He*l, let's just BAN FIREARMS

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So we can do away with gun violence, once and for all:
http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd433/tlas81/397002_436741169713387_899846645_n.jpg

[Curly Bill]

I'd so do that if I had an idiot neignbor like that!

[olevetonahill]

Yea because the average person was so much safer before guns :distrust:

[KantoSooner]

How do you guys feel about leaving gun ownership/carry laws about where they are (or loosening them) but ramping up penalties for gun crimes as a response?

I'm an owner and like my 2nd Amendment rights, but I get awfully tired of morons doing damage with guns. And you really can do a lot more damage with a gun than with a knife or a stick. That's kind of the point.

[C&CDean]

How do you guys feel about leaving gun ownership/carry laws about where they are (or loosening them) but ramping up penalties for gun crimes as a response?

I'm an owner and like my 2nd Amendment rights, but I get awfully tired of morons doing damage with guns. And you really can do a lot more damage with a gun than with a knife or a stick. That's kind of the point.

I'm ok with this. If you rob somebody with a gun? Death. If you go into Jerome Ersland's drug store with a gun? Death.

Seriously, leave the gun laws alone, but make the penalties downright outrageous for felons who use guns and I'd be all over it.

[Curly Bill]

Agree with Dean.

[cleller]

^^Logical, and won't happen. Too many people love criminals.

[salth2o]

^^Logical, and won't happen. Too many people love criminals.

A-to-tha-men.

I agree with Deano as well.

While we are in the banning spirit, how about banning rope, duct tape, sticks, rocks, cars, alcohol, bikes, trampolines, gravity, swimming, boats, 'lectircity, fires, hard candy, etc.

[olevetonahill]

How do you guys feel about leaving gun ownership/carry laws about where they are (or loosening them) but ramping up penalties for gun crimes as a response?

I'm an owner and like my 2nd Amendment rights, but I get awfully tired of morons doing damage with guns. And you really can do a lot more damage with a gun than with a knife or a stick. That's kind of the point.

Sounds good cept fer the fact , Penalties dont deter crooks as it is . whats the difference say between a bad getting 20 years for a gun crime or 50? They dont GAS they Crooks All it does is make us feel like we are doing SOMETHING Kinda like peein yer pants in the dark deal

[cleller]

While we are in the banning spirit, how about banning rope, duct tape, sticks, rocks, cars, alcohol, bikes, trampolines, gravity, swimming, boats, 'lectircity, fires, hard candy, etc.

R.I.P. Water Wiggle.

http://i701.photobucket.com/albums/ww14/cs6000/wiggle.jpg

[yermom]

I'm ok with this. If you rob somebody with a gun? Death. If you go into Jerome Ersland's drug store with a gun? Death.

Seriously, leave the gun laws alone, but make the penalties downright outrageous for felons who use guns and I'd be all over it.

not that i'm anti-gun, but crazy people gonna be crazy. they don't seem to have a problem with going out in a hail of gunfire anyway

[hawaii 5-0]

Like that Union Thug throwing a punch.

Just cause one gun owner goes beserk doesn't make all of 'em crazies.

Let people have their guns. They just have to be responsible.

5-0

[olevetonahill]

Like that Union Thug throwing a punch.

Just cause one gun owner goes beserk doesn't make all of 'em crazies.

Let people have their guns. They just have to be responsible.

5-0

H 2-0 you are
http://www.automizeit.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/guinness-brilliant.jpeg

[StoopTroup]

So It's legal to enter a store with a Ski Mask and a Bullet Proof Vest still?

[diverdog]

I'm ok with this. If you rob somebody with a gun? Death. If you go into Jerome Ersland's drug store with a gun? Death.

Seriously, leave the gun laws alone, but make the penalties downright outrageous for felons who use guns and I'd be all over it.

Dean:

The counter argument is that there will be nothing to really deter criminals from murdering people. The "they have nothing to lose" argument. I am not saying that is what I think but it is something I have heard. For instance, if you are robbing a 7/11 instead of leaving witnesses you kill everyone.

[soonercruiser]

I'm ok with this. If you rob somebody with a gun? Death. If you go into Jerome Ersland's drug store with a gun? Death.

Seriously, leave the gun laws alone, but make the penalties downright outrageous for felons who use guns and I'd be all over it.

I'll "One UP" those ideas!

How about we strictly enforce the laws on the books????
Like serving hard time with the boys!
Like child sex abuse laws - have mandatory minimums.

[hawaii 5-0]

Let's also go after the dead beat dads.

If you have a kid you're responsible to it.

5-0

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Let's also go after the dead beat dads that have firearms. Confiscate their weapons. Give the guns back after daddy-o pays back child support.

If you have a kid you're responsible to it.

5-0 FIFY(just joking, of course)

[yermom]

yeah, THAT would end well

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

yeah, THAT would end wellGun confiscation by the govt. is the way to win the hearts of the average Americn. Particularly those in the private sector.

[Midtowner]

I'm ok with this. If you rob somebody with a gun? Death. If you go into Jerome Ersland's drug store with a gun? Death.

Seriously, leave the gun laws alone, but make the penalties downright outrageous for felons who use guns and I'd be all over it.

You trollin'? The kid who was shot didn't have a gun.

How 'bout using your gun to execute an already incapacitated person: Death.

[okie52]

You trollin'? The kid who was shot didn't have a gun.

How 'bout using your gun to execute an already incapacitated person: Death.

The kid was part of an armed robbery. Death.

That would supersede your incapacitated status.

[KantoSooner]

On a more mundane level: how about, drunk driving = big hassle, $3500 and increased insurance premiums for life. Drunk driving while in possession of a pistol = same as above and 1 year in Big Mac. And so forth. It would tend to discourage the yahoos in our society from going armed everywhere.

Here's an anecdote: a kid I know, 19, full grown man type, was doing some landscaping work with me last summer. Hauling rocks. He's a good kid but has a lot of confused crap running around in his head. He'll be okay if he can make it to 25 or so. Anyway, he's talking about a conflict he's having with some tough dude and then he shows me the little 9mm he's taken to carrying in his pocket. This is not going to produce any result that is beneficial to anyone. How to discourage BS thinking?

[FirstandGoal]

I personally think we should ban Big Macs.

There's no telling how many people's deaths that **** has caused.

[olevetonahill]

I personally think we should ban Big Macs.

There's no telling how many people's deaths that **** has caused.

I suppose next ya gonna wanta become Mayor of New York wont ya.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Hey, while we are at it, lets ban cars, they kill people, how about knives, that bad ole steak knife can kill... I guess we could ban pillows, people do suffocate... I could go on and on... :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

Hey, while we are at it, lets ban cars, they kill people, how about knives, that bad ole steak knife can kill... I guess we could ban pillows, people do suffocate... I could go on and on... :rolleyes:

Lets just cut right to it
Lets Bain Livin and then there will be no Killin
Oh wait

[SoonerFrog]

You trollin'? The kid who was shot didn't have a gun.

How 'bout using your gun to execute an already incapacitated person: Death.

You're making it too complicated. We are past the point where we should be trying to guess who is sane and who isn't. It's like anything else - the masses have to suffer because the few can't handle their privilege.

Own a gun: Death. That's the only thing that will stop gun killings.

[C&CDean]

You're making it too complicated. We are past the point where we should be trying to guess who is sane and who isn't. It's like anything else - the masses have to suffer because the few can't handle their privilege.

Own a gun: Death. That's the only thing that will stop gun killings.

Two words. ****. You.

[yermom]

trolling poster

is trolling

[SoonerFrog]

Sad that you hold your right to see little kids killed to be so sacred.

And make no mistake, as long as guns are legal, that' what you are saying.

[SoonerFrog]

trolling poster

is trolling

I'm not trolling. I've just had enough of gun nuts putting their hunting fetish above my children's lives. And I'm fed up with our governmental officials being too cowardly to stand up for those lives. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd give every penny of the winnings to congresspeople who'd stand up for my kids right not to die.

[okie52]

I'm not trolling. I've just had enough of gun nuts putting their hunting fetish above my children's lives. And I'm fed up with our governmental officials being too cowardly to stand up for those lives. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd give every penny of the winnings to congresspeople who'd stand up for my kids right not to die.

Your kids are going to die...no congressman can stop it from happening.

[yermom]

Sad that you hold your right to see little kids killed to be so sacred.

And make no mistake, as long as guns are legal, that' what you are saying.

better get the knives too then

[olevetonahill]

I'm not trolling. I've just had enough of gun nuts putting their hunting fetish above my children's lives. And I'm fed up with our governmental officials being too cowardly to stand up for those lives. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd give every penny of the winnings to congresspeople who'd stand up for my kids right not to die.

So tell me , Just how many of YOUR kids have been killed by guns? How many kids do YOU personally know that were killed by Guns? How many people that YOU know have ever been affected By Guns in a bad way ?:anonymous::anonymous:

[BigTip]

http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gun_control_is_counterproductive/

A study by Harvard liberals.

: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases."

[LiveLaughLove]

I'm not trolling. I've just had enough of gun nuts putting their hunting fetish above my children's lives. And I'm fed up with our governmental officials being too cowardly to stand up for those lives. If I won the lottery tomorrow, I'd give every penny of the winnings to congresspeople who'd stand up for my kids right not to die.

Then you're a fool.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I bet if the parents had not divorced, Momma wouldn't have spent so much time with Adam at the shooting range and Adam wouldn't have gained possession of Momma's gun collection.

[Midtowner]

I bet if the parents had not divorced, Momma wouldn't have spent so much time with Adam at the shooting range and Adam wouldn't have gained possession of Momma's gun collection.

Or maybe if momma didn't teach her severely disturbed child how to be proficient with weapons, she'd still have a face?

Who knows.

[olevetonahill]

I bet if the parents had not divorced, Momma wouldn't have spent so much time with Adam at the shooting range and Adam wouldn't have gained possession of Momma's gun collection.


Or maybe if momma didn't teach her severely disturbed child how to be proficient with weapons, she'd still have a face?

Who knows.

Oh Look we have
http://mexiconuevo.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/tweedle-dee-and-tweedle-dum1.jpg

[LiveLaughLove]

Or maybe if momma didn't teach her severely disturbed child how to be proficient with weapons, she'd still have a face?

Who knows.

Are there credible stories out saying she did this? Or are we just piling on a dead woman?

Even if that's the case I would say she has been punished, eh.

[olevetonahill]

Are there credible stories out saying she did this? Or are we just piling on a dead woman?

Even if that's the case I would say she has been punished, eh.

Well Hell Bro Every one KNOWS Momma Trained him up to do this.

[Midtowner]

Well Hell Bro Every one KNOWS Momma Trained him up to do this.

Actually, yes, they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9747931/Connecticut-school-massacre-Gunmans-mother-taught-him-to-shoot.html


ancy Lanza, 52, was “a big, big gun fan” who went target shooting with her children, according to friends.
"She said she would often go target shooting with her kids," Dan Holmes, owner of the landscaping firm Holmes Fine Gardens, told Reuters.

[olevetonahill]

Actually, yes, they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9747931/Connecticut-school-massacre-Gunmans-mother-taught-him-to-shoot.html

Well there ya Have it, Matlock solved this shat fer us Mom Caused this because she took her Kids Target shooting
What a bitch

[Midtowner]

Well there ya Have it, Matlock solved this shat fer us Mom Caused this because she took her Kids Target shooting
What a bitch

Our gun culture is directly to blame. If mom's not some sort of gun nut who keeps powerful guns at home and such, 20 more people including some 5-year-olds would still be alive today.

[olevetonahill]

Our gun culture is directly to blame. If mom's not some sort of gun nut who keeps powerful guns at home and such, 20 more people including some 5-year-olds would still be alive today.


And IF (see that) IF Ryder, dint Rent Trucks, and IF Diesel wernt available ,
There would 168 folks still alive in OKC today
Dayum Can Yall understand YOU caint stop CRAZY?

[Midtowner]

And IF (see that) IF Ryder, dint Rent Trucks, and IF Diesel wernt available ,
There would 168 folks still alive in OKC today
Dayum Can Yall understand YOU caint stop CRAZY?

You sure as hell shouldn't encourage it.

[SCOUT]

Our gun culture is directly to blame. If mom's not some sort of gun nut who keeps powerful guns at home and such, 20 more people including some 5-year-olds would still be alive today.
So target shooting now constitutes a gun nut. Wow. Also, would you change your mind if she had weak guns (whatever-the-hell that is) instead of powerful ones?

[olevetonahill]

You sure as hell shouldn't encourage it.

So Now yer sayin HIS MOM encouraged him to MASS murder?
You get dumber by the post

[LiveLaughLove]

Actually, yes, they do.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9747931/Connecticut-school-massacre-Gunmans-mother-taught-him-to-shoot.html

I've taken my kids to H & H for target shooting. We all have a good time. Does that mean I'm training them to be killers?

Silly us, we just thought we were having a good time, and teaching them to respect the firearms we used there.

Pretty cool place, btw.

[Midtowner]

I've taken my kids to H & H for target shooting. We all have a good time. Does that mean I'm training them to be killers?

If one of your kids ends up with some sort of mental disease and defect, you've taught them how to act out in a way which can hurt a lot of people.

[olevetonahill]

If one of your kids ends up with some sort of mental disease and defect, you've taught them how to act out in a way which can hurt a lot of people.

Do you have Kids? Have you Taught them to Drive?
I rest my case councilor :tongue:

[LiveLaughLove]

If one of your kids ends up with some sort of mental disease and defect, you've taught them how to act out in a way which can hurt a lot of people.

Eh, I don't have any lib kids yet. They're all sane so far.

[Petro-Sooner]

That communist in charge is speaking.

[Midtowner]

Do you have Kids? Have you Taught them to Drive?
I rest my case councilor :tongue:

A car is not a machine built for the sole purpose of taking life.

--it's slightly different.

[SoonerorLater]

A car is not a machine built for the sole purpose of taking life.

--it's slightly different.

It is different you are correct. The way I see it a gun is built for the purpose of protecting human life. If they weren't useful in that respect police officers wouldn't be carrying them.

[FirstandGoal]

Eh, I don't have any lib kids yet. They're all sane so far.



This awesomeness just can't be topped.

Case.Closed.

[bluedogok]

So target shooting now constitutes a gun nut. Wow. Also, would you change your mind if she had weak guns (whatever-the-hell that is) instead of powerful ones?
To the anti-gun zealots anyone who owns just a single gun is a "gun nut", target shooting means you are a "lunatic gun nut".

[diverdog]

If one of your kids ends up with some sort of mental disease and defect, you've taught them how to act out in a way which can hurt a lot of people.

Well I hope not.

I took my boys out this afternoon to my friends farm to shoot targets with pistols. This was the first time my boys have ever shot a pistol so I thought I would have my friend teach them. My friend is a weapons trainer and range master for the USA. He is also a NRA certified instructor. Anyway, he spent almost an hour teaching them everything from safety to sight pictures to breathing. Once they started shooting I happen to say to one of my kids that they were shooting center mass and it would drop someone if they shot them in the center of their chest. To make a long story short my friend threw me off the firing line. He pulled me aside to tell that we were there to teach my boys about the sport of shooting and that we were target shooting and nothing more. He did not want to hear anything more about "shooting center mass". I understood his point given recent events.

I have spent my entire life around guns and I love shooting and I plan on instilling it in my kids. If for one moment I thought they were a danger to society the guns would go. All my guns are locked in a safe along with the ammo. The pistols are also locked with trigger locks. They know that are never allowed to touch the guns without my permission. They have been taught to treat every gun with respect and to treat it as if it were loaded.

The highlight of the night was getting to shoot a .50 cal Desert Eagle.

[Wishboned]

Well I hope not.

I took my boys out this afternoon to my friends farm to shoot targets with pistols. This was the first time my boys have ever shot a pistol so I thought I would have my friend teach them. My friend is a weapons trainer and range master for the USA. He is also a NRA certified instructor. Anyway, he spent almost an hour teaching them everything from safety to sight pictures to breathing. Once they started shooting I happen to say to one of my kids that they were shooting center mass and it would drop someone if they shot them in the center of their chest. To make a long story short my friend threw me off the firing line. He pulled me aside to tell that we were there to teach my boys about the sport of shooting and that we were target shooting and nothing more. He did not want to hear anything more about "shooting center mass". I understood his point given recent events.

I have spent my entire life around guns and I love shooting and I plan on instilling it in my kids. If for one moment I thought they were a danger to society the guns would go. All my guns are locked in a safe along with the ammo. The pistols are also locked with trigger locks.

OH MY GOD!!!! YOU'RE CREATING MONSTERS!!!!!!!! Or at least Midtowner thinks so.

[diverdog]

OH MY GOD!!!! YOU'RE CREATING MONSTERS!!!!!!!! Or at least Midtowner thinks so.

I think he is being facetious.

Most people do not understand shooting sports until they actually try it. I took a client out one time to shoot sporting clays. Until that day he never shot a gun and when we were done he absolutely feel in love with shooting. Eventually he took lessons and started to shoot competitively. His wife damn near killed me because he went in deep. LOL

[SCOUT]

So wait, guns can be used for sport too? Mid was pretty clear that they were created for the sole purpose of killing.

[bluedogok]

So wait, guns can be used for sport too? Mid was pretty clear that they were created for the sole purpose of killing.
They are, most are used for killing clay pigeons or paper.

[OU_Sooners75]

You sure as hell shouldn't encourage it.

WHAT THE ****?

Really, you cannot seriously be this ****ing stupid....wait nevermind!

I just wished you lived in reality and not some fantasy world where everything was just peachy.

When are we going to blame the real problem? The person that did this heinious act?

Jesus, I must be creating a few crazy people since I take my kids out shooting firearms and hunting.


Take your schtick and shove it up you ***! You're a disgrace!

Like I said, the mom isn't to blame, the ****ing tool that did the act is to blame. You are the epitome of what's wrong with our society....blame everything else but the actual problem!

I swear, I would slap you in your vagina if we were face to face....lol.

[soonercruiser]

So wait, guns can be used for sport too? Mid was pretty clear that they were created for the sole purpose of killing.

Venison!
Farm raised deer just aren't available.
Venison sausage.....Ohhhhhhh what I would give to have some!
:beguiled:

[LiveLaughLove]

http://www.bookwormroom.com/2012/12/14/factual-weaponry-for-the-stalwart-foot-soldiers-fighting-on-behalf-of-the-2nd-amendment-in-the-cause-of-common-sense/

Interesting article. It rates violent crime, which of course isn't gun related violent crime. The premise is without the guns, violent crime goes up.

The UK leads in violent crime at 2,034 crimes per 100k of people. The USA is way down the list at 470 crimes per 100k of people.

It also notes that Switzerland and Israel require all citizens to be armed and they are some of the most violence free.

None of this matters of course, because we now live in a touchy feely world of emotion driven reality. The truth is relegated to subservience to the feelings of people such as this froggy person that showed up on here to proclaim it is time for an end to all guns.

That doesn't work out too well for people in places like North Korea. The first thing an occupying force wants to do is take away the guns. There's a reason for that.

[Midtowner]

I think he is being facetious.

http://www.fishing-trip-advisor.com/BassHooked.jpg

[bluedogok]

WHAT THE ****?

Really, you cannot seriously be this ****ing stupid....wait nevermind!

I just wished you lived in reality and not some fantasy world where everything was just peachy.

When are we going to blame the real problem? The person that did this heinious act?

Jesus, I must be creating a few crazy people since I take my kids out shooting firearms and hunting.


Take your schtick and shove it up you ***! You're a disgrace!

Like I said, the mom isn't to blame, the ****ing tool that did the act is to blame. You are the epitome of what's wrong with our society....blame everything else but the actual problem!

I swear, I would slap you in your vagina if we were face to face....lol.
Remember, you are dealing with an attorney, nothing is ever the perpetrators fault, they can always find fault with others.

[LiveLaughLove]

It seems at the Clackamas Mall shooting a CCW guy drew down on the shooter, but did not fire.

The shooters rifle was jamming, but people were behind him and the CCW guy decided it wasn't a clear shot.

He kept his pistol trained on the guy though, and when the guy saw him with his pistol he offed himself ending it there.

Naturally, this tidbit is not being reported by the MSM. It doesn't fit the meme we are busy creating.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/clackamas-shooter-confronted-by-ccw-holder/

The guys name is Zimmerman and he carries a pistol. Double bad guy for the media.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So Now yer sayin HIS MOM encouraged him to MASS murder?
You get dumber by the postAll the while those of his mindset have a belief that they are enlightened, and should be the ones in charge of pretty near everything.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Eh, I don't have any lib kids yet. They're all sane so far.Pray and keep your fingers crossed any kids you would have don't become tainted by Liberalism/Progressivism/Socialism/etc.

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

A car is not a machine built for the sole purpose of taking life.

--it's slightly different.

Yet more people die every year as a result of cars. Ban them. We all walk from now on. Until people start dying en masse as a result of bunions and sprained ankles.......ban walking!

This is just stupid. You cant blame the guns for the deaths anymore than you can blame a pen fot mistakes on a piece of paper.

If it wasnt guns, it'd have been pipe bombs. If not pipe bombs, the knives.

[jkjsooner]

Yet more people die every year as a result of cars. Ban them. We all walk from now on. Until people start dying en masse as a result of bunions and sprained ankles.......ban walking!

This is just stupid. You cant blame the guns for the deaths anymore than you can blame a pen fot mistakes on a piece of paper.

If it wasnt guns, it'd have been pipe bombs. If not pipe bombs, the knives.

I've stayed out of this but I have to respond to the illogical statements you've made here.

More people do die from cars but it is an unfortunate side effect of something that we all rely on daily to get from one place to another. Our economy would collapse if we got rid of cars and we would probably have a lot more die of starvation. Also cars are rarely used to intentionally kill someone and they're really not that efficient at doing so. Even in the rare cases that someone drives 60 mph into a crowd of people the number of deaths have generally been remarkably low. I don't believe a single person died in the case listed below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060602133.html

Pipe bombs sound scarry but they're not very efficient at killing. The majority of the time they don't even go off. The Columbine killers tried at completely failed at using pipe bombs.

As for knives, just a little common sense would tell you that you can kill a lot more people with a semi-automatic weapon.


Anyway, your logic implies that all things that can be used to kill are equivalent no matter how effective they are at doing so. Using that logic we might as well legalize WMD's since a person can kill with a stick just like a WMD.


One last thing, your argument about guns being blamed for deaths is a straw man - unnless you find someone who claims that a gun is an intelligent sentient object filled with evil. Nobody makes that argument. They argue that the availability of guns makes an evil person much more deadly than they would otherwise be.


An gun lobbyist was on CNN the other day and he said, "These gun laws are killing people." My response? Laws don't kill people, people kill people. Of course the guy might have a point. That's up to debate but as long as he sticks to simplistic straw man arguments like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" he deserves the same in return.

[jkjsooner]

For the record, I try to stay out of the legitimate pro-gun arguments. Argue these all you want.


We have a constitutional right to our guns.
We need guns for protection both against criminals and the government.
We should have guns for hunting and other gun sports.


Some may agree and some may disagree but you can make logical arguments for these. But when you say one of the following things (or some derivation of these) you just show yourself to be a simpleton who can't get beyond simplistic talking points to make a real argument.


Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
You can kill with a stick as well.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I have rarely heard of a gun discharging on its owna nd killing someone. I know for a fact a stick can kill someone...

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

I've stayed out of this but I have to respond to the illogical statements you've made here.

More people do die from cars but it is an unfortunate side effect of something that we all rely on daily to get from one place to another. Our economy would collapse if we got rid of cars and we would probably have a lot more die of starvation. Also cars are rarely used to intentionally kill someone and they're really not that efficient at doing so. Even in the rare cases that someone drives 60 mph into a crowd of people the number of deaths have generally been remarkably low. I don't believe a single person died in the case listed below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/06/AR2009060602133.html

Pipe bombs sound scarry but they're not very efficient at killing. The majority of the time they don't even go off. The Columbine killers tried at completely failed at using pipe bombs.

As for knives, just a little common sense would tell you that you can kill a lot more people with a semi-automatic weapon.


Anyway, your logic implies that all things that can be used to kill are equivalent no matter how effective they are at doing so. Using that logic we might as well legalize WMD's since a person can kill with a stick just like a WMD.


One last thing, your argument about guns being blamed for deaths is a straw man - unnless you find someone who claims that a gun is an intelligent sentient object filled with evil. Nobody makes that argument. They argue that the availability of guns makes an evil person much more deadly than they would otherwise be.


An gun lobbyist was on CNN the other day and he said, "These gun laws are killing people." My response? Laws don't kill people, people kill people. Of course the guy might have a point. That's up to debate but as long as he sticks to simplistic straw man arguments like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" he deserves the same in return.

My point is, the hat no matter what is taken away, people will find other means ti kill and injure others. You can restrict access to guns all you want, crazy evil doers will finda way.

I just think its crazy that the gun haters are always so reactionary. Blaming the nra, blaming guns and gun laws. Since the beginning of time, evil has existed, and it will continue to exist, regardless if there are guns or not.

Think prohibition........do you think banning alcohol made things better or worse?
do you think that because terrorist had access to airplanes, and used them as weapons, that we should get rid of airplanes? My analogy regarding cars is based on the premise that drunk drivers that cause accidents, are to blame, not the car. An evil doer who uses a gun to kill should be blamed, not the gun. Death is death..Albeit accidental or intentional.

[jkjsooner]

I have rarely heard of a gun discharging on its owna nd killing someone. I know for a fact a stick can kill someone...

Apparently my point went right over your head.

Nobody denies either one of these but neither of these facts contribute to a rational arguments against gun control.

If you believe either of those facts by themselves contribute to a good arguments then you would have to accept the following as well.

I've never seen a nuclear weapon decide on its own to detonate. Nuclear weapons are after all inanimate objects. Why wouldn't we allow a proliferation of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people.

If you think it's unfair for me to bring up nuclear weapons, I'll remind you I wasn't the one who postulated that all things that can be used to kill are equivalent or that a killing machine is irrelevant since it is an inanimate object. If you're going to make these arguments then they have to hold universally. Otherwise you have to engage in the nuances that distinguish a stick from a gun from a nuclear weapon - which is someone you refuse to do.

Edit: Reworded before someone states that a fact is not an argument. I would say when you list a fact like "guns don't kill, people kill" you are making an argument but I don't want to get bogged down on trivial semantics.

[jkjsooner]

My point is, the hat no matter what is taken away, people will find other means ti kill and injure others. You can restrict access to guns all you want, crazy evil doers will finda way.

Of course. The kid in Connecticut might have stabbed his mom to death. He probably wouldn't have killed 20 children. Even if he tried (as the guy in China did) his success rate would have been much lower. Most likley the principal and counselor would have been able to subdue him.

[LiveLaughLove]

Of course. The kid in Connecticut might have stabbed his mom to death. He probably wouldn't have killed 20 children. Even if he tried (as the guy in China did) his success rate would have been much lower. Most likley the principal and counselor would have been able to subdue him.

And had they had an armed guard or allowed CCW he probably wouldn't have killed as many and it wouldn't be infringing on our rights or ability to protect ourselves from the bad guys that don't care about gun abolition laws.

In fact, had they had an armed guard presence he probably wouldn't have even attempted it.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Apparently my point went right over your head.

And you failed on my point... One needs no ARGUEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! GET IT!

[C&CDean]

On a sidenote, I bought my 5-year old grand daughter one of those little Crickett .22 rifles for Christmas this morning. Pink stock and all. Little **** loves to go hunting with her papa and her papa loves taking her.

[jkjsooner]

And had they had an armed guard or allowed CCW he probably wouldn't have killed as many and it wouldn't be infringing on our rights or ability to protect ourselves from the bad guys that don't care about gun abolition laws.

In fact, had they had an armed guard presence he probably wouldn't have even attempted it.

Again, I will say that that is a different argument and has nothing to do with the point I was making.

1. Just because two objects can be used to kill doesn't mean that they are equivalent.
2. The inanimate nature of the object means nothing to this debate.

I'm frankly happy that you are willing to deviate from these meaningless talking points and make a real argument.

[jkjsooner]

And you failed on my point... One needs no ARGUEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT! GET IT!

How did I fail on that point? None of the posts I commented on (including yours) made that point. In fact, I even mentioned it among my list of legitimate arguments.

You don't just get off the hook by saying you don't need an argument. While true or not you stated the following which is undisputed and irrelevant to any meaningful gun control argument.


I have rarely heard of a gun discharging on its owna nd killing someone. I know for a fact a stick can kill someone...

If you want to change the subject and discuss constitutionality then go on. I'm not here to debate that with you. If you want to try in vain to argue why the facts you listed above are relevant then I'll be glad to interact with you.

[KantoSooner]

And had they had an armed guard or allowed CCW he probably wouldn't have killed as many and it wouldn't be infringing on our rights or ability to protect ourselves from the bad guys that don't care about gun abolition laws.

In fact, had they had an armed guard presence he probably wouldn't have even attempted it.

Guards would not be a bad idea. They would cost money, however, and we as a people haven't shown too much willingness to spend money on our schools.
This, too, will blow over. Give it a coupla weeks. Obama will get some ridiculous limit on magazine capacity (probably pushed out for a year or so to allow plenty of time for people to stock up so that the private trade can continue for decades - ref: 17 shot Glocks) or 'large' purchases of ammunition. And that will be that.
We're not going to put up with 'gun control' (whatever that means), we're not going to fund and reenergize public mental health initiatives, we're not going to spend any more money on our schools than we do now and privately carried guns are not going to stop the next maniac.

What we will do is 'nothing much'. Every year or so, some abnormal piece of garbage will roll into a school or other public meeting place and mow down 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 people with whom he has little if any prior connection. We will all feel depressed and outraged. The news networks will 'cover' the 'event' like a wet blanket with lugubrious music in the background and the de rigeur intoning of the victims' names by the vacuous baratones who read the day's events to us every night. Our elected officials will moan, publically emote and promise to do 'whatever it takes' to prevent such events. And then they will go back to their assemblies and do nothing that has any effect whatsoever. The predictably oily religious leaders will grab some free pub and preach to us grieving teevee viewers. They will conclude, not too surprisingly, that the root cause of all this is that we are insufficiently involved with their church. Send money. And we won't remember or hold our officials or ourselves to account.
Perhaps we should drop the pretense and just get back to whatever it was we were doing early Friday morning; because really addressing issues like these demands of us rational discussion and action that will likely be unpleasant, at least in part. And I really don't see that we as a people have the stones for that mission.

[jkjsooner]

I do have a few questions for the "we need to all be armed" crowd?

1. As it pertains to private businesses, do you feel that it is the role of the government to tell a private business owner that he must accept armed patrons on his premise? You have a right to bear arms but you don't have a right to do so on my private property and a business is private property. You have the right to speak freely but you don't have the right to do so in my house.

2. How many large corporations with in house attorneys and insurance obligations are going to agree to allow armed citizens on their premises?

[Midtowner]

I do have a few questions for the "we need to all be armed" crowd?

1. As it pertains to private businesses, do you feel that it is the role of the government to tell a private business owner that he must accept armed patrons on his premise? You have a right to bear arms but you don't have a right to do so on my private property and a business is private property. You have the right to speak freely but you don't have the right to do so in my house.

2. How many large corporations with in house attorneys and insurance obligations are going to agree to allow armed citizens on their premises?

Private property makes sense--your constitutional rights don't apply on someone else's private property. You don't have the freedom to speak there, to assemble, to have privacy, nada.

The more interesting question is whether the government can tell you not to wear your guns into government buildings like schools and courthouses. If that right to bear arms is absolute as some suggest, then the government has no power to prevent you from packing heat to kindergarten.

[diverdog]

Guards would not be a bad idea. They would cost money, however, and we as a people haven't shown too much willingness to spend money on our schools.
This, too, will blow over. Give it a coupla weeks. Obama will get some ridiculous limit on magazine capacity (probably pushed out for a year or so to allow plenty of time for people to stock up so that the private trade can continue for decades - ref: 17 shot Glocks) or 'large' purchases of ammunition. And that will be that.
We're not going to put up with 'gun control' (whatever that means), we're not going to fund and reenergize public mental health initiatives, we're not going to spend any more money on our schools than we do now and privately carried guns are not going to stop the next maniac.

What we will do is 'nothing much'. Every year or so, some abnormal piece of garbage will roll into a school or other public meeting place and mow down 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 people with whom he has little if any prior connection. We will all feel depressed and outraged. The news networks will 'cover' the 'event' like a wet blanket with lugubrious music in the background and the de rigeur intoning of the victims' names by the vacuous baratones who read the day's events to us every night. Our elected officials will moan, publically emote and promise to do 'whatever it takes' to prevent such events. And then they will go back to their assemblies and do nothing that has any effect whatsoever. The predictably oily religious leaders will grab some free pub and preach to us grieving teevee viewers. They will conclude, not too surprisingly, that the root cause of all this is that we are insufficiently involved with their church. Send money. And we won't remember or hold our officials or ourselves to account.
Perhaps we should drop the pretense and just get back to whatever it was we were doing early Friday morning; because really addressing issues like these demands of us rational discussion and action that will likely be unpleasant, at least in part. And I really don't see that we as a people have the stones for that mission.


Do you mean like profiling the mentally ill and then banning them from gun use?

[KantoSooner]

Or committing them to asylums involuntarily.

Not fun discussions and just as full of freedom/liberty issues and contested facts as the others that would need to be addressed if we were seriously committed to an effective response.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

... profiling the mentally ill...Why, that's prejudice, isn't it? haha

[LiveLaughLove]

Do you mean like profiling the mentally ill and then banning them from gun use?

This is where the major breakdown is in my opinion. We don't allow ex-convicts to have them, the mentally ill shouldn't either. And family of mentally ill should be warned or trained in prevention of them getting in the wrong hands.

[yermom]

what determines being mentally ill? at what point does that occur?

can you sign up someone that you think qualifies? ;)

[BigTip]

I do have a few questions for the "we need to all be armed" crowd?

1. As it pertains to private businesses, do you feel that it is the role of the government to tell a private business owner that he must accept armed patrons on his premise? You have a right to bear arms but you don't have a right to do so on my private property and a business is private property. You have the right to speak freely but you don't have the right to do so in my house.


The government tells me all sorts of things that I must do on my private property.

My customers can't smoke here.
I have to have handicap accessible bathrooms.
I have to have lit exit signs
I have to have a certain amount of parking spaces.
There is even a formula on how often the air must exchange each hour via the A/C system.

Need I go on?

[KantoSooner]

I think it's interesting to note that this young man was not, so far as I know, 'mentally ill'. He was autistic.
Rather than get wrapped around the axle regarding what constitutes 'mental illness', we'd probably need to create a category of something like, 'mental incompetent'. It would get very contentious, very fast. Would going in to buy a gun trigger a competency screening? Who would be on the board making the determination? Could you 'get better' and get your competency back? Other than gun ownership, what would be the consequences? Would they include incarceration? Where?

[olevetonahill]

I think it's interesting to note that this young man was not, so far as I know, 'mentally ill'. He was autistic.
Rather than get wrapped around the axle regarding what constitutes 'mental illness', we'd probably need to create a category of something like, 'mental incompetent'. It would get very contentious, very fast. Would going in to buy a gun trigger a competency screening? Who would be on the board making the determination? Could you 'get better' and get your competency back? Other than gun ownership, what would be the consequences? Would they include incarceration? Where?



Kan , He may not have been "Mentally Ill" But he sure as hell was a Crazy mother ****er

[KantoSooner]

Absolutely he was 'not right'. I'm just saying that we're going to need to expand the definition from mentally ill to include people who may not be sick but shouldn't be allowed to play with arms.
And THAT will open up a whole 'nother can of worms and make agreement harder to reach, etc. etc.

[pphilfran]

Four percent of all murders in 2011 were done by a murderer using a rifle...not just assault rifles, all rifles...

FBI data http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20


Firearms account for the vast majority of murder 68%
Handguns account for the vast majority of murder by firearm 72%
You are more likely to be murdered by a knife (1694), fist (728), shotgun (356), other (1659) than by rifle (323)

[BigTip]

Four percent of all murders in 2011 were done by a murderer using a rifle...not just assault rifles, all rifles...

FBI data http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20


Firearms account for the vast majority of murder 68%
Handguns account for the vast majority of murder by firearm 72%
You are more likely to be murdered by a knife (1694), fist (728), shotgun (356), other (1659) than by rifle (323)

But a guy getting beat to death in a bar doesn't make as good a headline as a shooting!

[KantoSooner]

Shotgun at close range would be an especially messy way to go.

[jkjsooner]

The government tells me all sorts of things that I must do on my private property.

My customers can't smoke here.
I have to have handicap accessible bathrooms.
I have to have lit exit signs
I have to have a certain amount of parking spaces.
There is even a formula on how often the air must exchange each hour via the A/C system.

Need I go on?

There are limits. Put businesses aside for a moment. If the government told you you had to let armed citizens into your house that would never go over. There's no reason a business should be any different. If you want to carry a weapon and don't like it then do your business elsewhere.

Many conservatives are against the civil rights laws, the ADA laws, etc. on personal liberty grounds. I don't know your stance on these issues but such a person should never be in favor of the government requiring a business to allow an armed patron on his or her property.

[jkjsooner]

Four percent of all murders in 2011 were done by a murderer using a rifle...not just assault rifles, all rifles...

FBI data http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...ables/table-20


Firearms account for the vast majority of murder 68%
Handguns account for the vast majority of murder by firearm 72%
You are more likely to be murdered by a knife (1694), fist (728), shotgun (356), other (1659) than by rifle (323)

There are two parts of the problem and the solutions for each vary greatly.

One is the mass murder. This is very rare but that's little consolation to those who lost their children. This is the arena where semi-automatic weapons are very affective. This is also the area where having more armed civilians could provide the most benefit.

The others are the normal murders of one person or a family. This is where armed civilians in places like schools or movie theaters can be really dangerous. I don't want the gang members to be carrying weapons into the theater - whether I'm armed or not. Then you have bars. I would never step foot in a bar where people are allowed to carry weapons. I know what alcohol does to people and mixing it with weapons is not a good combination.


Anyway, it seems to me that the ideas thrown around to curb these mass shootings (ideas that might actually succeed in doing that) are just opening to door for much more gun violence of the type that is all too common. We hear that these mass shootings are very rare. That's true. Let's not do something stupid like arming teachers (who don't want to be armed) and make the real problem much worse.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

There are limits. Put businesses aside for a moment. If the government told you you had to let armed citizens into your house that would never go over. There's no reason a business should be any different. If you want to carry a weapon and don't like it then do your business elsewhere.That's when concealed carry is a factor. If the carrier isn't el whacko, there is no problem. If he/she is a whack job, you had better be running or shooting, regardless of any law prohibiting murder.

[jkjsooner]

That's when concealed carry is a factor. If the carrier isn't el whacko, there is no problem. If he/she is a whack job, you had better be running or shooting, regardless of any law prohibiting murder.

What if I don't know whether he's a whacko or not? In either case if he's coming into my house I have every right to tell him to leave his weapon in his car or to leave my premises. I can't believe anyone would suggest otherwise.

[KantoSooner]

Even as a gun rights backer, I have to admit that I felt a bit weird when my neighbor just showed up for a cook out with a pretty obvious pistolo in his pocket.
I'm a bit hypocritical, because he's the first guy who I'd call if I felt there were evil doers in my yard; it just felt weird is all.
I got used to it overseas. Some places everybody goes around armed. I just never thought I'd see that sort of fear and aggression become the norm here.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What if I don't know whether he's a whacko or not? In either case if he's coming into my house I have every right to tell him to leave his weapon in his car or to leave my premises. I can't believe anyone would suggest otherwise.You might never know if he is carrying, and you still might not, even if the govt. outlaws guns, or other restrictive measures short of that. If you ask him, even if there is no gun showing, what if he lies?

[StoopTroup]

what determines being mentally ill? at what point does that occur?

can you sign up someone that you think qualifies? ;)

I think they have everyone in this Forum on a list already. :wink:

[OU_Sooners75]

I think they have everyone in this Forum on a list already. :wink:
No, just you.

[jkjsooner]

You might never know if he is carrying, and you still might not, even if the govt. outlaws guns, or other restrictive measures short of that. If you ask him, even if there is no gun showing, what if he lies?

Totally beside the point. If I know and I don't want him to bring it into my house that is my right.

[olevetonahill]

Totally beside the point. If I know and I don't want him to bring it into my house that is my right.

You abso****inlutely have every right in the world to tell me to not bring my weapon to yer shack, I have every right in the world to tell you to **** off dip **** and stay home . or go to a friend's who dont minds

[Tiptonsooner]

On a sidenote, I bought my 5-year old grand daughter one of those little Crickett .22 rifles for Christmas this morning. Pink stock and all. Little **** loves to go hunting with her papa and her papa loves taking her.

That's what wrong with this country Dean, most people think that is a horrible thing. The reality is, you take the mystery and intrigue out of firearms for her. You give her access to arms, therefore she feels comfortable with them and understands their capability. Problem solved.

The main thing actually, you are just giving her your time and attention. That is what is missing in alot of cases..

[LiveLaughLove]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/17/Security-guard-stops-theater-shooting

Not sure which of our resident libs asked if any of these shootings are ever stopped by armed people on the scene, but this story mentions three in just the last few days.

The guns didn't save people, the gun owners did.

[KantoSooner]

I asked for the reference. Thanks for supplying it.

Now, it only lists one case of a private citizen stopping one of these events. The others were either police officers or security guards. Still, that's one more than I'd heard of and is at the very least some kind of evidence that sometimes things work out as they should.

<note: I laugh every time you call me a 'lib'. Though, come to think of it, as a more or less Libertarian and a firm devotee of J. S. Mill and the nineteenth century classical doctrine of Liberalism, I suppose you have a point. I really do think that individual rights trump the rights of the state 99% of the time. If that's being a 'lib' I guess the label fits. You don't believe that? Or might you be a 'lib', too?>

[TheHumanAlphabet]

That's what wrong with this country Dean, most people think that is a horrible thing. The reality is, you take the mystery and intrigue out of firearms for her. You give her access to arms, therefore she feels comfortable with them and understands their capability. Problem solved.

The main thing actually, you are just giving her your time and attention. That is what is missing in alot of cases..

Just like alcohol...early and healthy exposure to both prevents issues in the future or as an adult.

[olevetonahill]

I asked for the reference. Thanks for supplying it.

Now, it only lists one case of a private citizen stopping one of these events. The others were either police officers or security guards. Still, that's one more than I'd heard of and is at the very least some kind of evidence that sometimes things work out as they should.

<note: I laugh every time you call me a 'lib'. Though, come to think of it, as a more or less Libertarian and a firm devotee of J. S. Mill and the nineteenth century classical doctrine of Liberalism, I suppose you have a point. I really do think that individual rights trump the rights of the state 99% of the time. If that's being a 'lib' I guess the label fits. You don't believe that? Or might you be a 'lib', too?>

Heh, To some of us on the Lunatic FAR right , If ya disagree with us on ANYTHING yer a dirty Lib :congratulatory:

[KantoSooner]

It's one of those ironies of life: Liberal means exactly the opposite of liberal in today's parlance. Kind of analogous to your sig

[jkjsooner]

You abso****inlutely have every right in the world to tell me to not bring my weapon to yer shack, I have every right in the world to tell you to **** off dip **** and stay home . or go to a friend's who dont minds

You do. Not sure why you have to be so confrontational about it. I have a small kid with a developmental disorder. He could put his hands where they don't belong because he simply doesn't have the capacity to comprehend such things. (I sure hope that changes but for now that is my life.)

If you have some type of hissy fit about that then I probably wouldn't want to be around you anyway.

And I'm not trying to win an argument by bringing up my unfortunate situation. I'm more just pointing out that there are plenty of valid reasons someone might not want you to bring a weapon into their house. I would think any gun owner would respect that and if they felt they must have a gun they would politely excuse themselves.

[olevetonahill]

You do. Not sure why you have to be so confrontational about it. I have a small kid with a developmental disorder. He could put his hands where they don't belong because he simply doesn't have the capacity to comprehend such things. (I sure hope that changes but for now that is my life.)

If you have some type of hissy fit about that then I probably wouldn't want to be around you anyway.

And I'm not trying to win an argument by bringing up my unfortunate situation. I'm more just pointing out that there are plenty of valid reasons someone might not want you to bring a weapon into their house. I would think any gun owner would respect that and if they felt they must have a gun they would politely excuse themselves.

Just sayin we BOTH have rights and we are Free to exercise them

Now say you Invite me over fer dranks and a Football game. I know you have a little Kid. Moren Likely I wouldnt even dream about bringing a weapon in the 1st place . Now If I was gonna go shooting AFTER the Game Id bring it and leave it locked in my truck

[soonercruiser]

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/17/Security-guard-stops-theater-shooting

Not sure which of our resident libs asked if any of these shootings are ever stopped by armed people on the scene, but this story mentions three in just the last few days.

The guns didn't save people, the gun owners did.

I posted several stories published through the USCCA on another thread.

[soonercruiser]

"Gun Control: Is it counterproductive?", post #55

Just a few smaller stories that didn't make the liberal national media.
How many lives qualifies as "stopping a mass murder"?
3 or 4 enough? And how many twozies and threezies are need to add up to saving a crowd?

“14 year-old… stops would be attacker”
(sorry the local TV video is no longer linked..)
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/tim...)&utm_content=

Could this gun have extended the vilence to the school, surrounding children?
Texas CPL Holder Stops Daylight Attack Near School
Written by Duncan Mackie on November 16, 2012
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...k-near-school/

California Mom Uses Shotgun to Save 2-Year-Old Daughter
Written by Duncan Mackie on November 16, 2012
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...k-near-school/

Florida Senior Citizen Stops Armed Robbery of Internet Café
Written by Duncan Mackie on October 4, 2012
A 71-year-old Ocala CCW-holder was in an internet café when he saw two masked men, one armed with a pistol and the other with a baseball bat, trying to rob the place. Fearing for his own life and that of the other patrons, he drew his legally-carried .380 pistol and fired on the robbers, wounding both men and putting them to flight. Police apprehended both would-be robbers a short time later. County authorities have announced that the CCW-holder acted lawfully and will not face charges.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm...internet-cafe/

The "Happy Ending" stories (if they include use of a firearm) don't make the news, and/or don't fit the antigun message agenda!

[jkjsooner]

Just sayin we BOTH have rights and we are Free to exercise them

Now say you Invite me over fer dranks and a Football game. I know you have a little Kid. Moren Likely I wouldnt even dream about bringing a weapon in the 1st place . Now If I was gonna go shooting AFTER the Game Id bring it and leave it locked in my truck

That is very reasonable.

I know we butt heads at times but you do seem like a guy I'd like to have over for drinks.

[olevetonahill]

That is very reasonable.

I know we butt heads at times but you do seem like a guy I'd like to have over for drinks.

Heh, we just butt heads when yer Libness starts showing :very_drunk:

Most who have met me at the TG seem to like me , at least to my face :ambivalence: