----------



## JimW (Sep 12, 2019)

rgp said:


> Here we go again......another diversion..LOL!



Look over there.....................It's a Canadian trying to talk guns in an American gun thread. How dare he! Is that the diversion you're speaking of?


----------



## rgp (Sep 12, 2019)

JimW said:


> Look over there.....................It's a Canadian trying to talk guns in an American gun thread. How dare he! Is that the diversion you're speaking of?




 Well no actually, it was the reference to slavery...........But twist it how you will.


----------



## Ruthanne (Sep 12, 2019)

Well, this is amusing to say the most...


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Could somebody please explain to me how this turned into a discussion about pizza?


Prolly some dum bass Oree-gone-ite from the sticks
The nerve

Now, let's get down to the real meat of the issue

One word;

Bacon


----------



## Keesha (Sep 12, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Prolly some dum bass Oree-gone-ite from the sticks
> The nerve
> 
> Now, let's get down to the real meat of the issue
> ...


----------



## squatting dog (Sep 12, 2019)

Bacon? Did someone say bacon? I'm in.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 12, 2019)

squatting dog said:


> Bacon? Did someone say bacon? I'm in


A tad off topic, but I tend to go OT when a thread unravels to the point of diving head first into the fun filled incriminatory cesspool

anyway

I remembered a poster in regard to bacon or no bacon;





It's a statistic...probably


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Trade said:


>


Did they pry that pizza from his cold dead hands?


rgp said:


> You voiced opinion regarding guns/gun sales in this country. In posts #30 & 78 you do indeed indicate what you think we need regarding guns. So yes I have every right to tell you to butt out.....it is none of your business.


My grandson is in school there and if some A...hole can get a gun to shoot him I'm going to make it my business to find out what can be done about it.  Methinks it's you that should mind your own business.

Re post 30 and 78. I was responding to posters who were asking questions. 

Not to worry.  The solution is to arm school children.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 12, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Did they pry that pizza from his cold dead hands?
> 
> My grandson is in school there and if some A...hole can get a gun to shoot him I'm going to make it my business to find out what can be done about it.  Methinks it's you that should mind your own business.
> 
> ...



The truth is, Camper, that regardless of your family ties here, there is nothing you can do about "it" since you do not vote in the US.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> The truth is, Camper, that regardless of your family ties here, there is nothing you can do about "it" since you do not vote in the US.


Butterfly. We are merely discussing here. If my family didn't live there I wouldn't bother with the rude hassles l'm getting.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> You can't go rummaging around in the constitution to find things that you think support your position.  The constitution means exactly what it says -- nothing more.  If the framers had wanted to restrict firearms to militia members, they would have said so. Because they didn't say so, it means that's not what they meant to do.   They were certainly bright and educated enough folks to have been able to construct their language to their intent, had they actually meant to restrict firearms to the militia.


They didn't say for personal protection either did they.?The reason was to protect the state. 
Would you like to debate birthright citizenship next.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 12, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> Stephen Middleford, the civilian, was a plumber who was sleeping at the time because he was on call that night at the hospital where he worked.  You can't know that the shooter was finished.  He ran for the truck when Mr. Middleford shot at him.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else can know what he had planned to do after he left the church, if, in fact he was planning to leave at that point.  Shoot up another church?  Go on a spree shooting at traffic?  Or nothing?  We will never know.  But what we do know that whatever the shooter was planning to do, Mr. Middleford disrupted his plans, followed him, and led the police to him.


Everyone in the church was dead when he exited. He was coming out of the church. The church was in complete shambles from the shooting. They couldn't use it anymore.Its hard to get details on it because the townspeople didn't want to discuss it Of course no one knows what he had planned next.He didn't run for the truck immediately. He was exchanging gunfire from outside the church. My point is there were no survivors or anyone saved. It was too late.


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Did they pry that pizza from his cold dead hands?
> 
> My grandson is in school there and if some A...hole can get a gun to shoot him I'm going to make it my business to find out what can be done about it.  Methinks it's you that should mind your own business.
> 
> ...




  What goes on, happens, in my country is MY business....and not some foreigner's .


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Butterfly. We are merely discussing here. If my family didn't live there I wouldn't bother with the rude hassles l'm getting.




 If you are so concerned for your family, and think it is so bad here for them ? Move them to be with you.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 13, 2019)

> What goes on, happens, in my country is MY business....and not some foreigner's .



Rgp, you seem to take delight in stirring up the flames in this forum.  Usually I manage to ignore you, but I'll bite this time.

According to your statement, if Germany wanted to throw umpteen millions of innocent people in the gas chamber back in the 1940's, it was nobody else's right to express an "opinion" about it, since they didn't live in Germany. Right?

Has Milford, OH not received the news that this is a free country, with freedom of speech being one of our guaranteed rights?  And that doesn't mean only freedom of speech for those who live here. Anyone in the world can voice their opinion. And in fact, they should.

Here's another bit of news for you: No attempt at putting a muzzle on someone else's right to express an opinion has ever worked. As long as anyone is observing the rules of this forum, he/she has the right to express an opinion. That is what a forum is for. And any amount of curmudgeonly muttering on your part will never succeed in shutting them up.


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Rgp, you seem to take delight in stirring up the flames in this forum.  Usually I manage to ignore you, but I'll bite this time.
> 
> According to your statement, if Germany wanted to throw umpteen millions of innocent people in the gas chamber back in the 1940's, it was nobody else's right to express an "opinion" about it, since they didn't live in Germany. Right?
> 
> ...




  Stirring the flames ? Really ? ........why, because I do not agree with you ?

  Germany did nothing of the sort.....that was the Nazi's 

 And since you're going down the road of name calling ..[curmudgeonly muttering]..... your post sounded very much like the uneducated babble of an airhead .


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 13, 2019)

Well now.....looks like we can't seem to just get along

Might I suggest


----------



## Trade (Sep 13, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Usually I manage to ignore you, but I'll bite this time.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> If you are so concerned for your family, and think it is so bad here for them ? Move them to be with you.


Well now.  If a person seeks life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are you going to deny them that right to go wherever they might find it. He was born there. An American citizen.  Where did I say it was bad for them there?  So far the state he lives in has sensible gun laws.  I'm concerned seeing the militant frame of mind of the gun lobby, I'm concerned they might be changed.  I come here to find out the mindset and frankly I'm shocked.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> What goes on, happens, in my country is MY business....and not some foreigner's .


And what happens to a child born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen and is my grandson is my business and I will stop when you pry the typewriter from my dead cold hands.


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> And what happens to a child born in the U.S. and is a U.S. citizen and is my grandson is my business and I will stop when you pry the typewriter from my dead cold hands.




Of course your grandson is your business, but what we do in my country is not. Again, if you are that concerned? And fear for him here ? Move him to be with you.

  Don't get me wrong,......I of course wish him a great & peaceful life......I just hope he doesn't grow up to be as bossy as you.........BWAHAHAHA !


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Well now.  If a person seeks life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are you going to deny them that right to go wherever they might find it. He was born there. An American citizen.  Where did I say it was bad for them there?  So far the state he lives in has sensible gun laws.  I'm concerned seeing the militant frame of mind of the gun lobby, I'm concerned they might be changed.  I come here to find out the mindset and frankly I'm shocked.



 "Where did I say it was bad for them there?  "

 You indicate a concern for our gun laws as they are. You indicate a disagreement with our gun lobby , you seem to take the side of those that wish to change/ignore *our* constitution........doesn't sound to me like you have much trust in us ?


 Shocked ? That I support the second amendment of MY constitution ?


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Well now.....looks like we can't seem to just get along
> 
> Might I suggest
> 
> View attachment 76380




  LOL,....just can't leave the pizza out of it, can ya..........?


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> LOL,....just can't leave the pizza out of it, can ya..........?


Hey, it's a profound mixture of ingredients that do so well together

Somewhat the polar opposite of this thread

......Just maintaining a balance


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Hey, it's a profound mixture of ingredients that do so well together
> 
> Somewhat the polar opposite of this thread
> 
> ......Just maintaining a balance




 Ya gotz to admit, if all we ever did was agree on every topic in a thread ? It would be pretty dawg-gone boring, No?


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> Ya gotz to admit, if all we ever did was agree on every topic in a thread ? It would be pretty dawg-gone boring, No?


Got me there
A humorous uptick in the name calling dept would be nice


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> Got me there
> A humorous uptick in the name calling dept would be nice




 I only 'name-call' after it has been done to me. Other than that on the humorous side. And in those cases I'm fairly sure the recipient knows that it is in jest.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> in those cases I'm fairly sure the recipient knows that it is in jest.


May the hilarity continue

I'm checking the fridge
There's a month old half slice of pizza in the somewhere


----------



## RadishRose (Sep 13, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> May the hilarity continue
> 
> I'm checking the fridge
> There's a month old half slice of pizza in the somewhere


Nope, I ate it yesterday.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> Didn't someone just say something about asinine comments not helping ?


So far to date intelligent/rational comments have not helped so it's not the comments rather, the cowardice that runs through our govt. that kneels to the NRA.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> I think the goofballs would welcome a shoot out.  They would go looking for it to demonstrate their heavy equipment and 100 round magazines.
> 
> Walmart should install metal detecting entrances like airports.
> 
> Are we there at that stage yet? Check them in.  They are already checking them out.


Why just Walmart? Why not every door of every business in the country including churches?


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

fmdog44 said:


> So far to date intelligent/rational comments have not helped so it's not the comments rather, the cowardice that runs through our govt. that kneels to the NRA.



 I see your point, and to a degree,agree ? As a deceased friend of mine used to say,.......follow the money.


----------



## 911 (Sep 13, 2019)

I was listening to Justice Scalia one night on Charlie Rose, which airs on PBS. He was addressing concerns on gun control and of course, the 2nd Amendment begins to be debated.

Justice Scalia made a comment that I thought was very interesting and gave me pause for thought.  He said the following, which is not verbatim. “No court has ever defined exactly what a well regulated Militia is. Therefore, I see it as open to interpretation if I should be asked to rule on a case that would come before us.* I could just as easily say that it is any one person, which would include you or I.*” (Like I already stated, this is NOT verbatim.)

What are your thoughts?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> Of course your grandson is your business, but what we do in my country is not. Again, if you are that concerned? And fear for him here ? Move him to be with you.
> 
> Don't get me wrong,......I of course wish him a great & peaceful life......I just hope he doesn't grow up to be as bossy as you.........BWAHAHAHA !


Et tu Brutus.  I can tell you belong to another forum where they let you get away with snide remarks instead of sticking to the topic.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Sep 13, 2019)

911 said:


> I was listening to Justice Scalia one night on Charlie Rose, which airs on PBS. He was addressing concerns on gun control and of course, the 2nd Amendment begins to be debated.
> 
> Justice Scalia made a comment that I thought was very interesting and gave me pause for thought.  He said the following, which is not verbatim. “No court has ever defined exactly what a well regulated Militia is. Therefore, I see it as open to interpretation if I should be asked to rule on a case that would come before us.* I could just as easily say that it is any one person, which would include you or I.*” (Like I already stated, this is NOT verbatim.)
> 
> What are your thoughts?


IMO Scalia and his views on the second amendment were easy to understand and agree with.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the _Heller_ majority opinion. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” Scalia said.

“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many _amici_ who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution,” Scalia concluded. “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> "Where did I say it was bad for them there?  "
> 
> You indicate a concern for our gun laws as they are. You indicate a disagreement with our gun lobby , you seem to take the side of those that wish to change/ignore *our* constitution........doesn't sound to me like you have much trust in us ?
> 
> ...


No not that you  support the second amendment.

Your blase attitude toward the senseless killing of innocents.  The gun is the important part to you not the lives.

Trust?  Since man to man is so unjust I do not know what man to trust.  I have often trusted to my sorrow but if you trust me today I'll trust you tomorrow.

I agree with those who wish to mitigate or eliminate the carnage. It's a blight on the landscape.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 13, 2019)

911 said:


> open to interpretation


One for the wise


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

fmdog44 said:


> Why just Walmart? Why not every door of every business in the country including churches?



Has it come to that? Is it that bad?  Would the populace admit it? Would the populace allow it?
Would the right to privacy enter the picture?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> The truth is, Camper, that regardless of your family ties here, there is nothing you can do about "it" since you do not vote in the US.



I should at least be able to comment on this forum without getting hassled.


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> No not that you  support the second amendment.
> 
> Your blase attitude toward the senseless killing of innocents.  The gun is the important part to you not the lives.
> 
> ...






  "Your blase attitude toward the senseless killing of innocents.  "



 I have no blase attitude toward killing...I do however have a strong attitude toward preserving *my *constitution !



"The gun is the important part to you not the lives."


 Show me exactly where I said "The gun is the important part too me."........Do not put words in my mouth !


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

911 said:


> I was listening to Justice Scalia one night on Charlie Rose, which airs on PBS. He was addressing concerns on gun control and of course, the 2nd Amendment begins to be debated.
> 
> Justice Scalia made a comment that I thought was very interesting and gave me pause for thought.  He said the following, which is not verbatim. “No court has ever defined exactly what a well regulated Militia is. Therefore, I see it as open to interpretation if I should be asked to rule on a case that would come before us.* I could just as easily say that it is any one person, which would include you or I.*” (Like I already stated, this is NOT verbatim.)
> 
> What are your thoughts?


If I am allowed to comment, as a foreigner which some on this forum seem to resent, then I will say the word militia is plural in nature.  I doubt you could call one person a militia.
You have already stated that the National Guard is regarded or recognized as the militia. I can agree with that.  It seems to be a good fit.
I will agree that everyone might be a member of a well regulated militia. It seems to me that the term as written in the Second Amendment has no meaning now as intended by the founders since when it was written there was no standing army.
Once the standing army of the United States was initiated the state doesn't have to depend on a well regulated militia depending on civilians to defend the state.
The Constitution is one of my favourite (British spelling) topics.  I study it as much as I can and try to learn about it as much as I can.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> "Your blase attitude toward the senseless killing of innocents.  "
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have accredited a lot to me which I didn't state also. So then just tell me it isn't and I will trust you are telling the truth.


----------



## 911 (Sep 13, 2019)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO Scalia and his views on the second amendment were easy to understand and agree with.
> 
> Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the _Heller_ majority opinion. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” Scalia said.
> 
> “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many _amici_ who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution,” Scalia concluded. “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”



I remember this being a big deal. I think had it not been for Scalia, it may have been possible that the appeal may have been overturned.


----------



## win231 (Sep 13, 2019)

fmdog44 said:


> Why just Walmart? Why not every door of every business in the country including churches?


Uh......a dose of reality to think about.  Consider the scenario of a church or business with a metal detector:
A psycho plans a mass murder.  He arrives at a church.  There is a metal detector at the entrance.  It goes off as he storms in.  He starts shooting. The metal detector did its job; it prevented the churchgoers from carrying a gun into the church, but the shooter couldn't care less; he's determined to kill people & probably plans on committing suicide when he's finished, anyway.  I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to think the psycho shooter will run away when the metal detector goes off.

Now, consider a metal detector at the airport or courthouse.  What's the difference?  There are several armed security people standing next to the metal detector who WILL stop a shooter if he starts shooting.


----------



## JimW (Sep 13, 2019)

911 said:


> I was listening to Justice Scalia one night on Charlie Rose, which airs on PBS. He was addressing concerns on gun control and of course, the 2nd Amendment begins to be debated.
> 
> Justice Scalia made a comment that I thought was very interesting and gave me pause for thought.  He said the following, which is not verbatim. “No court has ever defined exactly what a well regulated Militia is. Therefore, I see it as open to interpretation if I should be asked to rule on a case that would come before us.* I could just as easily say that it is any one person, which would include you or I.*” (Like I already stated, this is NOT verbatim.)
> 
> What are your thoughts?



No court may have ever defined what a well regulated militia is, but if you look at the time period in which the constitution was written with no standing military, it's pretty obvious the word militia was never meant to mean one person. Scalia towed the party line on this one.


----------



## Trade (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> What goes on, happens, in my country is MY business....and not some foreigner's .



Thank you so much for making the United States look bad with your ignorant comments like the one above. I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate that.


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Trade said:


> Thank you so much for making the United States look bad with your ignorant comments like the one above. I can't begin to tell you how much I appreciate that.



 Well, your very welcome.....True ignorance lies in your response.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

win231 said:


> Uh......a dose of reality to think about.  Consider the scenario of a church or business with a metal detector:
> A psycho plans a mass murder.  He arrives at a church.  There is a metal detector at the entrance.  It goes off as he storms in.  He starts shooting. The metal detector did its job; it prevented the churchgoers from carrying a gun into the church, but the shooter couldn't care less; he's determined to kill people & probably plans on committing suicide when he's finished, anyway.  I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to think the psycho shooter will run away when the metal detector goes off.
> 
> Now, consider a metal detector at the airport or courthouse.  What's the difference?  There are several armed security people standing next to the metal detector who WILL stop a shooter if he starts shooting.


I understand but if the detector goes off and a good guy is carrying  
Isn't that what you want so you let him in.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> What goes on, happens, in my country is MY business....and not some foreigner's .


And where people want to live it's their business.


----------



## Ruthanne (Sep 13, 2019)

I think we need some...


----------



## rgp (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> And where people want to live it's their business.




Exactly right....and you do not live here. If you change your mind ? accept our gun law, come in legally. Then your opinion will mean something. Then work to change what you may not like, & I will accept the results.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 13, 2019)

> Stirring the flames ? Really ? ........why, because I do not agree with you ?
> 
> Germany did nothing of the sort.....that was the Nazi's
> 
> And since you're going down the road of name calling ..[curmudgeonly muttering]..... your post sounded very much like the uneducated babble of an airhead .



Oh boy, sounds like the logic of my answer really got to you, rgp! 

Of course it was the Nazi's!  What on earth difference does that make? Germany did nothing of the sort? So then, what country did all the horrors of the Holocaust take place in?  You are trying to get people from ANOTHER COUNTRY to refrain from criticizing the US (obviously because they don't agree with you; I'm sure if they agreed with you it would be perfectly fine to express their opinion). In the analogy I made, I showed that by your logic, the rest of the world did not have the right to "disagree" with Germany and their election of Hitler (and he WAS elected!) because they were not Germans. Interesting twist of logic, changing Germany to the Nazis, as if that changed the point I was making!

If you want to insist that it was not Germany who killed all those people, it was the Nazis, I can make the same point. It is not the US that is preventing gun control, it is only a small contingent which has an irrational amount of power. Most Americans are strongly in favor of increasing gun control measures, especially when it comes weapons of mass assault. So the people from other parts of the world who are rightfully horrified, and expressing their opinion, are not criticizing the US, they are criticizing the blind ignorance of those who choose not to see.

So, let's try again - I can't wait to see the logic of your answer!  This country is being held hostage to the terror inflicted by an evil organization that has bought off enough corrupt politicians to get their way.   Enough sychophants have bought into the macho ****** symbolism to support this evil organization. That is more important to them than worrying about the number of innocent people, many of them children, being mowed down every day. You say people outside of this country cannot criticize our choices (why? because you said so?)  which is exactly the same as saying that no one had the right to criticize the choices the Germans made.  

But I'm just an airhead, so who cares what I think? Time to grab yer rootin' tootin' firearm and start shootin'!


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> Exactly right....and you do not live here. If you change your mind ? accept our gun law, come in legally. Then your opinion will mean something. Then work to change what you may not like, & I will accept the results.


E


rgp said:


> Exactly right....and you do not live here. If you change your mind ? accept our gun law, come in legally. Then your opinion will mean something. Then work to change what you may not like, & I will accept the results.



No I don't live there but I have joined this forum to discuss topics of interest.
I was welcomed here and I follow the rules of the forum.  It's supposed to be a friendly forum and that's why politics were eliminated.  We discussed it and I agreed with it.  Other than you   no one has told me that I have no business commenting on anything that happens in the U.S. or the world for that matter. It's a global forum.
I have no intention of moving there but no one is going to browbeat me into not expressing my opinion on gun laws or anything else that happens in the U.S. on this forum.
If you don't like it, then it's just too darned bad isn't it?


----------



## C'est Moi (Sep 13, 2019)

Sunny said:


> So, let's try again - I can't wait to see the logic of your answer!  This country is being held hostage to the terror inflicted by an evil organization that has bought off enough corrupt politicians to get their way.   Enough sychophants have bought into the macho ****** symbolism to support this evil organization.


Do you even know anything about the NRA?   My husband and 2 sons are members, and I take offense at your clueless comments.  

Go ahead, give up ALL your Constitutional rights.   I'll keep mine, thanks.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Butterfly. We are merely discussing here. If my family didn't live there I wouldn't bother with the rude hassles l'm getting.



I stated a fact, which is that you do not vote here. No hassle, just a fact -- like that I do not vote in Canada so my opinion won't matter there, either.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 13, 2019)

911 said:


> I was listening to Justice Scalia one night on Charlie Rose, which airs on PBS. He was addressing concerns on gun control and of course, the 2nd Amendment begins to be debated.
> 
> Justice Scalia made a comment that I thought was very interesting and gave me pause for thought.  He said the following, which is not verbatim. “No court has ever defined exactly what a well regulated Militia is. Therefore, I see it as open to interpretation if I should be asked to rule on a case that would come before us.* I could just as easily say that it is any one person, which would include you or I.*” (Like I already stated, this is NOT verbatim.)
> 
> ...



Here is the holding of the Supreme court on the subject of the individual right to bear arms and militia service.

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL.
 v. 
HELLER

 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 07–290.    

Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 

Held:  The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally  lawful  purposes,  such  as  self-defense  within  the  home.Pp. 2–53.(a)    The    Amendment’s    prefatory    clause  announces  a  purpose,  but does  not  limit  or  expand  the  scope  of  the  second  part,  the  operative clause.     The  operative  clause’s  text  and  history  demonstrate  that  it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.  Pp. 2–22. "


This case is still good law and has not been overturned; several challenges have been made to the law, but they have failed.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> They didn't say for personal protection either did they.?The reason was to protect the state.
> Would you like to debate birthright citizenship next.




"They" might not have said for personal protection, but the Supreme Court sure said that loud and clear in _Heller._


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> Stirring the flames ? Really ? ........why, because I do not agree with you ?
> 
> Germany did nothing of the sort.....that was the Nazi's
> 
> And since you're going down the road of name calling ..[curmudgeonly muttering]..... your post sounded very much like the uneducated babble of an airhead .



And just who do you believe were the Nazis?  Little ol' ladies from Pasadena?

Of course it was the Germans -- not all of them, as they were quick to point out  when I lived there for ten years -- but it WAS the Germans who elected Hitler and/or who stood by and let him take control of the Reichstag and the army and the country and many of whom willingly (and some quite enthusiastically) participated in his regime and his policies and atrocities.

Take a look at the Nuremberg trials, and particularly the trials of the judges and other civilian authorities if you doubt that the Germans participated.  

GEEZ!


----------



## Knight (Sep 13, 2019)

At this post #431 I think this will be my final opinion post

I think I know where I go wrong in my posts about gun deaths. I don't think mass deaths by an assault rifle are more tragic than the deaths when a gun with less fire power are used. Let me be CLEAR I believe all death caused by someone using a gun to kill another human being are equally tragic.

I found this web site that tracks death by gun. At 25 per page on page 18 from August 31, 2019 to today September 13, 2019 450 people have died via the use of a gun. The lists show some cases of two people dead and a few 3 people dead. I randomly chose this one where 3 people died.
1499195    September 7, 2019 Tennessee Hermitage 3213 Dockside Dr.
Probably murder/suicide using a 357 magnum.

No doubt assault rifes make mass murders possible.  I may be missing something I just don't get what makes mass death any more horrendous than the 450 deaths by other than an assault rifle. The common factor human/humans. Use of a gun is easier & IMO impersonal,  but take away guns and alternatives are still possible.

1https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/number-of-gun-deaths

To clarify. I didn't say I don't like pizza.When younger and fat, pizza was eaten because it was easy buy on the way home from work. Now with having learned about what contributes to good health, I know junk food is a waste of calories. Between a good protein like NY strip steak that can cost less than a pizza. For me NY strip wins every time.


----------



## 911 (Sep 13, 2019)

JimW said:


> No court may have ever defined what a well regulated militia is, but if you look at the time period in which the constitution was written with no standing military, it's pretty obvious the word militia was never meant to mean one person. Scalia towed the party line on this one.



I have no argument with your perception of what a militia is, but if you read Scalia's opinion that he wrote for the majority in the D.C. vs. Heller case, he goes way beyond of what a militia is and why it shouldn't or doesn't just pertain to such. He also includes parts of the Constitution's Preamble, as well as the 9th and 10th amendments.

What I found even more interesting was to read was Justice Breyer's opinion he wrote for the dissenting Justices. It made me thankful that their side didn

I don't know if you ever sat in during a Supreme Court oral argument session, but I found it to be very educational. Thankfully, the oral arguments last only about an hour.


Butterfly said:


> And just who do you believe were the Nazis?  Little ol' ladies from Pasadena?
> 
> Of course it was the Germans -- not all of them, as they were quick to point out  when I lived there for ten years -- but it WAS the Germans who elected Hitler and/or who stood by and let him take control of the Reichstag and the army and the country and many of whom willingly (and some quite enthusiastically) participated in his regime and his policies and atrocities.
> 
> ...


I believe that there are still some appeals pending. Whether the Supreme Court will hear them or not is dependent upon the plaintiffs if they wish to pursue the matter, which is also dependent upon the ruling from the Appellate Courts. They will have to wait until the appellate courts hand down a ruling. 

It seems like a lot of money being spent on motions asking for relief from the gun laws, but if the gun laws aren’t changed or the ruling from the Supreme Court does not reverse itself or Congress doesn’t rewrite the 2nd Amendment, the status quo will exist. 

My point is (or more like a question) if none of the above happens, why continue to pursue appeals since the Supreme Court has ruled. Are these plaintiffs looking for a reversal of the ruling? Probably not to happen, or at least not until the Court sees some new blood on the bench.


----------



## Warrigal (Sep 13, 2019)

> or at least not until the Court sees some new blood on the bench



Or at least not until the court sees some actual blood on their bench. The blood of members of the judiciary. Then the problem would become very personal.

Please note, I am not calling for such an event, however there are parts of the world where judges have in the past been targets. It takes a very brave man or woman to continue doing their job in those circumstances.


----------



## win231 (Sep 13, 2019)

Gee, I feel so lonely.  No comments on my post (#416)

BooHooHoo.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> "They" might not have said for personal protection, but the Supreme Court sure said that loud and clear in _Heller._


Yes I understand, the Supreme Court has to interpret the words of the Constitution for the modern world.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

Butterfly said:


> I stated a fact, which is that you do not vote here. No hassle, just a fact -- like that I do not vote in Canada so my opinion won't matter there, either.


So does that mean I am prohibited from posting comments here? 
We weren't talking about if it matters or not since nothing we post here matters much except to those reading and posting as a matter of opinion.
I doubt that the White House is monitoring this forum.
It might not seem like a hassle to you but not to me. Because you don't vote in Canada I wouldn't hassle you if you wanted to comment on anything happening there.
Someone has commented if memory serves correct.  Comparing Canada to a nation of sheep.
I only wish. Canada now is starting to get gun deaths like we never had before and the reason is guns imported from the United States and drug wars.
I have to laugh because the Surgeon General in the U.S. posts warnings on beer cans.
Canada doesn't bother.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> Exactly right....and you do not live here. If you change your mind ? accept our gun law, come in legally. Then your opinion will mean something. Then work to change what you may not like, & I will accept the results.


So now you are in immigration telling me I have to accept your gun laws when I arrive legally?

There are all kinds of people who live in the U.S. and don't accept the gun laws.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

win231 said:


> Gee, I feel so lonely.  No comments on my post (#416)
> 
> BooHooHoo.


I believe I responded in post 420.  I never let a good post go unrewarded


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

911._  It seems like a lot of money being spent on motions asking for relief from the gun laws, but if the gun laws aren’t changed or the ruling from the Supreme Court does not reverse itself or Congress doesn’t rewrite the 2nd Amendment, the status quo will exist. _

*Gun laws can be changed without a rewrite of the 2nd Amendment.*

For instance.  Improving the background checks. There are two recent mass murders that could have been stopped if the background check was not faulty.

The Sutherland Hills church shooting for one. There's no way that person should have been able to buy a gun legally.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

Knight said:


> At this post #431 I think this will be my final opinion post
> 
> _I think I know where I go wrong in my posts about gun deaths. I don't think mass deaths by an assault rifle are more tragic than the deaths when a gun with less fire power are used. Let me be CLEAR I believe all death caused by someone using a gun to kill another human being are equally tragic.
> 
> ...





Butterfly said:


> Here is the holding of the Supreme court on the subject of the individual right to bear arms and militia service.
> 
> "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
> 
> ...


My understanding is that you cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> My understanding is that you cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.


The Supreme Court has overturned hundreds of its own decisions.  Only they have that power, though.


----------



## win231 (Sep 13, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> I believe I responded in post 420.  I never let a good post go unrewarded


Yes, but I'm confused about your post.  Metal detectors' function is to keep armed people out.


----------



## DaveA (Sep 13, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> May the hilarity continue
> 
> I'm checking the fridge
> There's a month old half slice of pizza in the somewhere


Just aging like a fine wine, Gary.  Don't get too anxious - -give it another couple of weeks.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 13, 2019)

DaveA said:


> give it another couple of weeks.


too late

Maybe I'll spring for one from* Pizza Hut*
Should last for years


----------



## Trade (Sep 13, 2019)

rgp said:


> So you are another that likes to start with a smart-assed comment..



Beats the Hell out of your dumb ass comments.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

Pepper said:


> The Supreme Court has overturned hundreds of its own decisions.  Only they have that power, though


Right on.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 13, 2019)

win231 said:


> Yes, but I'm confused about your post.  Metal detectors' function is to keep armed people out.


But you want the good guys with guns in. At airports you get to keep your keys and belt buckle..


----------



## rgp (Sep 14, 2019)

Trade said:


> Beats the Hell out of your dumb ass comments.




   You just must stick your nose into an exchange that does not even involve you...........pathetic .


----------



## Trade (Sep 14, 2019)

rgp said:


> You just must stick your nose into an exchange that does not even involve you...........pathetic .



You are not a moderator nor an administrator. Therefore you have no authority over what other people can or can not say on this forum. Furthermore I am of the opinion that this forum has no restrictions with regard to what posters from outside the US can say regarding issues within the US. So perhaps you are the one that is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.


----------



## rgp (Sep 14, 2019)

Trade said:


> You are not a moderator nor an administrator. Therefore you have no authority over what other people can or can not say on this forum. Furthermore I am of the opinion that this forum has no restrictions with regard to what posters from outside the US can say regarding issues within the US. So perhaps you are the one that is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.




 Grasping at straws.....pathetic.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 14, 2019)

The only reason rgp brought up that Germans vs. Nazi's issue was to deflect attention from the fact that he is making a fool out of himself in this thread, by shouting at people outside of the U.S. that they have no right to comment on events taking place here. Nobody is listening to him or supporting that asinine argument, so he had to veer off the subject and start calling names like a schoolyard bully.  Of course it never was about Germans vs. Nazi's.  We all recognize that the majority of Germans, before and during WW2, were not hateful, racist storm troopers.  Who ever said they were? (I lived in Germany for a year during the 1950's, and made lifelong friends while there).

My point in bringing up the Germans was to show an analogy.  If Camper and other people living elsewhere than in the U.S. cannot be permitted* to comment on events here,  then why were we "permitted" to wage war against Germany?  What was going on in Germany was none of our business, right?

*And how would rgp propose to control which people are permitted to write about which subjects, anyway?


----------



## rgp (Sep 14, 2019)

Sunny said:


> The only reason rgp brought up that Germans vs. Nazi's issue was to deflect attention from the fact that he is making a fool out of himself in this thread, by shouting at people outside of the U.S. that they have no right to comment on events taking place here. Nobody is listening to him or supporting that asinine argument, so he had to veer off the subject and start calling names like a schoolyard bully.  Of course it never was about Germans vs. Nazi's.  We all recognize that the majority of Germans, before and during WW2, were not hateful, racist storm troopers.  Who ever said they were? (I lived in Germany for a year during the 1950's, and made lifelong friends while there).
> 
> My point in bringing up the Germans was to show an analogy.  If Camper and other people living elsewhere than in the U.S. cannot be permitted* to comment on events here,  then why were we "permitted" to wage war against Germany?  What was going on in Germany was none of our business, right?
> 
> *And how would rgp propose to control which people are permitted to write about which subjects, anyway?




  First off, now you are grasping at straws. I never said anything about permission, that is up to the moderators. I just said from a personal point of view.....butt out. It's my country & I don't want to hear it. Since his posts stood, it is obvious that the moderators disagree with me......so be it.


   "Nobody is listening to him or supporting that asinine argument, so he had to veer off the subject and start calling names like a schoolyard bully. "

    You are a nobody, and apparently you listened.


"We all recognize that the majority of Germans, before and during WW2, were not hateful, racist storm troopers.  Who ever said they were? 

In post #387 you said........

 "if Germany wanted to throw umpteen millions of innocent people in the gas chamber back in the 1940's, it was nobody else's right to express an "opinion" about it, since they didn't live in Germany. Right? "

 You said Germany, it was the Nazi's So your analogy doesn't pass muster.........


----------



## Pepper (Sep 14, 2019)

rgp said:


> Grasping at straws.....pathetic.


I recently saw your thread 'Sciatica.'  You are a man in terrible, physical pain.  Perhaps that is why you are such an unrelenting boor.  The constant pain has infected you.  Or, you're just a churl.  I prefer the former, for your sake.


----------



## rgp (Sep 14, 2019)

Pepper said:


> I recently saw your thread 'Sciatica.'  You are a man in terrible, physical pain.  Perhaps that is why you are such an unrelenting boor.  The constant pain has infected you.  Or, you're just a churl.  I prefer the former, for your sake.



Well since you are going down the road of insults & name calling, let me just say.

I recognize the fact that you're just a poor imbecile.......But do try & have a nice day.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 14, 2019)

OOOOKAAAAAY.....

So, about right here, it seems an opportune time for some apologies to float around a bit

Maybe something like wunna my favorite posters


----------



## rgp (Sep 14, 2019)

Gary O' said:


> OOOOKAAAAAY.....
> 
> So, about right here, it seems an opportune time for some apologies to float around a bit
> 
> ...




   Well, since I never threw out a name calling or insult, until one was tossed my way...........I'l be waiting patiently.


----------



## Pepper (Sep 14, 2019)

rgp said:


> Well, since I never threw out a name calling or insult, until one was tossed my way...........I'l be waiting patiently.


Never?  The pain has reached your brain, for sure.  Call me any name you want, doesn't make it true.  Starting to pity you.  No, I won't waste my sympathies.  Don't need to put you on 'ignore' as I can restrain myself without help.  Was doing that till I saw 'Sciatica.'  Back you go!


----------



## rgp (Sep 14, 2019)

Pepper said:


> Never?  The pain has reached your brain, for sure.  Call me any name you want, doesn't make it true.  Starting to pity you.  No, I won't waste my sympathies.  Don't need to put you on 'ignore' as I can restrain myself without help.  Was doing that till I saw 'Sciatica.'  Back you go!




 Pity me ? Please do not. At least I'm not you ...........


----------



## Sunny (Sep 14, 2019)

> he average individual can't do a thing about it.
> 
> It's up to the representatives.  And they don't want to do anything about it.



Interesting thread to reread, all the way from the beginning!

Camper, although I agree with you about 99%, I can't say 100% because of the above comment. I disagree with that; my own Congressional Representative, Jamie Raskin, is very much involved in gun control legislation. Most of the House of Representatives absolutely want to do something about it. They are stopped by the Senate, and those who are beholden to the NRA.  Here's one item about Jamie. He's a very decent guy and brilliant at what he does. He speaks often to local groups, and is constantly in touch with the issues that matter to us.

https://jamieraskin.com/reducing-gun-violence-and-challenging-nra


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 14, 2019)

Sunny said:


> Interesting thread to reread, all the way from the beginning!
> 
> Camper, although I agree with you about 99%, I can't say 100% because of the above comment. I disagree with that; my own Congressional Representative, Jamie Raskin, is very much involved in gun control legislation. Most of the House of Representatives absolutely want to do something about it. They are stopped by the Senate, and those who are beholden to the NRA.  Here's one item about Jamie. He's a very decent guy and brilliant at what he does. He speaks often to local groups, and is constantly in touch with the issues that matter to us.
> 
> https://jamieraskin.com/reducing-gun-violence-and-challenging-nra


_Most of the House of Representatives absolutely want to do something about it. They are stopped by the Senate, and those who are beholden to the NRA. _
That's what I am talking about.  Try as you might unless you have both houses you are dead in the water at the Federal level.  So you try to do something at the state level.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 14, 2019)

rgp said:


> Well, since I never threw out a name calling or insult, until one was tossed my way...........I'l be waiting patiently.


Not true.  You took the first shot in this thread.

Post #81 to me.  And it escalated from there.

I can tell from your posts that you are a member of another forum that is heavily gun oriented.

The comments are amazingly similar.

I get the same thing that I have to defend myself against . 

Fortunately I am a veteran of forum wars.


----------



## rgp (Sep 15, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> Not true.  You took the first shot in this thread.
> 
> Post #81 to me.  And it escalated from there.
> 
> ...




 BS.....go back & read it once again......I merely asked a question.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 15, 2019)

rgp said:


> BS.....go back & read it once again......I merely asked a question.


I know. That's how you disguise your shots.


----------



## AnnieA (Sep 15, 2019)

Wow.  This thread has tanked since I last skimmed through.   This is more like Jr. High than a Seniors' forum.



Pepper said:


> I recently saw your thread 'Sciatica.'  You are a man in terrible, physical pain.  Perhaps that is why you are such an unrelenting boor.  The constant pain has infected you.  Or, you're just a churl.  I prefer the former, for your sake.



Winner, winner chicken dinner.    'Best' of all the poor form posts.


----------



## win231 (Sep 15, 2019)

AnnieA said:


> Wow.  This thread has tanked since I last skimmed through.   This is more like Jr. High than a Senior's forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Winner, winner chicken dinner.    'Best' of all the poor form posts.


I'd say "More like grades 1 - 6."  Teehee.


----------



## win231 (Sep 15, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> One more time. The idea is not to ban all guns. We know you know all Ihe intimate details about guns and rifles and speculate all about the fictitious scenarios as all gun lovers do.
> The average citizen doesn't care. They want the carnage mitigated. They feel the right to bear arms is not worth one innocent life. Military weapons are not necessary for civilians. The restrictions are necessary for the purpose of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Point missed - as expected.


----------



## Lc jones (Sep 15, 2019)

Did we see this type of hometown violence in the US  back in the 50s shootings in shopping centers, in grocery stores, and in schools? I know people owned firearms back then. I don’t recall ever hearing about it at that time, so what has changed?


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 15, 2019)

win231 said:


> Point missed - as expected.


Pointless remark expected.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 15, 2019)

Lc jones said:


> Did we see this type of hometown violence in the US  back in the 50s shootings in shopping centers, in grocery stores, and in schools? I know people owned firearms back then. I don’t recall ever hearing about it at that time, so what has changed?


The firearms are different. What changed is money. Guns are expensive and are now affordable. Young men now want the latest and the greatest. Back then the source of pride was a hunting rifle.


----------



## Keesha (Sep 15, 2019)

Lc jones said:


> Did we see this type of hometown violence in the US  back in the 50s shootings in shopping centers, in grocery stores, and in schools? I know people owned firearms back then. I don’t recall ever hearing about it at that time, so what has changed?


The Internet. That’s what’s changed.
People do this for a reason. Attention.
Unfortunately bad news and disaster sells. People can’t seem to get enough of it and mass shootings get talked about for weeks meaning the killers do also. Plus weapons have become more automated.


----------



## Gary O' (Sep 15, 2019)

Keesha said:


> People can’t seem to get enough of it and mass shootings get talked about for weeks meaning the killers do also.


Said post #470

I find it interesting reading the various directions this thread has taken

It's like saying 'BOO!' to someone taking an EKG





Heh, at least it ain't


Please

carry on, and on, and on, and on, and on....


----------



## jerry old (Sep 15, 2019)

I prefer good cussing rater than snipping
_Garner, you#%*+!@ and your$@&**)+!
To date I've NOT needed profanity, if so I will leave


----------



## 911 (Sep 16, 2019)

Camper6 said:


> _Most of the House of Representatives absolutely want to do something about it. They are stopped by the Senate, and those who are beholden to the NRA. _
> That's what I am talking about.  Try as you might unless you have both houses you are dead in the water at the Federal level.  So you try to do something at the state level.


Lawmakers have to be careful, even at the state level. No law can be passed at the state level, if it contradicts Federal laws. Federal laws trump state laws. (No pun intended.)


----------



## Pepper (Sep 16, 2019)

State Marijuana laws contradict Federal laws.  I know the Feds can crack down, but so far, of course, they have not.  Laws Can be passed at state level.  Whether they can stand up to a legal challenge is something else.  State abortion laws come to mind; these are much more prevalent than pot laws.


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 16, 2019)

911 said:


> Lawmakers have to be careful, even st the state level. No law can be passed at the state level, if it contradicts Federal laws. Federal laws trump state laws. (No pun intended.)


I understand but that's where the open and concealed laws come from.


----------



## 911 (Sep 16, 2019)

Pepper said:


> State Marijuana laws contradict Federal laws.  I know the Feds can crack down, but so far, of course, they have not.  Laws Can be passed at state level.  Whether they can stand up to a legal challenge is something else.  State abortion laws come to mind; these are much more prevalent than pot laws.


They do, that’s correct. However, as you have stated, the Feds could still make an arrest. No law may contradict a federal law, period. States impose their own laws on many different issues, but that does not make them legal. 

The problems that face the Feds are 1. There’s not enough federal officials to make arrests, 2. There’s not enough fed lawyers to try all the cases that would need to be tried, 3. The laws that the states are making really have no victims other than the person involved. The list goes on. 

How you would feel if a state passed a law that permitted robbing banks, or we’re allowed to murder our spouse’s lover, or we’re allowed to beat up a drunk if he’s being a nuisance? See how weird it can get if states would be allowed to write their own laws?


----------



## Pepper (Sep 16, 2019)

911 said:


> How you would feel if a state passed a law that permitted robbing banks, or we’re allowed to murder our spouse’s lover, or we’re allowed to beat up a drunk if he’s being a nuisance? See how weird it can get if states would be allowed to write their own laws?


Are those rhetorical questions? ;-)


----------



## 911 (Sep 16, 2019)

Pepper said:


> Are those rhetorical questions? ;-)


Absolutely!


----------



## jerry old (Oct 13, 2021)

What's with this guy in Norway shooting people with a bow and arrow?
Several have been shot, killed or wounded unclear...

Goggle says five dead


----------



## chic (Oct 13, 2021)

jerry old said:


> What's with this guy in Norway shooting people with a bow and arrow?
> Several have been shot, killed or wounded unclear...
> 
> Goggle says five dead


Yep. I saw it trending on Twitter. People have lost it.


----------



## jerry old (Oct 13, 2021)

> 7-22-11 , Norway-crazed far-right male kills 8 with a bomb, goes to youth camp of a political party-kills 67


never heard of this, pulled it up while searching for today's bow and arrow killer

The 67 killings occurred on an island where young people were attending a political gathering.
He killed people for over three hours; there was no escape as they *were on an island*.

There is a long post on net, ...horrific


----------



## win231 (Oct 13, 2021)

jerry old said:


> never heard of this, pulled it up while searching for today's bow and arrow killer
> 
> The 67 killings occurred on an island where young people were attending a political gathering.
> He killed people for over three hours; there was no escape as they *were on an island*.
> ...


Death by arrow is much slower.  If I had to choose, I'd prefer to be shot.


----------



## Irwin (Oct 13, 2021)

jerry old said:


> never heard of this, pulled it up while searching for today's bow and arrow killer
> 
> The 67 killings occurred on an island where young people were attending a political gathering.
> He killed people for over three hours; there was no escape as they *were on an island*.
> ...


A movie was made about it. It's pretty good, too.


----------



## win231 (Oct 13, 2021)

Irwin said:


> A movie was made about it. It's pretty good, too.


Detailed story about him which may explain why he became what he became:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
During her pregnancy, Anders Breivik’s mother developed a disdain for her son. She claimed that he was a "nasty child" and that he was "kicking her on purpose". She had wanted to abort him but by the time she returned to Norway from the UK, she had passed the three-month threshold for an abortion. Psychologists reports later stated that she thought that Breivik was a "fundamentally nasty and evil child and determined to destroy her." She stopped breastfeeding her son early on because he was "sucking the life out of her."[47] He spent the first year of his life in London until his parents divorced when he was a year old.

When Breivik was four, living in Oslo's Frogner district (now in Frogner borough), two reports were filed expressing concern about his mental health.[48] A psychologist in one of the reports made a note of the boy's peculiar smile, suggesting it was not anchored in his emotions but was rather a deliberate response to his environment.[49] In another report by psychologists from Norway's centre for child and youth psychiatry (SSBU), concerns were raised about how he was treated by his mother: "She 'sexualised' the young Breivik, hit him, and frequently told him that she wished that he were dead." In the report, Wenche Behring is described as "a woman with an extremely difficult upbringing, borderline personality disorder and an all-encompassing if only partially visible depression" who "projects her primitive aggressive and ****** fantasies onto him [Breivik]".[50] Psychiatrists recommended he be removed from his mother and placed into foster care when he was 4 years old, as she was heavily emotionally and psychologically abusive towards him.[47] Breivik's mother fled her abusive home at age 17 and soon after that became a teenage mother. In her thirties, she was married to Jens Breivik when Anders was born.[47]

In 1983 and 1984, at the clinic, National Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (_SSBU_), one[51] psychologist and one psychiatrist wanted Breivik forcibly removed from his mother; the clinic had placed a care order for the boy but this was not carried out by the Child Welfare Service.

Breivik's mother moved back to Oslo, where she borrowed[52] Jens Breivik's apartment in the Frogner district (now in Frogner borough). The neighbors claimed that there were noises of fights and that the mother left her children completely alone for extended periods of time, while she was working as a nurse. In 1981, Breivik's mother applied for welfare benefits, specifically [monetary payment, or] financial aid;[52] in 1982, she applied for respite care for her son. She says that she was overwhelmed with the boy and unable to care for him. She described him to be "clingy and demanding." Breivik was then placed [in cooperation with the Child Welfare Service,] with a young couple. This couple later told police that the mother, when bringing two-year-old Breivik to the house, had asked that he be allowed to touch the man's penis because he had no one to compare himself to in terms of appearance; "He only saw [or was used to seeing girls' pee holes—] _jentetisser_", the mother told the couple, according to the couple's undated statement to police.[53]

In February 1983, on the advice of her neighbors, Breivik's mother sought help from the National Centre for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; the mother and Breivik were outpatients, and they stayed there at daytime - for about one month. The conclusion of the stay from the psychiatrists was that Breivik should be placed in the foster care system and had to be removed from his mother for him to develop normally. The justification for this was several observations. Breivik had little emotional engagement. He did not show joy. He didn't cry when he was hurt. He made no attempts to play with other children. He was also extremely clean and became anxious when his toys weren't in order. Psychologists believed that he had become this way because of the negative reactions his mother displayed to any emotion he showed. They thought that she had punished him and reacted extremely negatively to him displaying emotions that had led him to become devoid of any visible emotions. His mother had also claimed that he was unclean and that she constantly had to care for him and run after him. Psychologists believed that Breivik had become this clean because of fear of punishment from his mother. He didn't show the normal level of uncleanliness of a four-year-old. Breivik seemed extremely careful and controlled. He had no repertoire on how to express emotions normally. During long phases of emotional voidness, he would rarely erupt and display extreme uncontrolled emotions.[47]

Reports of the staff said that his mother had told Breivik while she knew that she was being observed by health personnel that she "wished that he was dead". At the same time she bound him emotionally to her, alternating between great affection and extreme cruelty from one moment to the next. This was an unacceptable situation for a four-year-old to be in, according to the psychiatrists. The report from 1983 stated "Anders is a victim of his mother's projections of paranoid-aggressive and ****** fears toward men in general", and "she projects onto him her own primitive, aggressive and ****** fantasies; all the qualities in men that she regards as dangerous and aggressive." Breivik reacted very negatively to his mother. He alternated between clinginess, petty aggression and extreme childishness.[47] The final conclusion of the observation was that "The family is in dire need of help. Anders should be removed from the family and given a better standard of care; the mother is provoked by him and remains in an ambivalent position which prevents him from developing on his own terms. Anders has become an anxious, passive child that averts making contact. He displays a manic defense mechanism of restless activity and a feigned, deflecting smile. Considering the profoundly pathological relationship between Anders and his mother it is crucial to make an early effort to ward off a severely skewed development in the boy." However, Child Welfare Services did not follow this recommendation. Instead, he was placed in respite care only during the weekends. SSBU hoped that eventually he would be placed into foster care.[47]

However when Breivik's father, Jens Breivik, learned of the situation he filed for custody. Although Breivik's mother had agreed to have him put in respite care, after Jens had filed for custody she demanded that Breivik be put back into full custody with her. Both the mother and father involved lawyers. Eventually, the case was dropped because the Welfare Services thought that they wouldn't be able to provide enough evidence in court to warrant the placement of Breivik in foster care. One of the main reasons for this was the testimony of staff from the Vigelandsparken nursery, which Breivik had been attending since 1981. They described him as a happy child and claimed that nothing was wrong or had been wrong with him all along. During all of this the SSBU maintained their stances and said "urgent action is crucially needed to prevent a severely skewed development in the boy". The SSBU wrote Child Welfare Services a letter claiming that an order should be placed to have Breivik removed by force. In 1984, a hearing in front of Barnevernsnemnda (the municipal child welfare committee) took place on whether Breivik's mother should lose custody of him. Child Welfare Service lost the case; the agency was represented by a social worker with no experience of representing a case in front of the committee.[52] It was ruled that the family should be supervised. However, after only three visits the supervision was discontinued. Breivik was never again put into respite care or foster care.[47]


----------



## Verisure (Oct 13, 2021)

Timetrvlr said:


> Outlaw *all* automatic weapons and *all *handguns for private citizens. They have no other use than to kill people. Rifles with 5 round magazines and long-barrel shotguns are used for hunting game. Declare the NRA a domestic terrorist organization and disband it. This is not 1870 Dodge City!


I am with you one thousand per cent. The *only purpose* of a firearm is to put holes in things or people.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Oct 14, 2021)

I think guns are very efficient killing weapons. They are easy to use. Point and pull the trigger is not a skill that requires advanced degrees, nor years of intense training. We know even toddlers have managed to kill. with guns The problem, for me, is that people are way too unstable, too greedy, too violent, too insane, too hate filled, too inhumane, too whatever to have such an easy, efficient means for the power of life and death. at their immediate disposal.


----------



## oldman (Oct 14, 2021)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I think guns are very efficient killing weapons. They are easy to use. Point and pull the trigger is not a skill that requires advanced degrees, nor years of intense training. We know even toddlers have managed to kill. with guns The problem, for me, is that people are way too unstable, too greedy, too violent, too insane, too hate filled, too inhumane, too whatever to have such an easy, efficient means for the power of life and death. at their immediate disposal.


This is why I carry my handgun. It evens the playing field.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Oct 14, 2021)

.


----------



## rgp (Oct 14, 2021)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I think guns are very efficient killing weapons. They are easy to use. Point and pull the trigger is not a skill that requires advanced degrees, nor years of intense training. We know even toddlers have managed to kill. with guns The problem, for me, is that people are way too unstable, too greedy, too violent, too insane, too hate filled, too inhumane, too whatever to have such an easy, efficient means for the power of life and death. at their immediate disposal.



 Not to steal oldman's reply thunder but ...... that is exactly why the 'rest' of us should be armed & carry. As the saying goes ..... the only way to stop a bad man with a gun ...... is a good man with one as well.

Sure we can call 911, and wait for the police to show-up .... but how many can the bad guy kill in the meantime ?


----------



## win231 (Oct 14, 2021)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I think guns are very efficient killing weapons. They are easy to use. Point and pull the trigger is not a skill that requires advanced degrees, nor years of intense training. We know even toddlers have managed to kill. with guns The problem, for me, is that people are way too unstable, too greedy, too violent, too insane, too hate filled, too inhumane, too whatever to have such an easy, efficient means for the power of life and death. at their immediate disposal.


You are absolutely correct about people being unstable, violent, insane, hate filled & inhumane.
Exactly why I'm a gun owner.


----------



## jerry old (Oct 15, 2021)

National News..
The guy in Florida that killed 17 people, want's desperately to avoid death penalty...
Nope, I quit counting at one killing...


----------



## win231 (Oct 15, 2021)

rgp said:


> Not to steal oldman's reply thunder but ...... that is exactly why the 'rest' of us should be armed & carry. As the saying goes ..... the only way to stop a bad man with a gun ...... is a good man with one as well.
> 
> Sure we can call 911, and wait for the police to show-up .... but how many can the bad guy kill in the meantime ?


Today, with police response time what it is?  As many as he wants.
When seconds count, police are only minutes away.


----------



## oldpop (Oct 15, 2021)

Removed for clarity


----------



## MrPants (Oct 15, 2021)

jerry old said:


> never heard of this, pulled it up while searching for today's bow and arrow killer
> 
> The 67 killings occurred on an island where young people were attending a political gathering.
> He killed people for over three hours; there was no escape as they *were on an island*.
> ...


There's a movie that details this event called: '22 July'.
It's a very good recounting of the event and aftermath. 
I watched it on Netflix a year or so ago. Not sure if it's still on there or not.


----------

