Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[Opus]

Here is a smattering of other security guard-related shootings I found in a quick search. They range overzealous WalMart security guards to rampage shooters. Not sure if you were suggesting that I'm not being truthful about the security guard shooter in San Fran, but whatever. just know that this is not an unusual occurance. You give some guys authority and a gun it is a recipe for disaster.

Walmart Security Guard Kills a Shoplifting: A Mother Shot Dead In a Parking Lot - YouTube

Stand Your Ground: Security Guard Kills Man At Strip Club | Loop21

Security guard opens fire, kills replacement at Houston shopping center | FOX6Now.com – Milwaukee News & weather from WITI Television FOX6

Lockheed guard kills worker, self

Buffalo News Security Guard Kills Son

Wife says security guard killed husband at Cobb apartment | www.wsbtv.com

Kijuan Byrd Shot Dead By Security Guard Claiming Stand Your Ground | Breaking News for Black America

Security guard wasn't hired as armed security guard - Morning Call

Security guard shoots, kills shoplifting suspect at CVS Pharmacy on Canal Street | NOLA.com

Security guard charged in triple shooting that killed 1, injured 2 in Midtown - Atlanta Crime | Examiner.com

Ex-security guard suspected in fatal rampage kills himself after shootout with police | BrainerdDispatch.com | Brainerd, Minnesota

Security guard kills 10 in shooting spree, then takes own life - Chicago Tribune

In your "introduction" you try and imply that all the links you are providing deal with shootings committed by security guards while on duty. However, that is not the case. In fact less half of the 12 links you provide, 11 links actually since 2 links are about the same incident, are about security guards firing their weapons while on duty.

1. On the job
2. On the job
3. Individual kills his replacement after being fired
4. Domestic violence incident
5. Killed son by duct taping mouth and beating him to death
6. On the job
7. See incident at #2
8. On the job
9. On the job
10. Not job related
11. Possible domestic violence/job suspension
12. Domestic violence

#6 The victim and the security guard had a history of problems. According to the link provided, the police state that charges may not be filed due to self defense.

#8 An individual was hired to be a security guard. He was hired as a NON weapons carrying security guard. Violating direct orders from his boss he brought a gun to work which unfortunately was used.

#9 A security guard approached an individual that had been accused of shoplifting. The security guard was attacked by the shoplifter and fired his weapon in self defense. According to the link a man suspected of shoplifting a bottle of water beat the security guard after he was confronted in the store, prompting the security guard to fire his weapon. According to a witness he heard the guard plead to his attacker "Please stop or I'm going to have to shoot."

2 of the 5 work related shooting involve possible self defense and 1 of the work related shootings involves a direct violation of work orders.

Providing these links and inferring that all of them are work related because they involve people employed as security guards is misleading.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is the very last time I've ever giving you a "link" to common knowledge:

National Rifle Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The NRA opposes most new gun-control legislation, calling instead for stricter enforcement of existing laws such as prohibiting convicted felons and violent criminals from possessing firearms and increased sentencing for gun-related crimes."

wikipedia? really? you do know that anyone can go on wikipedia and change the content anytime they want to. I wouldn't really call this a very credible source. but thanks for making such a huge compromise to your ethics to point me to this "common knowledge." The fact is that you would be hard pressed to find anyone within the NRA staff who ever has publically mentioned anything about stricter laws. Instead, they fight back against every attempt to introduce stronger legislation.

I saw the leader of the NRA on television a few days ago and he didn't mention stricter gun laws. He suggested putting more armed people in schools. His answer was not more guns, not stricter rules. I think he said something like "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Doesn't sound like a ringing endorcement for stricter gun laws.

Now, if you are talking about people within the NRA, you may be right, because the organization doesn't give a damn about what its members think. Here is a recent report by Charlie Rose that includes some of the polling data.

NRA to address calls for stricter gun control - CBS News Video

 

[ND NYC]

I would consider my constitutional right to keep and bear arms a legitimate reason.

and that seems to be the main issue here.

you are not satisfied with having a handgun (as many as you like) or a rifle (as many as you like)...with as much ammo as you like for them.

you need (feel/belive its your right) to have your hands on any type of "arm" read: weapon that has been made.

i am all for you owning guns and do respect and believe you have a 2nd amendment right to possess them.

its the damn military grade killing machines and weapons that i dont think you or anyone but the military should posess or be allowed to own.

if you polled all Americans (especially parents) i think that is where majority of the country is at. the shame is that it has taken the senseless slaghter of 20 kids and 6 teachers to get us to that point.

 

[GoIrish41]

In your "introduction" you try and imply that all the links you are providing deal with shootings committed by security guards while on duty. However, that is not the case. In fact less half of the 12 links you provide, 11 links actually since 2 links are about the same incident, are about security guards firing their weapons while on duty.

1. On the job
2. On the job
3. Individual kills his replacement after being fired
4. Domestic violence incident
5. Killed son by duct taping mouth and beating him to death
6. On the job
7. See incident at #2
8. On the job
9. On the job
10. Not job related
11. Possible domestic violence/job suspension
12. Domestic violence

#6 The victim and the security guard had a history of problems. According to the link provided, the police state that charges may not be filed due to self defense.

#8 An individual was hired to be a security guard. He was hired as a NON weapons carrying security guard. Violating direct orders from his boss he brought a gun to work which unfortunately was used.

#9 A security guard approached an individual that had been accused of shoplifting. The security guard was attacked by the shoplifter and fired his weapon in self defense. According to the link a man suspected of shoplifting a bottle of water beat the security guard after he was confronted in the store, prompting the security guard to fire his weapon. According to a witness he heard the guard plead to his attacker "Please stop or I'm going to have to shoot."

2 of the 5 work related shooting involve possible self defense and 1 of the work related shootings involves a direct violation of work orders.

and still, people were killed (usually shot) by the people that some are advocating putting in our schools with our children. in most cases, no gun, no death. how to we ensure that these folks won't snap or become overzealous. more guns isn't the answer. fewer guns is..

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

wikipedia? really? you do know that anyone can go on wikipedia and change the content anytime they want to. I wouldn't really call this a very credible source. but thanks for making such a huge compromise to your ethics to point me to this "common knowledge." The fact is that you would be hard pressed to find anyone within the NRA staff who ever has publically mentioned anything about stricter laws. Instead, they fight back against every attempt to introduce stronger legislation.

I saw the leader of the NRA on television a few days ago and he didn't mention stricter gun laws. He suggested putting more armed people in schools. His answer was not more guns, not stricter rules. I think he said something like "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Doesn't sound like a ringing endorcement for stricter gun laws.

Now, if you are talking about people within the NRA, you may be right, because the organization doesn't give a damn about what its members think. Here is a recent report by Charlie Rose that includes some of the polling data.

NRA to address calls for stricter gun control - CBS News Video

The school the Obama children attend has 11 armed guards, all day every day. Just sayin...

School districts can handle this any way they can afford to/ choose to. But I don't want to hear anything out of the White House saying schools shouldn't have armed guards. Hello, double standard.

 

[JadeBrecks]

and that seems to be the main issue here.

you are not satisfied with having a handgun (as many as you like) or a rifle (as many as you like)...with as much ammo as you like for them.

you need (feel/belive its your right) to have your hands on any type of "arm" read: weapon that has been made.

i am all for you owning guns and do respect and believe you have a 2nd amendment right to possess them.

its the damn military grade killing machines and weapons that i dont think you or anyone but the military should posess or be allowed to own.

if you polled all Americans (especially parents) i think that is where majority of the country is at. the shame is that it has taken the senseless slaghter of 20 kids and 6 teachers to get us to that point.

If you think of the reason the founders put the second amendment in was to allow the people to rise against the government if need be. If you believe there is a difference between these guns than we need to have those guns to protect ourselves this way. As I believe there is no difference between an ar-15 and any other semi-auto rifle. Give me both guns and let me do equal shooting. I will produce the same results with both rifles. Therefore banning ar-15s will get you nowhere. The crazies will that have done these things will just use the next firearm. What then? We ban that firearm and the next and the next? The ar-15 is just the tool to do the job. You remove that tool it will be replaced by another.

 

[GoIrish41]

If you think of the reason the founders put the second amendment in was to allow the people to rise against the government if need be. If you believe there is a difference between these guns than we need to have those guns to protect ourselves this way. As I believe there is no difference between an ar-15 and any other semi-auto rifle. Give me both guns and let me do equal shooting. I will produce the same results with both rifles. Therefore banning ar-15s will get you nowhere. The crazies will that have done these things will just use the next firearm. What then? We ban that firearm and the next and the next? The ar-15 is just the tool to do the job. You remove that tool it will be replaced by another.

I agree that identifying certain guns is a fool's errand. How about banning classes of weapons, such as semi-automatic rifle's?

just out of curiousity, what job is the AR-15 a tool for? Perhaps we should be asking ourselves if we even need to have that tool in our society.

 

[Opus]

and still, people were killed (usually shot) by the people that some are advocating putting in our schools with our children. in most cases, no gun, no death. how to we ensure that these folks won't snap or become overzealous. more guns isn't the answer. fewer guns is..

No, your intention was to make people believe that all the links you provided dealt with security guards killing while on duty. When I showed you that almost all of the links you provided weren't what you wanted them to be you changed your argument.

How do we know that teachers, administrators, coaches won't become pedophiles, child molesters or have inappropriate relations with high school students under the age of 18. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all these people I mentioned go through rigorous background checks before they are hired?

Maybe every school aged child should be taught over the internet from now on. That would eliminate the possibility of any more school massacres and also eliminate the possibility that a child could be molested by a school employee.

 

[GoIrish41]

No, your intention was to make people believe that all the links you provided dealt with security guards killing while on duty. When I showed you that almost all of the links you provided weren't what you wanted them to be you changed your argument.

How do we know that teachers, administrators, coaches won't become pedophiles, child molesters or have inappropriate relations with high school students under the age of 18. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all these people I mentioned go through rigorous background checks before they are hired?

Maybe every school aged child should be taught over the internet from now on. That would eliminate the possibility of any more school massacres and also eliminate the possibility that a child could be molested by a school employee.

How the hell do you know what my intention was. I didn't even read most of the links ... I just read the headlines. We were talking about whether or not security guards had some sort of special stability that kept them from being the maniacs that shoot people, so I found a bunch of links that showed how security guards can lose it just like anyone else. The fact that I could find that many links of security guards committing violent acts should give anyone pause. Fact is, I got board after a few minutes and stopped looking. There are many, many more instances out there.

We don't know that teachers won't act inappropriately around our children. That would be an excellent topic for another thread -- this one is about guns and I can't understand why everyone keeps trying to change the subject.

Maybe we should make sure that people can't enter a school with an automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine to keep our children from being slaughtered in their classroom. I don't really think that is a huge saccrifice. The arms people have a right to bear don't have to include these weapons. That is a choice that is made by our government and upheld by our Supreme Court. It's time we look at the evidence we have gathered since those ridiculous laws went into affect and give them a fresh look. Or, we could just do nothing and let the mass killings continue.

 

[JadeBrecks]

I agree that identifying certain guns is a fool's errand. How about banning classes of weapons, such as semi-automatic rifle's?

just out of curiousity, what job is the AR-15 a tool for? Perhaps we should be asking ourselves if we even need to have that tool in our society.

It can be used the same way as any other firearm. It can be used for target shooting. It can be used for hunting. It also can be used for self defense. There are multiple uses for it and all firearms. As far as banning certain types of firearms that would be against the 2nd amendment.
If you would like to use the same logic though we can on other topics. Why don't we ban hard liquors? Why don't we ban large liquor containers? Beer and wine are all you really need. Where as hard liquor is designed with the intent to get you drunk fast. Should we allow people the means to drink hard liquor in large quantities? People use alcohol in illegal ways and drive. This causes automobile accidents that kill people including kids. If you could save just one life wouldn't it be worth banning these liquors? These are the more common arguments being used against firearms but you wouldn't consider them for anything else. And if a topic like this is brought up you will try to say they are two completely different things but they are both legal and they both kill people when improperly used.

 

[pkt77242]

If you think of the reason the founders put the second amendment in was to allow the people to rise against the government if need be. If you believe there is a difference between these guns than we need to have those guns to protect ourselves this way. As I believe there is no difference between an ar-15 and any other semi-auto rifle. Give me both guns and let me do equal shooting. I will produce the same results with both rifles. Therefore banning ar-15s will get you nowhere. The crazies will that have done these things will just use the next firearm. What then? We ban that firearm and the next and the next? The ar-15 is just the tool to do the job. You remove that tool it will be replaced by another.

Not true and the funny part is you put "if you think of the reason the founders put the second amendment". I don't need to think the founders put it in the second amendment. The need for a militia since we didn't have a standing army. If you don't believe me the original writing by Madison of the second amendment even had more to about militias in it

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of baring arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"

So Madison put the right, and then right afterwards the reason for the right and then an escape clause for conscientious objectors. So you can make up your own reason for the the 2nd amendment but it is very clear both from the original writing and the final version that it was included because of the need for militias.

Having said that I do think people have a right to own guns and it would be unconsitutional to take away all guns but just like with free speech there is a limit to that right.

 

[pkt77242]

It can be used the same way as any other firearm. It can be used for target shooting. It can be used for hunting. It also can be used for self defense. There are multiple uses for it and all firearms. As far as banning certain types of firearms that would be against the 2nd amendment.If you would like to use the same logic though we can on other topics. Why don't we ban hard liquors? Why don't we ban large liquor containers? Beer and wine are all you really need. Where as hard liquor is designed with the intent to get you drunk fast. Should we allow people the means to drink hard liquor in large quantities? People use alcohol in illegal ways and drive. This causes automobile accidents that kill people including kids. If you could save just one life wouldn't it be worth banning these liquors? These are the more common arguments being used against firearms but you wouldn't consider them for anything else. And if a topic like this is brought up you will try to say they are two completely different things but they are both legal and they both kill people when improperly used.

So is the fact that threatening speech is illegal unconstitutional? The supreme court has a written before in its writings that the 2nd amendment is not without limits, the government just needs to prove why it needs to restrict the right which makes it difficult to restrict but not impossible.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Having said that I do think people have a right to own guns and it would be unconsitutional to take away all guns but just like with free speech there is a limit to that right.

How do you think all guns get removed from the people? Do you think they come in in one fell swoop and take them all you are wrong. They wait for a shooting like this and rile everyone up. While people are thinking with their emotions and not their normal minds they cram laws through. then they repeat every shooting. If you don't believe me ask a Brit.

 

[GoIrish41]

It can be used the same way as any other firearm. It can be used for target shooting. It can be used for hunting. It also can be used for self defense. There are multiple uses for it and all firearms. As far as banning certain types of firearms that would be against the 2nd amendment.
If you would like to use the same logic though we can on other topics. Why don't we ban hard liquors? Why don't we ban large liquor containers? Beer and wine are all you really need. Where as hard liquor is designed with the intent to get you drunk fast. Should we allow people the means to drink hard liquor in large quantities? People use alcohol in illegal ways and drive. This causes automobile accidents that kill people including kids. If you could save just one life wouldn't it be worth banning these liquors? These are the more common arguments being used against firearms but you wouldn't consider them for anything else. And if a topic like this is brought up you will try to say they are two completely different things but they are both legal and they both kill people when improperly used.

I could not disagree more with you on the bolded item above. I have read the second amendment multiple times and have never seen a word of it that indicates a citizen's right to bear semi-automatic arms. When the bill of rights was created, the state of the art weapon was the musket and a one-shot pistol. If they would have seen the distructive power of the weapons of today, I would venture to say that the bill of rights would be a little more specific in language than "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

When this country went through prohibition, the violence in this country skyrocketed -- much of it with new more powerful weapons than had ever been available to the public, so there may just be a connection here to firearms. Your seven degrees of separation argument about liquor is interesting, and I'm not denying that there are cases where liquor and fatal crashes have a cause and effect, but it really does stray from the topic at hand. Causing crashes is not the intent of liquor and you may find that many view it as a drug, no different than weed, or cocain that should be more heavily regulated. Semi-automatic guns do exactly what they are designed to do -- kill stuff -- oh, and I guess you can use them for target practice too. Is target practice also in the bill of rights?

 

[GoIrish41]

How do you think all guns get removed from the people? Do you think they come in in one fell swoop and take them all you are wrong. They wait for a shooting like this and rile everyone up. While people are thinking with their emotions and not their normal minds they cram laws through. then they repeat every shooting. If you don't believe me ask a Brit.

Should we also ask that Brit about why their murder rate is so much lower that ours?

You are starting to sound a little like a malitia guy the way you are talking about the pending conspiracy to take all guns, one type at a time. I haven't seen a person on this thread suggest taking all guns away from people -- not one.

 

[JadeBrecks]

I could not disagree more with you on the bolded item above. I have read the second amendment multiple times and have never seen a word of it that indicates a citizen's right to bear semi-automatic arms. When the bill of rights was created, the state of the art weapon was the musket and a one-shot pistol. If they would have seen the distructive power of the weapons of today, I would venture to say that the bill of rights would be a little more specific in language than "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

That argument could easily be flipped the other way. They only really had one style of firearm and didn't know they had to specify all types of firearms. For those who only have a ar-15 making it illegal would be infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.

When this country went through prohibition, the violence in this country skyrocketed -- much of it with new more powerful weapons than had ever been available to the public, so there may just be a connection here to firearms. Your seven degrees of separation argument about liquor is interesting, and I'm not denying that there are cases where liquor and fatal crashes have a cause and effect, but it really does stray from the topic at hand. Causing crashes is not the intent of liquor and you may find that many view it as a drug, no different than weed, or cocain that should be more heavily regulated. Semi-automatic guns do exactly what they are designed to do -- kill stuff -- oh, and I guess you can use them for target practice too. Is target practice also in the bill of rights?

Can you seriously tell me that if we didn't have firearms the violence would simply disappear? Do you not think they would have found a different weapon? I know that it was a little off topic I was trying to draw your attention to the fact you could use these arguments against most things. The main reason for alcohol is to intoxicate you. A certain percentage (not looking it up) of people drink at a bar not at home. Thus alcohol anywhere but home is the same thing.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Should we also ask that Brit about why their murder rate is so much lower that ours?

They will find another tool as previously said. Their Violent Crime rate is exploding. They might not be killing them but they are doing more of it without fear of someone stopping it legally with a firearm.

You are starting to sound a little like a malitia guy the way you are talking about the pending conspiracy to take all guns, one type at a time. I haven't seen a person on this thread suggest taking all guns away from people -- not one.

Im not saying everyone in government wants the people disarmed. Im saying there are people who want everyone disarmed and they will use incidents like these to further their agenda. Also you won't see people coming out and saying it because they know it wont fly. Also reread through this thread and you will see people say they believe all guns should be outlawed but don't see it happening. I will not quote them because I don't want to call people out.

 

[GoIrish41]

That argument could easily be flipped the other way. They only really had one style of firearm and didn't know they had to specify all types of firearms. For those who only have a ar-15 making it illegal would be infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.
Can you seriously tell me that if we didn't have firearms the violence would simply disappear? Do you not think they would have found a different weapon? I know that it was a little off topic I was trying to draw your attention to the fact you could use these arguments against most things. The main reason for alcohol is to intoxicate you. A certain percentage (not looking it up) of people drink at a bar not at home. Thus alcohol anywhere but home is the same thing.

No, they can go buy a .22.

I think that violence would drop dramatically if there were no guns, yes.

 

[Opus]

How the hell do you know what my intention was. I didn't even read most of the links ... I just read the headlines. We were talking about whether or not security guards had some sort of special stability that kept them from being the maniacs that shoot people, so I found a bunch of links that showed how security guards can lose it just like anyone else. The fact that I could find that many links of security guards committing violent acts should give anyone pause. Fact is, I got board after a few minutes and stopped looking. There are many, many more instances out there.

We don't know that teachers won't act inappropriately around our children. That would be an excellent topic for another thread -- this one is about guns and I can't understand why everyone keeps trying to change the subject.

Maybe we should make sure that people can't enter a school with an automatic weapon with a high capacity magazine to keep our children from being slaughtered in their classroom. I don't really think that is a huge saccrifice. The arms people have a right to bear don't have to include these weapons. That is a choice that is made by our government and upheld by our Supreme Court. It's time we look at the evidence we have gathered since those ridiculous laws went into affect and give them a fresh look. Or, we could just do nothing and let the mass killings continue.

You just searched for some attention grabbing headlines that you thought would make your case. Well at least you're honest enough to admit that you didn't read most of the links. ANYONE can snap for any number of reasons. To single out a specific group of people that may or may not carry weapons as part of their job description is asinine. I know you justify this by saying that these will be the people in the schools to protect our children. You claim that they may become overzealous or snap. Which is exactly why I mentioned teachers, administrators and coaches. They can snap as well even though they are subject to comprehensive background checks. It was not changing the subject. I mentioned it merely to show that no matter how comprehensive or rigorous a background check is anyone is capable of snapping.

As far as keeping a maniac out of our schools that is carrying a semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity magazine I'm in favor of it just as much as you are. The problem is new gun control laws will not accomplish this. As the vast majority of people are fond of saying "Rules are meant to be broken." Making more rules/laws won't solve the problem. There are more incidents of molestation and inappropriate behavior by school employees every year than there are mass school shootings. Maybe it's not a big deal because these incidents usually only involve one individual at a time.

When tragic events such as Sandy Hook occur everyone wants to change the rules/laws instead of trying to fix the ones that are currently in place. I would change my mind about new gun control laws if ANYBODY can show me how they will prevent a maniac from entering a school with an AR-15 rifle and numerous 30 round magazines that were legally purchased in 2010. The only way this can be done is if the new law includes outlawing any currently legal semiautomatic weapon. That is not going to happen.

 

[GoIrish41]

That argument could easily be flipped the other way. They only really had one style of firearm and didn't know they had to specify all types of firearms. For those who only have a ar-15 making it illegal would be infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.


Can you seriously tell me that if we didn't have firearms the violence would simply disappear? Do you not think they would have found a different weapon? I know that it was a little off topic I was trying to draw your attention to the fact you could use these arguments against most things. The main reason for alcohol is to intoxicate you. A certain percentage (not looking it up) of people drink at a bar not at home. Thus alcohol anywhere but home is the same thing.

You don't think the NRA and the like aren't using this incident to further their cause? Why do you think that gun sales are at record levels this month? Just saw a broadcast that said gun owners in Texas say that high capacity clips and A lot of people believe that the government is going to try to take their guns away. Where are they hearing that from?

Sadly, AR-15s are flying off the shelves this week because buyers are afraid that they are going to be banned. I suppose they don't want to miss out on being in noncompliance with the law.

I'm like you, I am not going back through the thread. But, I don't recall reading anywhere in this thread anyone saying we should get rid of all guns. If they did, I don't recall.

 

[GoIrish41]

You just searched for some attention grabbing headlines that you thought would make your case. Well at least you're honest enough to admit that you didn't read most of the links. ANYONE can snap for any number of reasons. To single out a specific group of people that may or may not carry weapons as part of their job description is asinine. I know you justify this by saying that these will be the people in the schools to protect our children. You claim that they may become overzealous or snap. Which is exactly why I mentioned teachers, administrators and coaches. They can snap as well even though they are subject to comprehensive background checks. It was not changing the subject. I mentioned it merely to show that no matter how comprehensive or rigorous a background check is anyone is capable of snapping.

Yes exactly. This is why fewer guns is good and more guns is bad.

 

[GoIrish41]

As far as keeping a maniac out of our schools that is carrying a semiautomatic weapon with a high capacity magazine I'm in favor of it just as much as you are. The problem is new gun control laws will not accomplish this. As the vast majority of people are fond of saying "Rules are meant to be broken." Making more rules/laws won't solve the problem. There are more incidents of molestation and inappropriate behavior by school employees every year than there are mass school shootings. Maybe it's not a big deal because these incidents usually only involve one individual at a time.

When tragic events such as Sandy Hook occur everyone wants to change the rules/laws instead of trying to fix the ones that are currently in place. I would change my mind about new gun control laws if ANYBODY can show me how they will prevent a maniac from entering a school with an AR-15 rifle and numerous 30 round magazines that were legally purchased in 2010. The only way this can be done is if the new law includes outlawing any currently legal semiautomatic weapon. That is not going to happen.

Maybe your wrong about this. Maybe they will do some good. But even if they don't, why not give it a shot instead of predicting a future you can't possibly know.

Make them illegal in 2013. Why would that not happen. That is what the majority of this country wants to happen. Are their representatives more beholden to the NRA or their electorate. We'll see, and if things go as I suspect they would, we'll be having this conversation again in 14 when the GOP loses more house seats because of out of touch views like this.

 

[JadeBrecks]

You don't think the NRA and the like aren't using this incident to further their cause? Why do you think that gun sales are at record levels this month? Just saw a broadcast that said gun owners in Texas say that high capacity clips and A lot of people believe that the government is going to try to take their guns away. Where are they hearing that from?

Sadly, AR-15s are flying off the shelves this week because buyers are afraid that they are going to be banned. I suppose they don't want to miss out on being in noncompliance with the law.

I'm like you, I am not going back through the thread. But, I don't recall reading anywhere in this thread anyone saying we should get rid of all guns. If they did, I don't recall.

They are hearing that from politicians and people you are quoting above calling for rounds limited magazines and calling for "assault weapons" ban. These things are flying off the shelves because previous bans have had a grandfather rule. If you bought your item before the ban went into effect you were allowed to keep it legally. After the ban was passed you were not legal allowed to buy a new one.
The NRA is fighting these new laws for the same reason ABATE (motorcycles) fights helmet laws. They know that when you let the government in a little they are not satisfied until they take over. Both the NRA and ABATE teach safety and proper use they just don't want the government in running the deal. You don't believe they will take over and ruin everything see what all they do have a hand in. That is however another nasty topic I don't want to get in to.

I really appreciate the calm and great debating. Thanks for not resorting to low blows and name calling. I have a nasty work day ahead of me and I have stuff to do tonight before I turn in. I hope to debate with you again. Good night and Go Irish!

 

[Irish Houstonian]

wikipedia? really? you do know that anyone can go on wikipedia and change the content anytime they want to. I wouldn't really call this a very credible source. but thanks for making such a huge compromise to your ethics to point me to this "common knowledge." The fact is that you would be hard pressed to find anyone within the NRA staff who ever has publically mentioned anything about stricter laws. Instead, they fight back against every attempt to introduce stronger legislation...

So wrong news articles by you = good, but Wikipedia = bad. Got it. lol

Anyway, what you just wrote in bold is totally wrong. And don't ask me for a link -- go to their website and read it for yourself. They have literally thousands of position papers and materials on the subject. (Translation: stop being such a ****ing troll).

 

[GoIrish41]

This is a first.

Two posts up, I was thanked for calm and great debating without namecalling.

one post up, I was told to stop being a ****ing troll.

I guess some people react better to disagreement than others. It probably speaks volumes about the character of both posters.

 

[Opus]

Yes exactly. This is why fewer guns is good and more guns is bad.

New gun control laws will NOT prevent someone from snapping. They will also not prevent them from obtaining any weapon of their choosing if they are determined to get one. Why do some people always believe that making new laws, for anything, is the "cure" for the problem? Fixing what is wrong with the current laws will have more of an affect than any new law will.

I'm in favor of all of these: Longer waiting periods, by the way I live in Arizona and we have no waiting period, more thorough background checks, eliminating the ability to buy a gun at a gun show without a waiting period, mandatory training for any new gun purchase, whether you own 15 guns or this is your first gun you have to take and pass mandatory training.

I'm also in favor of registering all weapons on a yearly basis. I would even be willing to pay a nominal registration fee to help offset the cost of background checks, classes etc.

 

[GoIrish41]

So wrong news articles by you = good, but Wikipedia = bad. Got it. lol

Anyway, what you just wrote in bold is totally wrong. And don't ask me for a link -- go to their website and read it for yourself. They have literally thousands of position papers and materials on the subject. (Translation: stop being such a ****ing troll).

wrong news articles?

I've seen people speak on behalf of the NRA on news shows for the last 20 years and have never heard of any of them saying they want stricter laws -- not once. If by saying that you think I'm being a ****ing troll, I think you may have some anger issues. I question whether or not you have the requisite demeanor that gives me a comfort level with you owning a gun. We are having a debate and you are unwilling to listen to the opposing point of view. Grow up dude.

 

[GoIrish41]

New gun control laws will NOT prevent someone from snapping. They will also not prevent them from obtaining any weapon of their choosing if they are determined to get one. Why do some people always believe that making new laws, for anything, is the "cure" for the problem? Fixing what is wrong with the current laws will have more of an affect than any new law will.

I'm in favor of all of these: Longer waiting periods, by the way I live in Arizona and we have no waiting period, more thorough background checks, eliminating the ability to buy a gun at a gun show without a waiting period, mandatory training for any new gun purchase, whether you own 15 guns or this is your first gun you have to take and pass mandatory training.

I'm also in favor of registering all weapons on a yearly basis. I would even be willing to pay a nominal registration fee to help offset the cost of background checks, classes etc.

all the things in the last two paragraphs you just that said you were for would be new gun laws, which, in the first paragraph, you suggested you were not for. You've been arguing with me for quite a while and it seems that you agree with me more than you think. lol

 

[Opus]

Maybe your wrong about this. Maybe they will do some good. But even if they don't, why not give it a shot instead of predicting a future you can't possibly know.

Make them illegal in 2013. Why would that not happen. That is what the majority of this country wants to happen. Are their representatives more beholden to the NRA or their electorate. We'll see, and if things go as I suspect they would, we'll be having this conversation again in 14 when the GOP loses more house seats because of out of touch views like this.

Actually this is not the case:

A Gallup survey conducted just days after Newtown found that 58 percent of American adults support stricter laws covering the sale of firearms, up from 43 percent in 2011. Thirty-four percent believe the laws should be kept as they are, and only six percent believe they should be made less strict. By this measure, at least, the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School has strengthened support for gun control.

But advocates for stricter gun laws continue to face opposition on other fronts, according to a few other findings from Gallup's poll. Only 44 percent of respondents voiced support for a ban on semi-automatic weapons, one commonly-floated solution in the aftermath of Newtown. Fifty-one percent were opposed to such a ban, and both numbers have scarcely changed in the last few years.

Gallup's poll surveyed 1,038 adults between December 19 and 22 and had a margin of error of plus or minus four percent.

It would appear, based upon this poll, that these views are not as out of touch as the gun control crowd wants people to believe.

 

[Opus]

all the things in the last two paragraphs you just that said you were for would be new gun laws, which, in the first paragraph, you suggested you were not for. You've been arguing with me for quite a while and it seems that you agree with me more than you think. lol

If you want to nitpick and claim that these changes would be "new gun laws" then go for it. Changes made to existing laws are not new laws, they are changes. By the way, I've never said that I'm not for changes to the existing laws. Something needs to be done but outlawing guns that are currently legal is not the answer. Knee jerk reactions to serious incidents usually don't accomplish what they intend.