[48Laws]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

My insecurity in this discussion was made up via your imagination. At one point i was interested in your views on the subject. Mainly because i don't recall you ever coming out against owning firearms or even law abiding concealed weapon carriers. But i quickly learned you are more interested in trying to make yourself look good or something of the sort. My fluffy replies are simply my opinions. I have not attempted to beat my opinion into anyone. Everyone is free to express their opinion as am i free to express mine. I may rebut somethings that can be argued as fact, but my opinion is mine and doesn't have to be the same as yours. But you seem more interested in giving your opinion of other members rather than your opinion on the subject.

Your insecurity is more evident. What would I have to gain by looking good in a yet another interweb debate about guns in the US? The entire tone of my replies has never been to persuade you to forfeit your stance on guns. I think it is you and others coming at me to explain my opinion or injecting pointless hypotheticals. So, when I start seeing members coming out the woodwork to ask me questions, I take that as they are curious about my opinion and perhaps have doubts about their own opinion and strategies. .

And no, your condescending demeanor only makes feel badly for you. And for the people who's judgment is so poor or their self esteem so low that they concede to be a part of your life. Because anyone who speaks to perfect strangers they way you do without being provoked must be a nightmare to spend time with in the real world. In here, i'm lucky enough to have the ability add you to an ignore list.

Here we go. When you run out of content to plaster on the screen, try to make it personal to avoid being exposed as not really know what you're talking about.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

It's impossible for you to quantify any of that statement. Your friends aren't present here so that point is moot. You assume those that have opposing views in this one single thread represent a larger population, which isn't even true. This topic is far broader than you give credit.

you are talking out of your ass. i've had this conversation on MANY occasions and overwhelming majority of people who tried to argue with me about this, have never held a gun. This is *my* experience. Yours may vary by state, location, age group or general ignorance, but simply saying just because *you* have experience with guns and want more gun-control, it does not mean that everyone else is the same way.

you've been repeating the same fucking thing over and over again. it does not make it any more valid. and if you are wondering, i am a liberal, but neither a republican or a democrat. i am also an atheist. on top of that i come from the part of the world where people were not allowed to have guns, other than long guns specifically for hunging and I fully support 2nd Amendment and individual right to own and carry a firearm.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by .b0link

Wtf is so difficult about that is that I don't sit down memorizing USMC mos codes. I see o3 I think captain, which obviously doesn't jibe with grunt.

Signed, MM1(sw), USN, with a tour kicking doors in Iraq, and another guarding our guests down in GTMO.....

So, why would you reply as if you doubted something you just admitted not know sh!t about?

[CollinsE90]

Tennessee requires a CCW class prior to obtaining it, too. Starting the process soon. But, I also don't think anyone outside of professional trained shooters should walk around everywhere with it. Having it on your side could potentially cause you to do something you wouldn't have done. You're expecting something to happen, rather than being prepared for it. I'll leave mine in my car or home.

[.b0link]

Wow getting a little defensive, all I did was quote what you said with a question mark, ya know, that thing that generally implies someone was confused and or wanted to know more?

Calm down there buddy lol.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Yes, but, in the absence of properly trained people, what percentage of CCW holders do you think could maintain calm peace of mind to pull that off in this instance (I'm talking average people, not those who have passed Mike's theoretical course). If dark, smoky, bright muzzle flashes would impair accuracy in the bad guy, how could they not impair accuracy for the hero CCW holder also ?

As it is today, I'm not sure if I was in that theater, that I'd want a half-dozen ill-trained (yet well meaning) CCW holders shooting at the gunman in the dark crowded theater. If I was anywhere behind the bad guy, I'd be more likely to be hit by friendly fire. Acquiring the target and hitting the target are 2 different things.

I'm not saying more laws would stop it from starting in the first place; think of Breivik in Norway. Gun control laws there are FAR more stringent than those in Colorado, but he was determined enough to get what he needed regardless. Never underestimate a crazy person who has the time and means to get what he wants.

If you cant stop it from starting (and sadly, as Norway has proven, I'm not sure you can), and no cop is present when it does start, then how can you stop a bad situation from getting worse ? I'm not sure that handing out guns to everyone who can pass a basic police check is the way to get there.

I agree that more intensive training needs to be given to CCW applicants BEFORE they're given their license. I mentioned similar guidelines to mike's course in a previous post. The difference for the bad guy and the "hero" is that the "hero" is focused on one single target while the bad guy is shooting randomly while thinking he's invincible.

Acquisition and hitting the acquired target are two different things for sure. But if you're behind the bad guy you had better take out your pocket knife and take that guy out!!

I quoted hero because you can trust that i don't want to EVER draw down on anyone to protect myself. So you can be doubly sure that i don't want to kill another person if i weren't in imminent danger myself. If i were present in a robbery such as the sparky old man at the internet cafe i would not consider drawing my weapon unless it appeared the perps intended on using deadly force. I'm smart enough to just hand over my wallet and have them be on their way. There is no justification for deadly force to protect property in my opinion. I pay a load of money to insurance companies to protect my property, no need to kill anyone over it.

There was a post that was just deleted that accused us gun owners of actually wanting to kill someone. I can't speak for all but all the pistol toting people i know, want that to be the last thing they ever have to do.

Also, i haven't checked on any of this but i received it in an email today.....

The anti-Second Amendment crowd is on the warpath again. PBS’ Bill Moyers, who served as White House Press Secretary in the Lyndon Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967, called the NRA “the enabler of death.” It seems to me that James Holmes is the Enabler of Death. 65 million other gun owners in the United States didn’t kill anybody last Thursday evening.

I live just a few miles from the most pro-gun city in the United States – Kennesaw Georgia – where gun ownership is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West” like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. “The city of Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best towns for families.’ The award was aimed at identifying the best communities nationally that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools, wide-open spaces, and less stress.”[1]

In 1982 the city passed the following ordinance [Sec 34-21] which was in response to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

The city’s website states that Kennesaw “has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populace counties in Georgia. In fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one murder occurring in 2007.

There were three murders in 2010 committed by the same man in what is described as a “school safety zone,” an area extending 1,000 feet from any school, including adult colleges and technical schools. This means that even though Kennesaw has the most liberal gun laws in the United States, employees at the facility where the murders were committed could not have a gun on the premises.

Of course, criminals don’t care about laws; that’s why they’re criminals. Ed Stone of Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner makes these important points:

“Unfortunately experience with actual ‘school safety zones’ in Georgia has proven that the ‘school safety zone’ law approach does not stop violent armed crime, as it disarms only the potential victims of an attack. Criminals seeking to rob, rape, and murder ignore the ‘school safety zone’ as merely one more law they are breaking.”

Now we come to New York City. In September 2011 Ryan Jerome, a former Marine Corps gunner, walked up to a security officer at the Empire State Building and asked where he could check his gun.

He had a valid concealed carry permit from his home state of Indiana. He also had the rights given to him under the Second Amendment. No matter, the security officer called police and Jerome spent the next two days in jail. “The 28-year-old with no criminal history now faces a mandatory minimum sentence of three and a half years in prison. If convicted, his sentence could be as high as fifteen years.”

He brought the gun for protection since he was traveling with $15,000 worth of jewelry that he planned to sell. Certainly a rational decision, given the crime rate in New York City and stories like the U.S. Marine veteran who was shot three times when a Craigslist transaction went bad.

In December of 2011, Tennessee nurse Meredith Graves noticed a “no guns” sign at the World Trade Center site in New York City and asked where she could leave her weapon. Like Jerome, she was arrested and faces similar charges. Mayor Bloomberg claims that she was in possession of cocaine. It seems that what the police found was BC Powder, an over-the-counter pain reliever that is sold exclusively in the South.

In a 25-year period, New York City has had more than 15,000 murders – 2245 in 1990 alone – while Kennesaw, Georgia, had 1.

[48Laws]

Originally Posted by solefald

you are talking out of your ass. i've had this conversation on MANY occasions and overwhelming majority of people who tried to argue with me about this, have never held a gun.

None of that can be verified and is pointless in this thread. What else are you supposed to say to strengthen your position.. that the overwhelming majority of anti-gun people have a good position that you can identify with on some fronts?

This is *my* experience. Yours may vary by state, location, age group or general ignorance, but simply saying just because *you* have experience with guns and want more gun-control, it does not mean that everyone else is the same way.

I thought I just said that to you...

you've been repeating the same fucking thing over and over again. it does not make it any more valid. and if you are wondering, i am a liberal, but neither a republican or a democrat. i am also an atheist. on top of that i come from the part of the world where people were not allowed to have guns, other than long guns specifically for hunging and I fully support 2nd Amendment and individual right to own and carry a firearm.

I see you reached your intellectual limit. Now the curses come out. If you easily frustrate GTFO. And if I keep repeating myself, tell your cohorts to stop asking the same questions over and over again, smartazz.

[.b0link]

Where's my popcorn?

[Chrisruf911]

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

Tennessee requires a CCW class prior to obtaining it, too. Starting the process soon. But, I also don't think anyone outside of professional trained shooters should walk around everywhere with it. Having it on your side could potentially cause you to do something you wouldn't have done. You're expecting something to happen, rather than being prepared for it. I'll leave mine in my car or home.

To be completely honest once you get used to carrying you forget its there. Never once have I gotten pissed at someone or thought of pulling it in a fit of road rage. I would never pull it unless I intend to shoot it. It is a tool for self defense. You will learn never to think about using it unless you feel your life is in danger. I hope I never have to use mine in self defense but after being laid face down in an alley and having some maniac with a sawed off 870 telling me he is gonna blow my fucking head off, I feel safer with it. Never before that moment in my life have I ever questioned my mortality. Five minutes on the ground thinking "God, is this how it ends for me?" It really stripped my sense of security and unfortunately I work long hours in a not so favorable part of town.

[Sauce]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

Because it's so annoying when you think you're discussion a hot-topic with adults then someone chimes in like we're playing freakin' HALO and says some dumb sh!t like, "Dude, you're getting owned, yadda yadda...". What purpose does that serve. You want to be taken seriously with that crap?

Ok, then I put together two posts containing more valid points with laid out reasoning while you've been in here blabbing jibberish, self proclaiming how big your dick is showing how inferior you truly are at your very core. Yeah, I'm done with you.

And your still getting owned. BOOM-HEADSHOT

[tmppgh]

Originally Posted by .b0link

Where's my popcorn?

Here, have some of mine

[Masterplan]

In the UK, we have what I think are some pretty tight gun control laws. Same applies to carrying knives. Over here, we have no access to handguns or auto/semi-automatic rifles. We have strict ownership laws that surround shotguns and rifles only. I would bet a very high percentage of UK citizens have never seen let alone held a gun on UK soil.

Despite these strict laws we have also been subjected to some high profile gun related killings recently, however not on the same scale as the recent event in Colorado. Criminals have a desire to commit these crimes, therefore find ways of obtaining these guns unlawfully. From what I'm told it's not even that difficult in the UK, despite the strict laws in place. So long as people wish to behave in this way and have that desire (sane or not), these crimes will always occur.

IMO, you just can't control a behavior by controlling a thing. Sure, you can try, but that would be like trying to control drunk driving by keeping sober people from buying cars. Two different scenarios, but the outcome the same.... The majority of law abiding citizens would suffer.

For what it's worth, I have to agree with Mike,Collins and MPOWER. The country is saturated with guns now, and that wont change. However controlling and training CCW owners would go someway in providing a level of damage limitation in situations like the one in Colorado. Because if it came down to it, I'd rather be getting shot at with someone trained shooting back, than be a completely sitting duck. Just my $0.02 worth.

[ScotchAndCigar]

Seems to me there's an angle that's been neglected in all this. This guy got all his guns and ammo legally. Say instead of guns, it was prescription drugs. If you try to double-up on your lipitor or percoset, you'll get shut down by the pharmacy. Even the DMV does a better job of tracking your auto registration and driving record.

Everyone acknowledges that his rapid accumulation of arsenals should've raised red flags. Except we don't have the same system in place for guns as we do for prescription drugs or vehicles.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by immiketoo

You are free to disagree, but you're wrong. A single trained individual could and likely would have made a huge difference in the outcome of the situation. It appears you do not have much experience with interpersonal violence. Tell me why you think it unlikely that a trained, motivated and experienced person couldn't have made a difference. There are many people in this world who have spent considerable time in dark, smoke filled arenas with people trying to kill them. I would bet that a person like that would have prevailed in Colorado.

Now, I'm not saying Joe average with a CCW could have handled it, but that isn't what I said earlier either. Also, I am not saying that my trained person would have prevented ALL death or injury, but minimized the exposure to shots being fired by the assailant.

I do agree, I was talking about the average Joe. I wouldn't say most people that carry are even close to trained.

I still stand by the fact, that in a crowded dark tear gas filled room, it would be difficult to get an accurate shot off without risking hitting another innocent. People would be pushing you as your lining your shot up, people would be running near the gun man, bullets do go through walls.

Sure the emotional part of me wishes that someone in that theater had a gun to blow the fuckers head off. I just honestly don't see it happening with most of the people that carry. I would find it much more likely that someone would slip and there would of just been another casualty. For anyone saying that I wanted them to be defenseless in the situation clearly doesn't know a damn thing about me.

[Augenbrauezug]

Originally Posted by .b0link

I play with guns for a living kind sir. Thank you.

There is no way you, I, or ANYONE else can say what a legally armed and trained citizen could or could not of done. But I can say with 100% certainty it would have been better than nothing.

However, interestingly enough, Cinemark does not allow concealed carry on their premises.

Really like how that worked out for them....lets see....didnt discourage the shooter, but prevented anyone from possibly being able to defend themselves.

EDIT: Also, sorry for offending you. Im heated.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While I don't play with guns for a living, I do train with several of the local police departments, and I've been shooting guns since I was able to walk. Hell I could probably hit a target at 100 yards before I was able to piss in the center of the toilet.

All my training tells me that the average gun toting civilian would of only risked further damage. As you undoubtedly know, it is difficult to shoot indoors, in the dark, as your being pushed and shoved by the people around you. Not to mention, in the confusion people probably wouldn't know if you were an enemy gun man yourself and run towards the other guy.

Please don't mistake my opinion as me wanting these people to be defenseless. As I said in the post above, I wish someone had illegally brought their gun in and blown the fuckers head off. I just see it as being far too likely that they would of hit an innocent, or hit the guys body armor and just pissed him off.

Now, in MOST situations, hell yah I want the innocents to be armed.

http://theinterrobang.com/2012/07/sh...internet-cafe/

There is a perfect example. This is a different situation though, there aren't 300 people running around in a dark, tear gas filled auditorium.

Also just for the record, I'm not saying guns should be banned, by any stretch of the mind. I own 3 pistols, a shotgun, and am in the market for something bigger. I'm also not saying that there should be a waiting period [was just an example of something that could change], all I'm saying is that our gun laws aren't perfect. I'm guessing those arguing against me are saying are gun laws are perfect?

[Cdnrockies]

Some interesting statistics reflecting the attitudes of Americans in regards to gun control. Links provided at the bottom.

Gun control losing support in U.S. despite mass shooting

In the wake of the Colorado shooting, celebrities who tweeted about the need for tighter gun controls in the U.S. seem to be out of step with the majority of Americans who are more concerned with protecting their right to own guns, a trend that may be traced back to President Barack Obama’s ascension to the presidency in 2009.

James Holmes is in police custody for the shooting rampage in Colorado at a screening of The Dark Knight Rises that killed at least 12 people and injured 59 others last Friday.

Jason Alexander, who played George Costanza on the sitcom Seinfeld, was among the celebrities tweeting about the need for stronger gun laws in the U.S., particularly for semi-automatic and automatic weapons. With the debate now raging, he posted a longer version of his argument on TwitLonger.

"These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales," he wrote.

"We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone."

Salman Rushdie on the right to bear arms

Author Salman Rushdie, who has 345,558 followers on Twitter, also jumped into the fray by tweeting, "The ‘right to bear arms’ is the real Bane of America."

Rushdie, who wrote Midnight’s Children and The Satanic Verses, remained active on the issue, replying and retweeting a dozen of his followers' comments.

He also tweeted a reference to his comments after the 1999 Columbine school shootings: "After Columbine I was on Bill Maher’s old show arguing vs NRA’s Ted Nugent about gun control. Lots of Nugents on my timeline today."

Indeed, polls show that support for stricter gun control has steadily declined in the U.S. over the last two decades.

A 1991 Gallup poll found that 78 per cent of Americans favoured stricter laws on the sale of firearms, 17 per cent wanted the laws kept the same, and just two per cent saying they should be less strict.

By 2011 the numbers had steadily shifted. While the number saying they wanted stricter gun control had fallen to 43 per cent, 44 per cent favoured the status quo and 11 per cent wanted less strict gun control.

That Gallup poll also found that 45 per cent of Americans say they have a gun in their home.

Drop in support for gun control after Obama becomes president

Polls done by the Pew Research Centre also found a similar shift in attitudes over gun control. From 1993 through 2008, majority public opinion consistently landed in favour of gun control.

"We polled in April 2008 and a significant majority said the priority should be controlling gun ownership rather than protecting the right to own guns. By April 2009 it was about 50-50," said Carroll Dougherty, associate director of research at Pew.

In a Pew poll done in April of this year, 49 per cent of Americans said it was more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns, while 45 per cent said it was more important to control gun ownership.

The shift coincides with President Barack Obama taking office, observes Dougherty.

"There was a reaction to Obama’s presidency. There was a growing concern at that time that there would be new restrictions on gun ownership coming down and it had the effect of raising the profile of this issue and mobilizing support for gun rights."

Pew has done six polls on the issue since April 2009. "What’s interesting is it has not moved in either direction since then. It’s been very stable," said Dougherty.

A partisan issue

Moreover, it’s long been a partisan issue but it’s even more partisan than ever today, he added.

"Most of the change has come from Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. In 2007, half of Republicans supported gun rights. Now it’s 72 per cent. Change among Democrats is very modest" but in the same direction, he said.

And if past polls are any indication, the recent massacre in Colorado is not likely to have much impact on public opinion of gun control.

Pew did polls after two high-profile shootings: the Virginia Tech massacre in April 2007, with 32 killed and 17 wounded, as well as the rampage in Arizona on January 8, 2011 that killed six people and injured 19 others, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

"We have asked this question about gun rights in the wake of high-profile shootings. There has not been a major shift in opinion after those events," said Dougherty.

Mass shootings 'isolated acts?'

In the polls, people were asked, "Do you think this shooting reflects broader problems in American society, or are things like this just the isolated acts of troubled individuals?"

In 2007, 47 per cent said they were isolated acts while 46 per cent said they reflected broader problems in society, such as a breakdown in social values, which was singled out by 37 per cent of respondents.

After the Arizona shootings in 2011, 58 per cent were saying they were isolated acts and 31 per cent said they reflected broader problems in society, like the social or political climate or the lack of mental health services.

Only 14 per cent in 2007 and 13 per cent in 2011 blamed lax gun laws, saying it was too easy to get guns.

While conservatives tended to view the events as isolated incidents, in 2007 liberals tended to see them as part of broader social problems.

"These attitudes are becoming more fixed over time, though it’s difficult to say why," said Dougherty.

Gun control and the shooters' motive

Obama has been visibly moved by the recent tragedy, interrupting re-election campaign activities to travel to Colorado to meet with the families of the 12 people who died.

But he has been noticeably reticent about calling for stiffer regulation on gun ownership. In fact, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Obama remains committed to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which enshrines the right of Americans to bear arms.

According to Carney, the president "believes we need to take steps that protect Second Amendment rights of the American people but that ensure that we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by existing law, obtain those weapons."

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney called the shootings "an unspeakable tragedy," but has made no statement on the country's gun laws.

The debate about gun control may be masking the real underlying issues in these high-profile mass shootings, says Scot Wortley, a professor of criminology and socio-legal studies at the University of Toronto.

"I really cannot explain the American public’s love affair with guns. We’re often not talking about individuals having handguns for protection. The debate has gotten down to whether or not people should be able to have high-powered rifles or weapons that are primarily designed for wartime."

Even in countries with good gun control, mass shootings take place, he adds, pointing to the Norway massacre last summer that killed 77 people and wounded 319 in two separate attacks.

"Norway probably has gun control laws that are as tough, if not tougher, than we have in Canada," Wortley said.

"Beyond the guns themselves, we have to look at what actually motivates someone like [James] Holmes to engage in these acts. Guns make it easier for him to engage in mass homicide than a bat or knife would, but I’m sure his motivation goes much deeper than issues of gun control."

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/g...ass-shooting-1

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/...-2008-or-2004/

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

[Templar]

Sorry, but the type of person that is going to kill a bunch of people in a movie theater is going to acquire the weapons to do said deed whether guns are legal or not. There's not much else to say...

They can ban guns all day long, or implement additional strict laws concerning them, but scumbags like this guy will still find a way, whether it's illegally obtained guns or an IED he builds in his apartment. What will become the scapegoat at that point?

[Masterplan]

Originally Posted by Templar

Sorry, but the type of person that is going to kill a bunch of people in a movie theater is going to acquire the weapons to do said deed whether guns are legal or not. There's not much else to say...

They can ban guns all day long, or implement additional strict laws concerning them, but scumbags like this guy will still find a way, whether it's illegally obtained guns or an IED he builds in his apartment. What will become the scapegoat at that point?

My point exactly

[solefald]

Originally Posted by 48Laws

I see you reached your intellectual limit. Now the curses come out. If you easily frustrate GTFO. And if I keep repeating myself, tell your cohorts to stop asking the same questions over and over again, smartazz.

ah, of course, there is no better way to show your intellectual superiority than using personal attacks!

[smyles]

Originally Posted by ScotchAndCigar

Seems to me there's an angle that's been neglected in all this. This guy got all his guns and ammo legally. Say instead of guns, it was prescription drugs. If you try to double-up on your lipitor or percoset, you'll get shut down by the pharmacy. Even the DMV does a better job of tracking your auto registration and driving record.

Everyone acknowledges that his rapid accumulation of arsenals should've raised red flags. Except we don't have the same system in place for guns as we do for prescription drugs or vehicles.

And how well does it work for drugs, both prescription and illegal? None in illegal circulation whatsoever? All addicts are counted and their consumption is accounted to the last gram?

[.b0link]

Last I heard was that prescription pills are the most widely abused drug in the USA....

[ScotchAndCigar]

The point about prescriptions is not that it's foolproof, but it has controls for the law-abiding individual. This guy went about his gun & ammo purchases legally, but no one questioned the quantity of ammo or the frantic purchase of many firearms in a short time.