Thread: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE DO

robslob - 10/4/2017 at 07:43 PM

And baseball bats don't hit a baseball, people do. So why bother with a bat? Just let the guy go up there and swing with his arms. CORRECT?


goldtop - 10/4/2017 at 08:42 PM

But Rob, when his heart went bad.....he could use that baseball bat to kill people from the 32nd floor by flinging them into the crowd...

That's the kind of argument that is always presented. Any tool can be used as a weapon but the gun is a tool designed only for 1 reason. The fact that there are now shooting sports surely wasn't the intent when they were first designed...that's just our way of using tools as toys....

There seems to be no middle ground or even concern for police since they want to open up silencers and amour piercing bullets to be legal. Who needs those??? violent people....


anthonyspare - 10/4/2017 at 08:46 PM

quote:
And baseball bats don't hit a baseball, people do. So why bother with a bat? Just let the guy go up there and swing with his arms. CORRECT?

What is your take on prescription medicine? Here in KY it kills people literally every hour. Do we ban prescription drugs due to the fraction of people that abuse them?
.....
analogizes to this,
Larry's lawfully owned guns were taken because of gun laws.
Billy breaks into Larry's house with his illegal gun
Larry can no longer defend himself because he is now "obeying the law".

Just my .02, I swore I would never discuss politics on here, but had to get that one out.

Long live ABB!

[Edited on 10/4/2017 by anthonyspare]


KCJimmy - 10/4/2017 at 09:02 PM

No need to be shy son.. they are just liberals.


porkchopbob - 10/4/2017 at 09:09 PM

quote:
What is your take on prescription medicine? Here in KY it kills people literally every hour. Do we ban prescription drugs due to the fraction of people that abuse them?
.....
analogizes to this,
Larry's lawfully owned guns were taken because of gun laws.
Billy breaks into Larry's house with his illegal gun
Larry can no longer defend himself because he is now "obeying the law".



Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

Also, stop saying anyone is taking your hand guns or hunting rifles. It's a waste of time and energy to argue against something that no one is proposing. If you need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to defend your house from intruders, you are probably a drug czar or have much bigger problems.


goldtop - 10/4/2017 at 09:11 PM

quote:
quote:
What is your take on prescription medicine? Here in KY it kills people literally every hour. Do we ban prescription drugs due to the fraction of people that abuse them?
.....
analogizes to this,
Larry's lawfully owned guns were taken because of gun laws.
Billy breaks into Larry's house with his illegal gun
Larry can no longer defend himself because he is now "obeying the law".



Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

Also, stop saying anyone is taking your hand guns or hunting rifles. It's a waste of time and energy to argue against something that no one is proposing. If you need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to defend your house from intruders, you are probably a drug czar or have much bigger problems.


Isn't the rhetoric just dumbfounding how they can get to any of that....sad...again no middle ground...Nobody wants your shotgun...or pistol....or deer gun....no one though needs military grade weapons except the military


2112 - 10/4/2017 at 09:21 PM

quote:
quote:
What is your take on prescription medicine? Here in KY it kills people literally every hour. Do we ban prescription drugs due to the fraction of people that abuse them?
.....
analogizes to this,
Larry's lawfully owned guns were taken because of gun laws.
Billy breaks into Larry's house with his illegal gun
Larry can no longer defend himself because he is now "obeying the law".



Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

Also, stop saying anyone is taking your hand guns or hunting rifles. It's a waste of time and energy to argue against something that no one is proposing. If you need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to defend your house from intruders, you are probably a drug czar or have much bigger problems.


Any argument with gun nuts talks about banning guns, as if that is being proposed. Nobody is talking about banning guns. What is often proposed is common sense gun laws to keep military style guns out of people's hands and keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unbalanced people. I am a gun owner, but I have no problems with guns laws that designed to keep a few dangerous people from having the most dangerous types of guns.


robslob - 10/4/2017 at 09:57 PM

quote:

No need to be shy son.. they are just liberals.


Here we go.........the liberals trying to take my guns away. Liberal, conservative.........what difference does THAT make? There are plenty of Democrats, some of them liberal, who are in bed with the NRA.

Getting your jollies on the firing range is MUCH more important than worrying about protecting innocent civilians, correct?


Jerry - 10/4/2017 at 10:03 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
What is your take on prescription medicine? Here in KY it kills people literally every hour. Do we ban prescription drugs due to the fraction of people that abuse them?
.....
analogizes to this,
Larry's lawfully owned guns were taken because of gun laws.
Billy breaks into Larry's house with his illegal gun
Larry can no longer defend himself because he is now "obeying the law".



Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

Also, stop saying anyone is taking your hand guns or hunting rifles. It's a waste of time and energy to argue against something that no one is proposing. If you need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to defend your house from intruders, you are probably a drug czar or have much bigger problems.


Any argument with gun nuts talks about banning guns, as if that is being proposed. Nobody is talking about banning guns. What is often proposed is common sense gun laws to keep military style guns out of people's hands and keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unbalanced people. I am a gun owner, but I have no problems with guns laws that designed to keep a few dangerous people from having the most dangerous types of guns.


There's already a law for that.


KCJimmy - 10/4/2017 at 10:43 PM

quote:
Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

From 1999 to 2015, more than 183,000 people have died in the U.S. from overdoses related to prescription opioids. Maybe not the BEST analogy but certainly not a fail. If your goal is for there to be legislation that saves lives. I do think you should consider legislation that will save the MOST lives. And Prescription ODs look like a far better goal than the victims of Fat, Angry, Mentally Ill white guys with guns that voted for the NRA.

quote:
Here we go.........the liberals trying to take my guns away. Liberal, conservative.........what difference does THAT make? There are plenty of Democrats, some of them liberal, who are in bed with the NRA.
True but they are not here posting the same old tried & tired arguments against the second amendment.

[Edited on 10/4/2017 by KCJimmy]


porkchopbob - 10/4/2017 at 11:22 PM

quote:
quote:
Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.


From 1999 to 2015, more than 183,000 people have died in the U.S. from overdoses related to prescription opioids. Maybe not the BEST analogy but certainly not a fail. If your goal is for there to be legislation that saves lives. I do think you should consider legislation that will save the MOST lives. And Prescription ODs look like a far better goal than the victims of Fat, Angry, Mentally Ill white guys with guns that voted for the NRA.



And if prescription medicines weren't prescribed, even more addicts would have access.

I live in southern Florida, recovery centers are everywhere and coffee shops are full during the day, so you don't need to fill me in on the opioid overdose epidemic which affects those who take opioids, not a crowd people. Thus far, no one has jumped out from behind a bush and stabbed me with a heroine needle. There are a number of programs to combat and solve the issue, breaking up false sober homes that are run by heroine/opioid dealers and prety upon young addics. Even the President weighed in. There's a conversation. And no one is taking about banning prescription pain killers. So it's a pretty different issue that deserves another thread.

[Edited on 10/5/2017 by porkchopbob]


Jerry - 10/4/2017 at 11:27 PM


Isn't the rhetoric just dumbfounding how they can get to any of that....sad...again no middle ground...Nobody wants your shotgun...or pistol....or deer gun....no one though needs military grade weapons except the military


So, what do you propose to stop the shootings?


goldtop - 10/4/2017 at 11:40 PM

quote:

Isn't the rhetoric just dumbfounding how they can get to any of that....sad...again no middle ground...Nobody wants your shotgun...or pistol....or deer gun....no one though needs military grade weapons except the military


So, what do you propose to stop the shootings?


More Rhetoric...we all know we can't stop someone with the intent to cause harm...we don't need to make military grade weapons available so the can mow down 500+ people from 500 yards away

Oh yes he can kill someone with a screwdriver...but I doubt he could kill 58 and injure over 500 with it from 500 yards away or even up close...

So stop the rhetoric...its tiresome and old...help find a solution...we know mental health or the lack of it is a cause...we also know he bought all of those weapons legally and modified them....there is no reason for those weapon in our society...

As far as prescription drugs that is something people do to themselves...is it a problem yes and it needs attention but it is not the same issue at all

Got a solution or more NRA rhetoric


jkeller - 10/4/2017 at 11:48 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
What is your take on prescription medicine? Here in KY it kills people literally every hour. Do we ban prescription drugs due to the fraction of people that abuse them?
.....
analogizes to this,
Larry's lawfully owned guns were taken because of gun laws.
Billy breaks into Larry's house with his illegal gun
Larry can no longer defend himself because he is now "obeying the law".



Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

Also, stop saying anyone is taking your hand guns or hunting rifles. It's a waste of time and energy to argue against something that no one is proposing. If you need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to defend your house from intruders, you are probably a drug czar or have much bigger problems.


Any argument with gun nuts talks about banning guns, as if that is being proposed. Nobody is talking about banning guns. What is often proposed is common sense gun laws to keep military style guns out of people's hands and keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unbalanced people. I am a gun owner, but I have no problems with guns laws that designed to keep a few dangerous people from having the most dangerous types of guns.


There's already a law for that.


The bump stock he was using was legal. Everything he owned was legal. I guess that makes the massacre OK as it did not violate his rights.


Bhawk - 10/5/2017 at 12:16 AM

Nothing will change.


goldtop - 10/5/2017 at 12:22 AM

quote:
Nothing will change.


Sad to say I agree...When all those children were slaughter in a school yard and nothing was done I knew then that our legislators were screaming at the top of their lungs that guns are more important than the safety of innocent children in a playground. Or anyone else in public for that matter.


BoytonBrother - 10/5/2017 at 02:05 AM

quote:
So, what do you propose to stop the shootings?


To decrease the amount of shootings, I would propose all Americans exercising their 2nd amendment right by demonstrating the required knowledge, safety, and complete operation of your weapon of choice followed by the same evaluations that our police use on their recruits to test for mental competency. It won't stop them, but it would surely save some lives.


2112 - 10/5/2017 at 11:02 AM

quote:

Isn't the rhetoric just dumbfounding how they can get to any of that....sad...again no middle ground...Nobody wants your shotgun...or pistol....or deer gun....no one though needs military grade weapons except the military


So, what do you propose to stop the shootings?


Apparently thoughts and prayers for the victims is enough.

Or maybe the concert goers should have had guns too, because hundreds of drunk country music fans firing back at a hotel surely would have worked out better.


BoytonBrother - 10/5/2017 at 01:57 PM

It's the price of freedom 2112. There's just nothing anyone can do. If we can't fully eliminate it 100%, there no sense in doing anything to decrease the amount of victims. If there's going to be some victims anyway with murder, accidental deaths, trucks, knives, hammers, bombs, or whatever, then why bother? If there's going to be some, might as well open the flood gates so there's more. I'd rather assume it won't save any lives, and do nothing. Dumb libtards.


Rydethwind - 10/5/2017 at 02:29 PM

quote:
But Rob, when his heart went bad.....he could use that baseball bat to kill people from the 32nd floor by flinging them into the crowd...

That's the kind of argument that is always presented. Any tool can be used as a weapon but the gun is a tool designed only for 1 reason. The fact that there are now shooting sports surely wasn't the intent when they were first designed...that's just our way of using tools as toys....

There seems to be no middle ground or even concern for police since they want to open up silencers and amour piercing bullets to be legal. Who needs those??? violent people....




Silencers....in Europe every gun is sold with one the reason is to quiet the noise from the guns to save peoples hearing they do NOT make a gun silenced they just make them to a decibel that does not damage the human ear , they are far far from silent the U.S should have them available for sale with any gun purchase if that had been law i would still be able to hear.


Rydethwind - 10/5/2017 at 02:31 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
What is your take on prescription medicine? Here in KY it kills people literally every hour. Do we ban prescription drugs due to the fraction of people that abuse them?
.....
analogizes to this,
Larry's lawfully owned guns were taken because of gun laws.
Billy breaks into Larry's house with his illegal gun
Larry can no longer defend himself because he is now "obeying the law".



Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

Also, stop saying anyone is taking your hand guns or hunting rifles. It's a waste of time and energy to argue against something that no one is proposing. If you need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to defend your house from intruders, you are probably a drug czar or have much bigger problems.


Isn't the rhetoric just dumbfounding how they can get to any of that....sad...again no middle ground...Nobody wants your shotgun...or pistol....or deer gun....no one though needs military grade weapons except the military


You sir are a shining example of someone who has no clue what the 2nd amendment is about, it is perfectly fine if you do not like guns but you simply don't get it.....


goldtop - 10/5/2017 at 02:34 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
What is your take on prescription medicine? Here in KY it kills people literally every hour. Do we ban prescription drugs due to the fraction of people that abuse them?
.....
analogizes to this,
Larry's lawfully owned guns were taken because of gun laws.
Billy breaks into Larry's house with his illegal gun
Larry can no longer defend himself because he is now "obeying the law".



Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

Also, stop saying anyone is taking your hand guns or hunting rifles. It's a waste of time and energy to argue against something that no one is proposing. If you need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon to defend your house from intruders, you are probably a drug czar or have much bigger problems.


Isn't the rhetoric just dumbfounding how they can get to any of that....sad...again no middle ground...Nobody wants your shotgun...or pistol....or deer gun....no one though needs military grade weapons except the military


You sir are a shining example of someone who has no clue what the 2nd amendment is about, it is perfectly fine if you do not like guns but you simply don't get it.....


Ever tried ear plugs or maybe another hobby!!...could any of the 500+ people hear that gun from that distance with a silencer...here's how I really feel about your need to go shooting....Thumb violins in full concert mode

Cry me a river that you didn't take care of the problem you put upon yourself.....


Rydethwind - 10/5/2017 at 02:34 PM

quote:
quote:
Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

From 1999 to 2015, more than 183,000 people have died in the U.S. from overdoses related to prescription opioids. Maybe not the BEST analogy but certainly not a fail. If your goal is for there to be legislation that saves lives. I do think you should consider legislation that will save the MOST lives. And Prescription ODs look like a far better goal than the victims of Fat, Angry, Mentally Ill white guys with guns that voted for the NRA.

quote:
Here we go.........the liberals trying to take my guns away. Liberal, conservative.........what difference does THAT make? There are plenty of Democrats, some of them liberal, who are in bed with the NRA.
True but they are not here posting the same old tried & tired arguments against the second amendment.

[Edited on 10/4/2017 by KCJimmy]


Excellent post but most folks can not handle the truth and also 1200 people die every day from tobacco related disease ....dead is dead the method matters not you want to save lives then do it !


goldtop - 10/5/2017 at 02:37 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

From 1999 to 2015, more than 183,000 people have died in the U.S. from overdoses related to prescription opioids. Maybe not the BEST analogy but certainly not a fail. If your goal is for there to be legislation that saves lives. I do think you should consider legislation that will save the MOST lives. And Prescription ODs look like a far better goal than the victims of Fat, Angry, Mentally Ill white guys with guns that voted for the NRA.

quote:
Here we go.........the liberals trying to take my guns away. Liberal, conservative.........what difference does THAT make? There are plenty of Democrats, some of them liberal, who are in bed with the NRA.
True but they are not here posting the same old tried & tired arguments against the second amendment.

[Edited on 10/4/2017 by KCJimmy]


Excellent post but most folks can not handle the truth and also 1200 people die every day from tobacco related disease ....dead is dead the method matters not you want to save lives then do it !


The difference is the tobacco users did themselves in...I watched my dad and mom both die from smoking...they did it to themselves...Big difference..stop the rhetoric its sad old and tired


porkchopbob - 10/5/2017 at 03:24 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people who weren't themselves taking it? Analogy fail.

From 1999 to 2015, more than 183,000 people have died in the U.S. from overdoses related to prescription opioids. Maybe not the BEST analogy but certainly not a fail. If your goal is for there to be legislation that saves lives. I do think you should consider legislation that will save the MOST lives. And Prescription ODs look like a far better goal than the victims of Fat, Angry, Mentally Ill white guys with guns that voted for the NRA.

quote:
Here we go.........the liberals trying to take my guns away. Liberal, conservative.........what difference does THAT make? There are plenty of Democrats, some of them liberal, who are in bed with the NRA.
True but they are not here posting the same old tried & tired arguments against the second amendment.

[Edited on 10/4/2017 by KCJimmy]


Excellent post but most folks can not handle the truth and also 1200 people die every day from tobacco related disease ....dead is dead the method matters not you want to save lives then do it !


I wrote this in another thread, but I guess it needs to be said again for some insane reason:

We regulate smoking. Heavily. After it was proved to be a health risk to people who couldn't object (often young children in smoke-filled homes who were acquiring asthma) smoking areas have shrunk over the past few decades. There are local ordinances banning smoking from restaurants and public places, airplanes, hospitals, etc. There are televised ad campaigns and Federally mandated warnings on cigarette packaging. People went after the tobacco companies and their lobbyists, and it worked. After a steady effort to find solutions to the effects of smoking, if you want to smoke today, it is largely at your own risk. But you know what? - you can still smoke, no one took peoples' smokes away!

So yeah, everyone went to bat to stop innocent people from developing asthma, emphysema, bronchitis. Meanwhile, deadly mass shootings have increased dramatically, while gun laws have become more lax. Maybe we should try the same approach with highly dangerous semi-automatic weapons that have been used to repeatedly murder large numbers of innocent people.


BoytonBrother - 10/5/2017 at 04:08 PM

quote:
1200 people die every day from tobacco related disease ....


In all seriousness, what is your point?

quote:
dead is dead the method matters not you want to save lives then do it !


Are you suggesting we update laws on both guns and smoking?

Rydethewind, are you against people having to demonstrate complete responsible operation of a firearm before exercising their 2nd amendment rights? And what purpose do the psychological evaluations serve used by our police on recruits before hire?

[Edited on 10/5/2017 by BoytonBrother]


BrerRabbit - 10/5/2017 at 04:52 PM

quote:
Prescription medicine? Seriously? When is the last time someone's prescription medicine killed a crowd of innocent people


Glad this surfaced - actually psychiatric prescrips, SSRI in particular, seem to be a common element in these crazy attacks. So the answer to your question is prescription medication is klling crowds of innocents on a regular basis.

Baby steps, can't fix it all at once. The impasse over guns is killing any progress in dialogue. Best to take the focus off the weapons and start studying who should not have them and yank the guns away from them, all of them down to a squirt gun.

A good start would be any prescription for psychiatric medication, SSRI especially, include mandatory forfeiture of all firearms. It looks like SSRI are the real culprit in these "blaze of glory" postal "senseless" events.

Falls into the rules against operating heavy machinery or driving intoxicated category.


[Edited on 10/5/2017 by BrerRabbit]


anthonyspare - 10/5/2017 at 06:27 PM

_(&#12484_/
Guns or not, a person can find several other ways to inflict this type of damage on a crowd of people. McVeigh used commercial fertilizer and fuel, a bomb of that stature near the venue would have killed way more than 50 people. I like to keep mine as a hobby and as protection. Maybe my prescription medicine analogy wasn't the best but it shows how regulation and control can make little difference, if someone wants something they will find a way to get it.


porkchopbob - 10/5/2017 at 06:47 PM

quote:
_(&#12484_/
Guns or not, a person can find several other ways to inflict this type of damage on a crowd of people. McVeigh used commercial fertilizer and fuel, a bomb of that stature near the venue would have killed way more than 50 people. I like to keep mine as a hobby and as protection. Maybe my prescription medicine analogy wasn't the best but it shows how regulation and control can make little difference, if someone wants something they will find a way to get it.


Since the OKC bombing, an effort was made to regulate and more easily track the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer. Also, companies have attempted to make the fertilizer less explosive. Regulation seems to have made a difference; or perhaps semi-automatic weapons are just much more easier to acquire.


BoytonBrother - 10/5/2017 at 06:51 PM

Exactly anthonyspare. Next thing you know these libtards will want to ban us from buying fertilizer bombs.


anthonyspare - 10/5/2017 at 07:00 PM

quote:

Since the OKC bombing, an effort was made to regulate and more easily track the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer. Also, companies have attempted to make the fertilizer less explosive. Regulation seems to have made a difference; or perhaps semi-automatic weapons are just much more easier to acquire.

I imagine in the Midwest and big farming states that a truckload of fertilizer is only a drop in the bucket, likely not to raise flags. And, if I am tight with farmer John and he has a stockpile of fertilizer for his several hundred acre farm, who's to say that he wouldn't sell me a truck load for some cash under the table for my "flower bed". If you want it bad enough you can get it, there is always a way, legal or not.


jkeller - 10/5/2017 at 07:01 PM

Republican stances on issues.

A person has a right to own one or more weapons that can be used to commit mass murder.

It is a privilege, and not a right, to get medical treatment after being shot by a mass murderer with a gun.








porkchopbob - 10/5/2017 at 07:03 PM

quote:
quote:

Since the OKC bombing, an effort was made to regulate and more easily track the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer. Also, companies have attempted to make the fertilizer less explosive. Regulation seems to have made a difference; or perhaps semi-automatic weapons are just much more easier to acquire.

I imagine in the Midwest and big farming states that a truckload of fertilizer is only a drop in the bucket, likely not to raise flags. And, if I am tight with farmer John and he has a stockpile of fertilizer for his several hundred acre farm, who's to say that he wouldn't sell me a truck load for some cash under the table for my "flower bed". If you want it bad enough you can get it, there is always a way, legal or not.


That's a wonderful hypothetical that hasn't happened because most farmers know how severity. Care to address events that have happened?


anthonyspare - 10/5/2017 at 07:13 PM

quote:

That's a wonderful hypothetical that hasn't happened because most farmers know how severity. Care to address events that have happened?


Just saying it is possible, I imagine I could roll through Nebraska or Kansas and find someone willing to sell me a truck bed full of fertilizer without an issue.

Boston Marathon, over 200 injured in seconds, materials cost WAY less than any firearm, and MUCH easier to conceal. If someone wants to hurt people, they will, regardless of a firearm, is the point im trying to make.


Disclaimer: For what its worth, you all are the last group of people I would want to argue politics with, ABB fam, sorry that ALL of our views don't align. And I dig Porkchop's videos too.

[Edited on 10/5/2017 by anthonyspare]


porkchopbob - 10/5/2017 at 07:13 PM

quote:
Republican stances on issues.

A person has a right to own one or more weapons that can be used to commit mass murder.

It is a privilege, and not a right, to get medical treatment after being shot by a mass murderer with a gun.



If the issue is mental illness, then why seek to limit access to mental health care?

If laws limiting access to fire arms, even the deadliest kinds, is unconstitutional and thus unacceptable, then so should laws/order that are broadly discriminatory in nature, such as travel bans, because they are unconstitutional.

There is no consistency or logic. Just lots of nonsense about cigarettes and meds.


porkchopbob - 10/5/2017 at 07:21 PM

quote:
quote:

That's a wonderful hypothetical that hasn't happened because most farmers know how severity. Care to address events that have happened?


Just saying it is possible, I imagine I could roll through Nebraska or Kansas and find someone willing to sell me a truck bed full of fertilizer without an issue.

Boston Marathon, over 200 injured in seconds, materials cost WAY less than any firearm, and MUCH easier to conceal. If someone wants to hurt people, they will, regardless of a firearm, is the point im trying to make.


If a chicken had lips, it could whistle.

You have a wonderful imagination and apparently a low opinion of the peoples of the Plain states to follow regulation of controlled, potentially deadly, substances that they use to feed their families with.


BoytonBrother - 10/5/2017 at 07:23 PM

quote:
Just saying it is possible, I imagine I could roll through Nebraska or Kansas and find someone willing to sell me a truck bed full of fertilizer without an issue.


Amen brother. If I wanted to commit mass murder, I'd definitely research how to make a bomb, and take my chances that I can execute the science behind it, rather than use an AR-15.

quote:
Boston Marathon, over 200 injured in seconds, materials cost WAY less than any firearm, and MUCH easier to conceal. If someone wants to hurt people, they will, regardless of a firearm, is the point im trying to make.


Exactly my point! It's not hard at all to build those bombs. Any idiot can do it. It's a lot easier than spraying an AR-15, let me tell you. And just because only 3 people died in Boston, it doesn't affect my point one bit! Dumb liberals.


BoytonBrother - 10/5/2017 at 07:27 PM

Requiring any type of psychological exam for gun purchases is moronic. Just because our police rely on them to protect and serve is completely irrelevant.


anthonyspare - 10/5/2017 at 07:28 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:

That's a wonderful hypothetical that hasn't happened because most farmers know how severity. Care to address events that have happened?


Just saying it is possible, I imagine I could roll through Nebraska or Kansas and find someone willing to sell me a truck bed full of fertilizer without an issue.

Boston Marathon, over 200 injured in seconds, materials cost WAY less than any firearm, and MUCH easier to conceal. If someone wants to hurt people, they will, regardless of a firearm, is the point im trying to make.


If a chicken had lips, it could whistle.

You have a wonderful imagination and apparently a low opinion of the peoples of the Plain states to follow regulation of controlled, potentially deadly, substances that they use to feed their families with.


Sorry if I offended anyone from Kansas or Nebraska, was merely using leading fertilizer consumers as an example, nothing against the people of the Plains states or saying that they are more likely to put their family's well-being in harm. Here, in Kentucky, I could go to a numerous farms and purchase fertilizer no questions asked, today, tomorrow, whenever. With that said, no offense to the residents of Kentucky.

Curious to what are your thoughts are regarding , "Boston Marathon, over 200 injured in seconds, materials cost WAY less than any firearm, and MUCH easier to conceal. If someone wants to hurt people, they will, regardless of a firearm, is the point i'm trying to make. "


porkchopbob - 10/5/2017 at 07:48 PM

quote:
Curious to what are your thoughts are regarding , "Boston Marathon, over 200 injured in seconds, materials cost WAY less than any firearm, and MUCH easier to conceal. If someone wants to hurt people, they will, regardless of a firearm, is the point i'm trying to make. "


Pipe bombs are illegal. A person has to learn how to make one and build it himself in secret. Thus, we don't have massive pipe bombings every week. In fact, very rarely.

Semi-automatic weapons, and devices that convert them to automatic weapons, are legal and easy to acquire. We have deadly mass shootings on a weekly basis.


BoytonBrother - 10/5/2017 at 07:55 PM

quote:
Boston Marathon, over 200 injured in seconds


No offense, but you are using an analogy with less than half the injuries of Vegas, and 55 less deaths. And it's easier to spray with an AR-15 than learn how to build a bomb. It's not about eliminating mass shootings but rather making it as difficult as possible for them - not buying an AR-15 and spraying. Can you make a fertilizer bomb and execute controlled detonation easier than you can spray an AR-15? Just curious.

quote:
materials cost WAY less than any firearm, and MUCH easier to conceal. If someone wants to hurt people, they will, regardless of a firearm, is the point i'm trying to make.


But very difficult to make compared to shooting an automatic weapon.

Next?


anthonyspare - 10/5/2017 at 08:19 PM

quote:

But very difficult to make compared to shooting an automatic weapon.
Next?


Unfortunately they are not very difficult to build, I bet you have every ingredient in your kitchen/garage/basement right now. A quick Google search and about an hours time, you have a bomb capable of killing.


anthonyspare - 10/5/2017 at 08:21 PM

You guys win. Gotta get out of this Whippin Post.


KCJimmy - 10/5/2017 at 08:41 PM

quote:
But very difficult to make compared to shooting an automatic weapon.

Next?
You make it sound like what this guy did was easy. Maybe buying the guns & ammo was, though he spent 30 years doing that. All indications are that this took a great deal of planning. Just because you can buy guns & accessories legally does not make pulling off a sick stunt like this easy. The time and effort this sick bastard put into this I'll bet would have been more than sufficient for him to learn to make bombs. Fact is he had explosive material in his car at the time he did this. We don't know why he chose to do what he did. But the point that someone COULD make bombs and do similar damage is indeed a valid point whether you think it is or not.

quote:
No offense, but you are using an analogy with less than half the injuries of Vegas, and 55 less deaths. And it's easier to spray with an AR-15 than learn how to build a bomb. It's not about eliminating mass shootings but rather making it as difficult as possible for them - not buying an AR-15 and spraying. Can you make a fertilizer bomb and execute controlled detonation easier than you can spray an AR-15? Just curious.
Again you make it sound so easy, anybody could do it. How about jet airliners flying into buildings? Is that enough casualties for you? Perhaps flying lessons should be illegal? I am a pilot and I didn't have to pass any kind of mental health test to take flying lessons.


goldtop - 10/5/2017 at 10:06 PM

quote:
quote:
But very difficult to make compared to shooting an automatic weapon.

Next?
You make it sound like what this guy did was easy. Maybe buying the guns & ammo was, though he spent 30 years doing that. All indications are that this took a great deal of planning. Just because you can buy guns & accessories legally does not make pulling off a sick stunt like this easy. The time and effort this sick bastard put into this I'll bet would have been more than sufficient for him to learn to make bombs. Fact is he had explosive material in his car at the time he did this. We don't know why he chose to do what he did. But the point that someone COULD make bombs and do similar damage is indeed a valid point whether you think it is or not.

quote:
No offense, but you are using an analogy with less than half the injuries of Vegas, and 55 less deaths. And it's easier to spray with an AR-15 than learn how to build a bomb. It's not about eliminating mass shootings but rather making it as difficult as possible for them - not buying an AR-15 and spraying. Can you make a fertilizer bomb and execute controlled detonation easier than you can spray an AR-15? Just curious.
Again you make it sound so easy, anybody could do it. How about jet airliners flying into buildings? Is that enough casualties for you? Perhaps flying lessons should be illegal? I am a pilot and I didn't have to pass any kind of mental health test to take flying lessons.


What would have been his plan if assault weapons were not available. He can still have a pistol, shotgun and hunting rifle. Could he mow down 500+ people from 500 yards? no

Also where have you been since 9/11....its much harder to get on a plane now...a big PITA

They made huge changes to security for flying. Also how many people are killed everyday in plane violence....how many die here everyday due to gun violence....more NRA Rhetoric

Please if you don't want to find a solution don't stop those who actually care to monitor the toys children need to play with

Also I couldn't care less what the NRA has to say on anything as far as I'm concerned their focus needs to be picnics and social events for their members in their club fort. They don't speak for the majority....nowhere close


BrerRabbit - 10/5/2017 at 10:08 PM

quote:
I am a pilot and I didn't have to pass any kind of mental health test to take flying lessons.


Appreciate the heads up.


jkeller - 10/5/2017 at 10:32 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
But very difficult to make compared to shooting an automatic weapon.

Next?
You make it sound like what this guy did was easy. Maybe buying the guns & ammo was, though he spent 30 years doing that. All indications are that this took a great deal of planning. Just because you can buy guns & accessories legally does not make pulling off a sick stunt like this easy. The time and effort this sick bastard put into this I'll bet would have been more than sufficient for him to learn to make bombs. Fact is he had explosive material in his car at the time he did this. We don't know why he chose to do what he did. But the point that someone COULD make bombs and do similar damage is indeed a valid point whether you think it is or not.

quote:
No offense, but you are using an analogy with less than half the injuries of Vegas, and 55 less deaths. And it's easier to spray with an AR-15 than learn how to build a bomb. It's not about eliminating mass shootings but rather making it as difficult as possible for them - not buying an AR-15 and spraying. Can you make a fertilizer bomb and execute controlled detonation easier than you can spray an AR-15? Just curious.
Again you make it sound so easy, anybody could do it. How about jet airliners flying into buildings? Is that enough casualties for you? Perhaps flying lessons should be illegal? I am a pilot and I didn't have to pass any kind of mental health test to take flying lessons.


What would have been his plan if assault weapons were not available. He can still have a pistol, shotgun and hunting rifle. Could he mow down 500+ people from 500 yards? no

Also where have you been since 9/11....its much harder to get on a plane now...a big PITA

They made huge changes to security for flying. Also how many people are killed everyday in plane violence....how many die here everyday due to gun violence....more NRA Rhetoric

Please if you don't want to find a solution don't stop those who actually care to monitor the toys children need to play with

Also I couldn't care less what the NRA has to say on anything as far as I'm concerned their focus needs to be picnics and social events for their members in their club fort. They don't speak for the majority....nowhere close



The NRA speaks for gun and ammo manufacturers more than they speak for gun owners.


porkchopbob - 10/5/2017 at 10:38 PM

quote:
But the point that someone COULD make bombs and do similar damage is indeed a valid point whether you think it is or not.



It's not valid. He wasn't throwing pipe bombs into the crowd for over 10 minutes. He was using legal, rapid-firing guns, which did continuous damage and kept medical personnel and police from being able to respond and tend to wounded at the scene quickly.

After OKC or Boston, the only two major bombings in the US that I can think of off the top of my head from the past 30 years, no one gave hypotheticals on if the murderers instead had legal guns.



porkchopbob - 10/5/2017 at 10:39 PM

quote:
The NRA speaks for gun and ammo manufacturers more than they speak for gun owners.


Stephen Paddock was one of their best customers.


BoytonBrother - 10/6/2017 at 12:39 PM

At the end of the day, the anti gun-control crowd resist trying to improve the situation, because they sadly feel as though they are losing some sort of right. Talk about sensitive snowflakes, good Lord. Their logic is: if Americans have to test their responsibiliy, knowledge, and competence before buying a firearm, they see it as a loss of a right. That's some perspective! Too many Americans put their own interests over the greater common sense good.


KCJimmy - 10/6/2017 at 03:55 PM

quote:
quote:
I am a pilot and I didn't have to pass any kind of mental health test to take flying lessons.


Appreciate the heads up.

Now that made me laugh!


KCJimmy - 10/6/2017 at 04:16 PM

A lot of you speak as if it is not possible to kill 59 and injure 500 in one incident with anything other than a modified gun. That is just not true. My point to all of you having such a hard time understanding it is simple. If there is a will there is a way. Bombs, planes, whatever. Someone said nobody had ever killed over 50 people and injured 500 with pipe bombs. Well, before last weekend no one had ever done it in the U.S. with guns either.
He chose guns.
He spent a great deal of time money & effort to commit this horrific crime.
Had he spent the same amount of time, money & effort I am sure he could have done even more damage with explosives.

Heck a person could do an awful lot of damage with very little planning by flying a plane right into a stadium full of people. It takes a SICK MF to plan and carry out any kind of mass murder and THAT my friends is the problem. Not the guns.


BoytonBrother - 10/6/2017 at 05:07 PM

A reminder to everyone that our police require all recruits to submit to evaluations, both physical and mental, before hire, to determine fitness and competency to protect and serve. Can you believe how misguided they are! LOL, what a bunch of fools!


Jerry - 10/6/2017 at 05:46 PM

quote:
A reminder to everyone that our police require all recruits to submit to evaluations, both physical and mental, before hire, to determine fitness and competency to protect and serve. Can you believe how misguided they are! LOL, what a bunch of fools!


How many have slipped through? How many were good candidates but didn't meet the "unwritten" requirements for employment. Ya know those pesky "I don't like your political affiliations", or "I just don't want to hire you" ones.


Jerry - 10/6/2017 at 05:51 PM

All debate aside, there are two commonly owned products in American homes that can make a gas cloud that disperses the oxygen in the air and causes suffocation. I'm not going to name them, but I will say it was used during WW1.


goldtop - 10/6/2017 at 06:13 PM

I'm now wondering when the second amendment was written that they would have put someone's right for a thrill on the gun range over public safety. Because at this point that really what its about.

No one wants the pistol, shotgun or deer gun from you. The majority has spoken loudly so don't play hear no evil...its tiresome

Assault weapons are used only on the gun range or other place to catch a thrill. I don't think anyone hunts with them...nobody that I know does...but I cant say that people haven't tried...

So much has changed about what a gun was used for then and what its used for now. I'm guessing that most of you go to the grocery store for food...so hunting really isn't a necessity...its really a sport now...we don't have a war on our streets except for the ones we bring on ourselves and your right to be armed has never stopped one of these events. In fact the people who did have guns that night ran scared too...as there were several people who handed their weapons to police...smart thing to do....give them to who really understand their use

all of your argument are old and full of holes....I don't believe the second amendment allows you a thrill over public safety. No one needs an assault weapon but the military

The NRA needs to focus on picnics and dinner dances for their members and let the Adults in the room do the speaking. We've always monitored the toys children play with...time to do it again

Stop looking at weapons as toys...start looking at them as weapons


pops42 - 10/6/2017 at 06:21 PM

The world is the devil's playground. buckle up, and act accordingly.


porkchopbob - 10/6/2017 at 06:40 PM

quote:
All debate aside, there are two commonly owned products in American homes that can make a gas cloud that disperses the oxygen in the air and causes suffocation. I'm not going to name them, but I will say it was used during WW1.


You could drop a piano on someone. But people don't, so we're not trying to solve a problem that isn't there. Lots of objects could be dangerous if you have a lot of time and imagination on your hands. However, there is a problem with large-scale killings by use of high powered firearms. So maybe address products that are being used, rather than waste time with hypotheticals.

quote:
How many have slipped through?


How many? Do you know, or is this just another hypothetical? A lot? A few? And even if some have slipped through, does that mean we shouldn't bother trying?

Let's hear some realistic solutions, not a bunch of excuses.


goldtop - 10/6/2017 at 06:58 PM

quote:
quote:
All debate aside, there are two commonly owned products in American homes that can make a gas cloud that disperses the oxygen in the air and causes suffocation. I'm not going to name them, but I will say it was used during WW1.


You could drop a piano on someone. But people don't, so we're not trying to solve a problem that isn't there. Lots of objects could be dangerous if you have a lot of time and imagination on your hands. However, there is a problem with large-scale killings by use of high powered firearms. So maybe address products that are being used, rather than waste time with hypotheticals.

quote:
How many have slipped through?



How many? Do you know, or is this just another hypothetical? A lot? A few? And even if some have slipped through, does that mean we shouldn't bother trying?

Let's hear some realistic solutions, not a bunch of excuses.


The arguments are never intelligent and thought out. They're so attached to their toy and fears plus to hide behind the 2nd amendment for a thrill at the gun range.

I bet they have a hard time realizing that 77% of the US doesn't own a weapon.

I didn't grow up in a gun culture. My farther said when he came back from WWII that he saw enough of what guns could do. His words to me when I asked for a gun. Are you scared?? or violent?? or when the day comes your so scared will you become violent? Can you deal with the emotions of killing someone?

In my family we weren't allowed to be scared of the unknown boogie man. I'm 60 and there hasn't been one day in my life that a gun would have been a good tool to have. Thank you dad for not allowing me to be fearful of the world around me no matter how much anyone else is afraid

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind


anthonyspare - 10/6/2017 at 07:02 PM

quote:

Since the OKC bombing, an effort was made to regulate and more easily track the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer. Also, companies have attempted to make the fertilizer less explosive. Regulation seems to have made a difference; or perhaps semi-automatic weapons are just much more easier to acquire.


"Paddock had 1,600 rounds of ammunition in his car, along with fertilizer that can be used to make explosives and 50 pounds of Tannerite , a substance used in explosive rifle targets...."

...an effort was made...
...have attempted to make...

If someone wants it, they will find it.


Jerry - 10/6/2017 at 07:15 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
All debate aside, there are two commonly owned products in American homes that can make a gas cloud that disperses the oxygen in the air and causes suffocation. I'm not going to name them, but I will say it was used during WW1.


You could drop a piano on someone. But people don't, so we're not trying to solve a problem that isn't there. Lots of objects could be dangerous if you have a lot of time and imagination on your hands. However, there is a problem with large-scale killings by use of high powered firearms. So maybe address products that are being used, rather than waste time with hypotheticals.

quote:
How many have slipped through?



How many? Do you know, or is this just another hypothetical? A lot? A few? And even if some have slipped through, does that mean we shouldn't bother trying?

Let's hear some realistic solutions, not a bunch of excuses.


The arguments are never intelligent and thought out. They're so attached to their toy and fears plus to hide behind the 2nd amendment for a thrill at the gun range.

I bet they have a hard time realizing that 77% of the US doesn't own a weapon.

I didn't grow up in a gun culture. My farther said when he came back from WWII that he saw enough of what guns could do. His words to me when I asked for a gun. Are you scared?? or violent?? or when the day comes your so scared will you become violent? Can you deal with the emotions of killing someone?

In my family we weren't allowed to be scared of the unknown boogie man. I'm 60 and there hasn't been one day in my life that a gun would have been a good tool to have. Thank you dad for not allowing me to be fearful of the world around me no matter how much anyone else is afraid

If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind



The key words here were ALL DEBATE ASIDE, and the application isn't hypothetical. It was used during WW1. Many were killed or at least severely disabled from the gas.

You did notice the QUESTION MARKS. They were asked to make people think about if the testing is truly effective and if the person doing the testing could have had their own motives in mind to who gets on the job.

Think on it.


porkchopbob - 10/6/2017 at 07:30 PM

quote:
quote:

Since the OKC bombing, an effort was made to regulate and more easily track the purchase of large quantities of fertilizer. Also, companies have attempted to make the fertilizer less explosive. Regulation seems to have made a difference; or perhaps semi-automatic weapons are just much more easier to acquire.


"Paddock had 1,600 rounds of ammunition in his car, along with fertilizer that can be used to make explosives and 50 pounds of Tannerite , a substance used in explosive rifle targets...."

...an effort was made...
...have attempted to make...

If someone wants it, they will find it.


I never said it was impossible to get. It's regulated, but it's commercially available.


anthonyspare - 10/6/2017 at 07:36 PM

quote:

I never said it was impossible to get. It's regulated, but it's commercially available.


But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right? You think if military weapons were banned, they would be impossible to get? Doubtful.


porkchopbob - 10/6/2017 at 07:44 PM

quote:
The key words here were ALL DEBATE ASIDE, and the application isn't hypothetical. It was used during WW1. Many were killed or at least severely disabled from the gas.



We are talking about trying to prevent crimes on civilians peoples, not war. So unless you can name an instance where this has been used on a crowd of innocent civilians in this country, it's hypothetical. People poison their spouses with anti-freeze, but that doesn't happen on a large-scale often (well, ever) so there isn't debate about it.


BoytonBrother - 10/6/2017 at 07:45 PM

quote:
But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right?


This notion makes the anti gun-control people seem deranged - not one person, not even crazy man Obama, suggested any proposed measure should completely eliminate our problems with guns. it is to reduce them, and make it more difficult to commit mass murder. if the anti gun-control crowd wants to help their cause, they should demonstrate a greater understanding of the issue.


anthonyspare - 10/6/2017 at 08:07 PM

quote:
quote:
But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right?


This notion makes the anti gun-control people seem deranged - not one person, not even crazy man Obama, suggested any proposed measure should completely eliminate our problems with guns. it is to reduce them, and make it more difficult to commit mass murder. if the anti gun-control crowd wants to help their cause, they should demonstrate a greater understanding of the issue.


What is one's ideal number to reduce 300 million guns to?


Jerry - 10/6/2017 at 08:28 PM

quote:
quote:
But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right?


This notion makes the anti gun-control people seem deranged - not one person, not even crazy man Obama, suggested any proposed measure should completely eliminate our problems with guns. it is to reduce them, and make it more difficult to commit mass murder. if the anti gun-control crowd wants to help their cause, they should demonstrate a greater understanding of the issue.



The big question is "How do they plan to reduce the number of guns in circulation?"


KCJimmy - 10/6/2017 at 08:44 PM

quote:
If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind
Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?


anthonyspare - 10/6/2017 at 08:49 PM

quote:

The big question is "How do they plan to reduce the number of guns in circulation?"

AND, to what level do they reduce the amount? Will only having 100 million guns reduce mass shootings?
The Vegas Shooter had 23 guns, Colorado shooter had 4 guns. 27 guns is roughly .000000076% of all firearms in the United States. Two shootings happened using 1 billionth of a percent of total guns in our Nation. For any significant effect, you would almost have to somehow remove every gun in the country, not likely to happen.


goldtop - 10/6/2017 at 08:56 PM

quote:
quote:
If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind
Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?



100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see


KCJimmy - 10/6/2017 at 09:34 PM

You said EVERYONE who owns a gun other than for hunting or collecting. Explain THAT with no rhetoric.

You would have to be even more of a dumbass than some of these posts imply to not think those that have already committed the crimes are viloent DuHHH.

My neighbor doesn't hunt, doesn't collect historic guns but owns a pistol. So he is violent?. Explain please.


adhill58 - 10/6/2017 at 09:58 PM

quote:
quote:

The big question is "How do they plan to reduce the number of guns in circulation?"

AND, to what level do they reduce the amount? Will only having 100 million guns reduce mass shootings?
The Vegas Shooter had 23 guns, Colorado shooter had 4 guns. 27 guns is roughly .000000076% of all firearms in the United States. Two shootings happened using 1 billionth of a percent of total guns in our Nation. For any significant effect, you would almost have to somehow remove every gun in the country, not likely to happen.



So............ what is your answer to reduce these kinds of deadly events? Saying how not to fix it does not fix it.


adhill58 - 10/6/2017 at 10:13 PM

quote:
quote:
But regulation keeps the bad guys from getting these things, right?


This notion makes the anti gun-control people seem deranged - not one person, not even crazy man Obama, suggested any proposed measure should completely eliminate our problems with guns. it is to reduce them, and make it more difficult to commit mass murder. if the anti gun-control crowd wants to help their cause, they should demonstrate a greater understanding of the issue.



Exactly. My younger brother suggested to me that he is feeling less liberal after seeing college aged protesters in Berkeley marching with fake "menstrual blood" smeared all over their faces to protest Trump's anti-women policies. He gets why they are protesting, but he feels that makes the whole side of the argument look stupid.

When someone says we should try to figure out a way to greatly reduce the ease with which mass murderers carry out mass murder, and gun-nuts scream about destroying the constitution, it is a similar spectacle.


jkeller - 10/6/2017 at 10:14 PM

quote:
quote:

The big question is "How do they plan to reduce the number of guns in circulation?"

AND, to what level do they reduce the amount? Will only having 100 million guns reduce mass shootings?
The Vegas Shooter had 23 guns, Colorado shooter had 4 guns. 27 guns is roughly .000000076% of all firearms in the United States. Two shootings happened using 1 billionth of a percent of total guns in our Nation. For any significant effect, you would almost have to somehow remove every gun in the country, not likely to happen.



You are talking about a couple of events as if there are no other shootings going on. There are murders by gun daily all over the country. The entire problem needs to be addressed.

Anyone else notice how the pro-gun arguments are always based on cherry picked facts while the majority of events are ignored?


BoytonBrother - 10/6/2017 at 10:39 PM

quote:
What is one's ideal number to reduce 300 million guns to?


I wasn't clear - I was saying it's about reducing the number of problems associated with gun ownership, meaning accidental deaths, and deranged lunatics going into a store and purchasing an AR-15. It's never been about "stopping them all". It just shouldn't be so damn easy - you should have to demonstrate competency first before buying. I can't imagine why anyone would be against that.


Rydethwind - 10/6/2017 at 11:12 PM

quote:
quote:
1200 people die every day from tobacco related disease ....


In all seriousness, what is your point?

quote:
dead is dead the method matters not you want to save lives then do it !


Are you suggesting we update laws on both guns and smoking?

Rydethewind, are you against people having to demonstrate complete responsible operation of a firearm before exercising their 2nd amendment rights? And what purpose do the psychological evaluations serve used by our police on recruits before hire?

[Edited on 10/5/2017 by BoytonBrother]


I am for responsible gun ownership, no law can be passed to stop criminals that is their nature , I am not for blaming everyone who did not do like all the liberals do as soon as their is a shooting they blame all the people who did not do it and want to pass laws that punish them not the sick bastard that did the deed I have asked on here many many time tell me a LAW that would have stopped this sick SOB tell me !

In complete answer to your question are you in favor of people taking a physiological test before they can exercise their 1st amendment rights? or a test to see if they understand history enough before they can talk about gun ownership?


BoytonBrother - 10/6/2017 at 11:16 PM

when you answer my questions, i'll answer yours.


jkeller - 10/7/2017 at 12:22 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
1200 people die every day from tobacco related disease ....


In all seriousness, what is your point?

quote:
dead is dead the method matters not you want to save lives then do it !


Are you suggesting we update laws on both guns and smoking?

Rydethewind, are you against people having to demonstrate complete responsible operation of a firearm before exercising their 2nd amendment rights? And what purpose do the psychological evaluations serve used by our police on recruits before hire?

[Edited on 10/5/2017 by BoytonBrother]


I am for responsible gun ownership, no law can be passed to stop criminals that is their nature , I am not for blaming everyone who did not do like all the liberals do as soon as their is a shooting they blame all the people who did not do it and want to pass laws that punish them not the sick bastard that did the deed I have asked on here many many time tell me a LAW that would have stopped this sick SOB tell me !

In complete answer to your question are you in favor of people taking a physiological test before they can exercise their 1st amendment rights? or a test to see if they understand history enough before they can talk about gun ownership?


The guy bought over 43 guns. Most of them he bought in the past year. Are you OK with that?


Jerry - 10/7/2017 at 12:24 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind
Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?



100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see


How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.


jkeller - 10/7/2017 at 12:33 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind
Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?



100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see


How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.


Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.


Jerry - 10/7/2017 at 01:06 AM

quote:
quote:
The key words here were ALL DEBATE ASIDE, and the application isn't hypothetical. It was used during WW1. Many were killed or at least severely disabled from the gas.



We are talking about trying to prevent crimes on civilians peoples, not war. So unless you can name an instance where this has been used on a crowd of innocent civilians in this country, it's hypothetical. People poison their spouses with anti-freeze, but that doesn't happen on a large-scale often (well, ever) so there isn't debate about it.


Think subway attack in Japan. Get the picture?


Jerry - 10/7/2017 at 01:13 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind
Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?



100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see


How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.


Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.


Who had unfettered access to firearms? Besides, the statement was that "100% of the shooting are by those who own (possess) firearms." Not semantics,or cherry picking, just showing that GoldTops' statement was wrong.

So, that makes your statement wrong, too.


Jerry - 10/7/2017 at 01:52 AM

quote:
quote:
What is one's ideal number to reduce 300 million guns to?


I wasn't clear - I was saying it's about reducing the number of problems associated with gun ownership, meaning accidental deaths, and deranged lunatics going into a store and purchasing an AR-15. It's never been about "stopping them all". It just shouldn't be so damn easy - you should have to demonstrate competency first before buying. I can't imagine why anyone would be against that.


I am, for the same facts i gave you earlier. Several of your points could not occur before you purchased the firearm as stated in my response.


BoytonBrother - 10/7/2017 at 02:06 AM

As we exist now, then yes, you are right. But this is the US, and we can do whatever we want if it's our priority - we can both agree on that. If we wanted to have a DMV-like organization where you can sign-up for classes, which include shooting demonstrations, we could do it. Anyone can buy whatever gun they want if they sign-up and pass. Make it a process so someone might spot a red flag. Don't trust the workers? We have hearings for that so you can challenge and get multiple opinions. It can be done if there were material gains for the people in power. But no, that comes from guns and ammunition sales. Money talks. The funny thing is that the NRA and the far-right wing politicians have successfully sold their base into believing it's about the 2nd amendment. How can anyone believe that?


jkeller - 10/7/2017 at 02:07 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind
Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?



100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see


How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.


Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.


Who had unfettered access to firearms? Besides, the statement was that "100% of the shooting are by those who own (possess) firearms." Not semantics,or cherry picking, just showing that GoldTops' statement was wrong.

So, that makes your statement wrong, too.


First, you cannot follow conversations. I didn't make that claim. Second, his mother owned the guns and allowed him free access to them. And you like to parse every statement to make it look like guns are not a problem and you fail every time.


Jerry - 10/7/2017 at 02:31 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind
Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?



100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see


How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.


Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.


Who had unfettered access to firearms? Besides, the statement was that "100% of the shooting are by those who own (possess) firearms." Not semantics,or cherry picking, just showing that GoldTops' statement was wrong.

So, that makes your statement wrong, too.


First, you cannot follow conversations. I didn't make that claim. Second, his mother owned the guns and allowed him free access to them. And you like to parse every statement to make it look like guns are not a problem and you fail every time.


You responded to my response to GoldTops's post. You said "Semantics and cherry picking again. he had unfettered access to the guns he used."

That makes you wrong since I did not use semantics. I showed that Goldtop had made a wrong statement.
I did not cherry pick since I used the two latest who did not own the weapons they used. That made Goldtops' statement "100% of the shooting are done by those who own(possess) guns" wrong.
Adam Lanza didn't own the guns he used, nor did the two who did the shooting at Columbine own the guns they used. His mother did not allow him free access to them.
So that makes you wrong on both counts and Goldtop wrong on his assumption.

Now, can YOU follow the conversation? It's all been quoted above, and re-quoted, and now re-quoted again, in order.
I would guess that makes your post an utter failure.


jkeller - 10/7/2017 at 03:00 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
If you hunt or collect plugged historic guns then I'll put you in the sports category....other than that you're either scared or a violent person...you won't change my mind
Yet your posts seem to indicate that it is important to you to change the minds of others that don't agree with you? Explain that please. Are you automatically right because that is what your father taught you? According to your theory everyone that owns guns that are not historic or for hunting is potentially violent. Explain that math too if you would?



100% of the shooting are by those who own(possess) guns....at some point 100% of them became violent...and I'm discussing unnecessary gun violence so keep the rhetoric....I'm also sure at some point they said the same things and thought the same things you do as its the typical rhetoric gun lovers have. Not me

That guy that did the shooting owned legal weapons for decades before becoming violent...

I wonder what the odds are that someone who doesn't own(possess) a gun does a gun violence shooting....might be an interesting stat to see


How quickly we forget. Adam Lanza owned no firearms. He first broke into his mothers' gun cabinet, shot her, stole her car, and then went to Sandy Hook. He couldn't buy firearms due to a mental health issue.
The two teens who did Columbine did not own weapons. They were too young. A friend bought them for them, thus an illegal purchase.


Semantics and cherry picking again. He had unfettered access to the guns he used.


Who had unfettered access to firearms? Besides, the statement was that "100% of the shooting are by those who own (possess) firearms." Not semantics,or cherry picking, just showing that GoldTops' statement was wrong.

So, that makes your statement wrong, too.


First, you cannot follow conversations. I didn't make that claim. Second, his mother owned the guns and allowed him free access to them. And you like to parse every statement to make it look like guns are not a problem and you fail every time.


You responded to my response to GoldTops's post. You said "Semantics and cherry picking again. he had unfettered access to the guns he used."

That makes you wrong since I did not use semantics. I showed that Goldtop had made a wrong statement.
I did not cherry pick since I used the two latest who did not own the weapons they used. That made Goldtops' statement "100% of the shooting are done by those who own(possess) guns" wrong.
Adam Lanza didn't own the guns he used, nor did the two who did the shooting at Columbine own the guns they used. His mother did not allow him free access to them.
So that makes you wrong on both counts and Goldtop wrong on his assumption.

Now, can YOU follow the conversation? It's all been quoted above, and re-quoted, and now re-quoted again, in order.
I would guess that makes your post an utter failure.


The two Columbine killers owned 2 9mm handguns and 2 12 gauge shotguns used in the attack. And these threads were about gun violence and what should be done about it until you came along steering every conversation away from the point.


adhill58 - 10/7/2017 at 03:24 AM

"Adam Lanza didn't own the guns he used, nor did the two who did the shooting at Columbine own the guns they used. His mother did not allow him free access to them. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

I don't see how this helps your argument. Adam Lanza's mother took this freak out to the gun range for his breaks from playing video games (probably shooter games) in her house. He was clearly disturbed and antisocial, yet he knew where the guns were and how to access them and how to use them. It is hard for me to feel like she was a responsible owner doing all that she possibly could to protect local children. The whole situation was bad for their community and her, but she was not a completely innocent victim.

Another example of guns being everywhere making us safer, right?

I know, "But, but, but if the teachers had guns..."


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=145364