# another day another shooting



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

I know most of you do not think gun control is an option, so how would you go about stopping this horrific problem we have in this country.
How many innocents must die?
I would really be interested in your solutions.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

give everyone guns. An armed society is a polite society.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

The CA shooter stabbed three people as well as shot three people. The people want to kill will kill. I think part of the answer is to improve mental health care and not have the person with the problem be the one to decide if he needs help, and there should be some way to over ride a parents denial as well. The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter must have had plenty of problems of her own.

I think we are seeing a break down of our society, children are not parented, careers are more important than kids, family support is lost to so many. Children watch hours of violent TV, movies and video games and violence becomes a normal way to solve problems in their minds.

The problem with trying to remove guns from our society at this point is that the people that will turn them in are the ones you don't have to worry about. The people that don't turn them in will include those that should not have them. 

Is there an answer? I don't know, but with the large number of children not feeling important to the family or friends and essentially raising themselves, I doubt it.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

How about we remove everyones trigger finger ? What kind of arsenal do you have ?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Molly Mckee said:


> to improve mental health care and not have the person with the problem be the one to decide if he needs help, and there should be some way to over ride a parents denial as well. .


Yes. Some schools around here are implementing a mental health professional. Too often kids slip through cracks because it involves their parent(s) taking them to an outside person. Many parents do not see their kids for the majority of the day and sometimes teachers see behaviors the parents do not. 

It needs to be a group effort and I believe catching these issues when they're young is the key. Unfortunately I think we're seeing just the tip of the iceberg..


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Easy. Shoot someone in any manner beyond self defense and be publically executed. That make you happy? Maybe enforce the laws we already have. That make you even happier? I sure would for me.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Ok I had time to cool down after my snarkey comment. I graduated high scool in 82. We didnt have all these shootings back then so whats changed ? I carried up to 3 guns in my pickup during hunting season.

24 hour news , more violent movies and vidieo games , prescription drugs being handed out like candy. If its not any of that it must be in the water.

I got my first gun at 10 years old and my brother at 8. We hunted every day during the season just us. Do that today and you would lose your kids.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,687
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9

Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,078
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6

Nobody is trying to take cars away from good drivers, so that would lead us to believe the Obamas, Feinsteins, Pelosis, Bradys, all the gun grabbers are not about saving lives, they are about taking away our right to defend ourselves and our families.
Remember, it's not about safety, it's about control.


----------



## Glade Runner (Aug 1, 2013)

Stop tolerating crazy people, lock them up.
Stop tolerating gang bangers, lock them up.
Stop tolerating druggies, lock them up.
Do that and our violence rate will be lower than Denmark's.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

There's a possibility that some folks won't demonize guns quite so much if some folks don't worship guns quite so much.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

TripleD said:


> Ok I had time to cool down after my snarkey comment. I graduated high scool in 82. We didnt have all these shootings back then so whats changed ? I carried up to 3 guns in my pickup during hunting season.
> 
> 24 hour news , more violent movies and vidieo games , prescription drugs being handed out like candy. If its not any of that it must be in the water.
> 
> I got my first gun at 10 years old and my brother at 8. We hunted every day during the season just us. Do that today and you would lose your kids.


The "media" (propaganda machine) sensationalizes shootings. A shooter that just shot one person is now a mass shooting, the "president" goes on TV, stands on the bodies of the dead and pretends to care. 
The gullible get wound up and thanks to the misinformation, they believe anyone with a gun is a potential killer and should be punished.
What's changed is we no longer run the country, our children are being taught they can do anything they want, have anything they want, and they can have it right now.
The leftists have taken God from the schools, taught evolution as a fact, not a theory, bow to illegals and as you said, they hand out drugs like candy.
Our own president is in cahoots with drug cartels, refuses to lock them up, refuses to defend the borders, and yet they blame the innocent gun owners.
It's a scam, a power play, it's about control by corrupt political vote whores, and nothing else.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Don't feed the trolls.

The OP has another thread on the home defense/gun forum starting out asking a "serious" question about gun laws, and in his third post blasted the respondents, showing his true colors.

_"I guess I thought they were a few who would rather be represented by the sane gun owners instead of the nuts. The crazies who think it is a good idea to strap an AR-15 to your back and go to the park, or the teen who wants to go out with a bang and be immortalized or the fools who thought aiming weapons at 
federal agents was a good idea, these are the people you wish to represent you, so be it.

For the record your arguments about giving an inch they take an arm is so misguided and lame. Has not happened and will not happen, but you keep using it if it makes you all happy" _


----------



## crispin (Jun 30, 2010)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Don't feed the trolls.
> 
> The OP has another thread on the home defense/gun forum starting out asking a "serious" question about gun laws, and in his third post blasted the respondents, showing his true colors.
> 
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

There is no "solution" because human nature is such that people killed each other long before guns were invented. 

The media puts it in your face, making it seem even worse than it is. It's been "another day another shooting" ever since the first firearms were invented. But we didn't hear about it in real time and from all over the world in earlier times, just what happened locally and that wouldn't seem so overwhelming. 

Turn off the news, take a deep breath.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Teacher combat training. 
Train teachers in guns and other tactics to take down intruders. 
Telling me I have no right to own a gun (or anything else) because some dunce in (fill in the blank) went off on folks with it is NOT the answer. 
Train teachers to see the dangers. Train janitors, maintenance guys office personnel. 
One thing is certain, big no guns signs, will NOT deter some idjit with a gun.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Jesus is the lamb of God.

With that in mind say the poem. Mary had a little lamb.

Then think about that.


----------



## Old Vet (Oct 15, 2006)

We need a law against killing people. We need a law against using a gun to kill people. Oh we do then what is your problem?


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

My Mother always told me that the first thing i needed to do when I had a problem was to go look in the mirror. if I din't find it there, search for the cause of it. 

There are many interesting posts in this thread but the old saying of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is so true. Why is that? Are we as a society doing a poor job of raising our children? i think we are. those of you that have truly respectful children or young Adult children congratulations on a job well done. Mine is 27, teaches 5th grade at the local ISD, and lives in our Garage Apt. She's very disrespectful at times even though she pays no rent or utilities and we paid for her education. is she going to shoot somebody? NO. Did we do a poor job of parenting? Obviously so. these kids don't have to worry about "getting worn out with a switch". my Mama gave me a whipping if I did something wrong or spoke disrespectful to anyone; these kids nowdays aren't worried about that, they'll call the law on'ya.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Every day another gun grab....when will people accept that they live in America and we as Americans have the right to guns. Everyone of has the same right. If that right to bare arms has been miss used a person's choices caused them to forfeit gun rights.....think felons. It is a choice to commit crimes.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

davel745 said:


> give everyone guns. An armed society is a polite society.


Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2014)

This appeared a little over a year ago,I guess all those liberal gun control people do not read their own news sources.

Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/

The real cause of the hysteria is media hyped stories used to create fear. The fear is used to control. People shoot people, people stab people, people beat people to death with their hands, nothing new, just 24hr news channels to promote the propaganda of the day.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?


Correction please. All persons residing in USA were born with the RIGHT to bare arms there are some who gave up that right by choices they made and there are persons who .....while they have the right to bare arms have made the choice NOT to bare arms. Then there are persons with the rights waiting to earn the money, move out of gun free zones,or to reach the age that the government dictates is ok to own a gun.

Look at it this way most citizens have the right to vote but not everyone votes.

That is part one. Now on to the next to be addressed. How does more guns make for a more polite population. One could be flippant and say well the answer that is floated around is more money for teachers solves the education issues,more cops on the streets lower crime. But really most thugs are bullies and use force. The weak and prepared are their targets. Remove targets by having people every where prepared for the thuggish bullies and few people will get harm more bullies would die and society having actively being part of the solution will do more to protect themselves and other. ....most people do not have the secret service with them 24-7. But and armed society would change that. Remember there is very little crime done against those who live with as personal.


----------



## MushCreek (Jan 7, 2008)

During a recent story about school shootings, the reporter said that there have been 74 such incidents in the 18 months since Newtown. He then went on to say that many of the shootings appear to be copy cats, inspired by the stories of previous shootings. And WHO hypes these stories? The MEDIA! They are inspiring all of the future nutjobs, showing them how famous they will be. There's no way of knowing, but I wonder how many shootings take place because the disturbed individual was inspired by all of the media coverage?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Molly Mckee said:


> The CA shooter stabbed three people as well as shot three people. The people want to kill will kill. I think part of the answer is to improve mental health care and not have the person with the problem be the one to decide if he needs help, and there should be some way to over ride a parents denial as well. The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter must have had plenty of problems of her own.
> 
> I think we are seeing a break down of our society, children are not parented, careers are more important than kids, family support is lost to so many. Children watch hours of violent TV, movies and video games and violence becomes a normal way to solve problems in their minds.
> 
> ...











There was a 'mental health' bill in congress not long ago...haven't heard where it went but seems it would've set up some safeguards...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> The "media" (propaganda machine) sensationalizes shootings. A shooter that just shot one person is now a mass shooting, the "president" goes on TV, stands on the bodies of the dead and pretends to care.
> The gullible get wound up and thanks to the misinformation, they believe anyone with a gun is a potential killer and should be punished.
> What's changed is we no longer run the country, our children are being taught they can do anything they want, have anything they want, and they can have it right now.
> The leftists have taken God from the schools, taught evolution as a fact, not a theory, bow to illegals and as you said, they hand out drugs like candy.
> ...












Except I don't think evolution has anything to do w/it...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> There is no "solution" because human nature is such that people killed each other long before guns were invented.
> 
> The media puts it in your face, making it seem even worse than it is. It's been "another day another shooting" ever since the first firearms were invented. But we didn't hear about it in real time and from all over the world in earlier times, just what happened locally and that wouldn't seem so overwhelming.
> 
> Turn off the news, take a deep breath.


Betcha there's more Chicago murders every yr than all the 'mass' shooting all over the country. Why aren't those in charge of Chicago doing something about that? Or even REPORTING it?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MJsLady said:


> Teacher combat training.
> Train teachers in guns and other tactics to take down intruders.
> Telling me I have no right to own a gun (or anything else) because some dunce in (fill in the blank) went off on folks with it is NOT the answer.
> Train teachers to see the dangers. Train janitors, maintenance guys office personnel.
> One thing is certain, big no guns signs, will NOT deter some idjit with a gun.


This solution was in the news not long ago. Some schools have done this but too many libs control schools and are totally appalled by this suggestion. Ya know, the ones who think they'll take guns off the face of the earth.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?


No they don't. The school is a gun free zone. If they had an armed teacher or 2, they deranged guy wouldn't have gotten off one shot.

One the other hand, almost everyone has a car or access to one. Far more yearly deaths by auto than guns. What are you gonna do about that?
I'm far more up in arms about that...crashes are totally a surprise to all involved, totally random, totally unpreventable, so it seems.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

JillyG said:


> I know most of you do not think gun control is an option, so how would you go about stopping this horrific problem we have in this country.
> How many innocents must die?
> I would really be interested in your solutions.


The first step would be to return the habit of parents teaching their children to be respectful of themselves and others. When we lost our basic values and everyone decided that free expression and no discipline was a good thing is when this nonsense began. There were no lack of guns in days past, but there was very little lack of respect for our elders either. Its not the guns causing the problem.... its people and poor attitudes.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?


Actually this is not true at all. While a fairly large number of guns are in circulation it is a pretty small group of people who own them. I own numerous rifles, shotguns, and handguns myself, but I know lots of folks who dont own a single gun. Then you have a lot of folks who own guns, but rarely carry them. owning a gun that is locked in your gun safe at home isnt much protection on the subway.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Paumon said:


> Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?


When's the last time you saw a mass shooting at a gun show or gun shop?


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> No they don't. The school is a gun free zone. If they had an armed teacher or 2, they deranged guy wouldn't have gotten off one shot.
> 
> 
> > Don't forget that our bases are unarmed and we had 2 mass shootings on them.
> ...


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

On the home defense/ gun forum I posted that the toal homocide rate in the United Staes places us third in the world. However, if you subtract the homocide rate of the four cities with the strictest gun control laws we are then, worldwide, third from the bottom. Pretty interesting. I've been in my town for almost 29 years. I only know two people who do not have a gun. There is a firearm in almost every house but I have never heard of a shooting much less a homocide. We must be one of those polite societies.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

rambotex said:


> My Mother always told me that the first thing i needed to do when I had a problem was to go look in the mirror. if I din't find it there, search for the cause of it.
> 
> There are many interesting posts in this thread but the old saying of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is so true. Why is that? Are we as a society doing a poor job of raising our children? i think we are. those of you that have truly respectful children or young Adult children congratulations on a job well done. Mine is 27, teaches 5th grade at the local ISD, and lives in our Garage Apt. She's very disrespectful at times even though she pays no rent or utilities and we paid for her education. is she going to shoot somebody? NO. Did we do a poor job of parenting? Obviously so. these kids don't have to worry about "getting worn out with a switch". my Mama gave me a whipping if I did something wrong or spoke disrespectful to anyone; these kids nowdays aren't worried about that, they'll call the law on'ya.


My DS's kids used to use I'll call the law on ya wording !! Then evil uncle TripleD would come over and wear their tail out. By the time DB's kids got old enough to hear about those WHOOPINS all DB has to do is threaten to call me.:runforhills:


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Oggie said:


> There's a possibility that some folks won't demonize guns quite so much if some folks don't worship guns quite so much.


There's a possibility that some folks won't worship guns quite so much if some folks don't demonize guns quite so much.

Fixed it for ya.

WWW


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

wy_white_wolf said:


> There's a possibility that some folks won't worship guns quite so much if some folks don't demonize guns quite so much.
> 
> Fixed it for ya.
> 
> WWW


Perhaps.

It might go a little both ways.

Around here, there are folks that believe that a gun, the bigger and more rapid-firing the better, somehow gives them more security, status or control.

Many of them really don't know what they're dealing with and how superficial their new sense of self-importance and invulnerability actually is.

Other folks' fear of a firearm fuels that perception of power.

But, in reality, they are just tools and don't come packaged with any wisdom as to how they should be used or handled.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Never got into the rapid fire thing. I enjoyed hitting things that were moving real fast, and now I enjoy punching holes in very small things that are far,far away. I don't think that makes me secure, but it sure as heck doesn't make me feel helpless either.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

davel745 said:


> give everyone guns. An armed society is a polite society.


LOL

This deserves funniest post of the day.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JillyG said:


> I know most of you do not think gun control is an option, so how would you go about stopping this horrific problem we have in this country.
> How many innocents must die?
> I would really be interested in your solutions.


It's too late for gun control.

Nothing is going to stop it. We might as well get used to it.

How many innocents will die? Plenty. We are an armed society, full of hate, mental illness, booze and pills. 

Should we pretend we didn't see this coming?


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

MushCreek said:


> During a recent story about school shootings, the reporter said that there have been 74 such incidents in the 18 months since Newtown. He then went on to say that many of the shootings appear to be copy cats, inspired by the stories of previous shootings. And WHO hypes these stories? The MEDIA! They are inspiring all of the future nutjobs, showing them how famous they will be. There's no way of knowing, but I wonder how many shootings take place because the disturbed individual was inspired by all of the media coverage?


 The Map that the Media Idiot got the info from was made by the commie Bloomburg, the map is bunk.


----------



## big rockpile (Feb 24, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> The "media" (propaganda machine) sensationalizes shootings. A shooter that just shot one person is now a mass shooting, the "president" goes on TV, stands on the bodies of the dead and pretends to care.
> The gullible get wound up and thanks to the misinformation, they believe anyone with a gun is a potential killer and should be punished.
> What's changed is we no longer run the country, our children are being taught they can do anything they want, have anything they want, and they can have it right now.
> The leftists have taken God from the schools, taught evolution as a fact, not a theory, bow to illegals and as you said, they hand out drugs like candy.
> ...


 Got to agree. I was just going to say let people correct their kids without fear of Government locking them up if they try.

Some times Little Junior needs his back side busted.

big rockpile


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *Paumon*
> _Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?_





simi-steading said:


> When's the last time you saw a mass shooting at a gun show or gun shop?


LOL

https://www.google.com/search?q=sho...+show&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10

Accidental shootings aside, probably not often, but how about some examples from the real world, which is a bit more prevalent? They may not all be mass shootings, but there is already plenty and there will be plenty more, once everyone is armed.

https://www.google.com/search?q=roa...tings&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10

https://www.google.com/search?q=gan...otout&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10

https://www.google.com/search?q=gan...oting&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10

"polite" left our culture a long time ago.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=sho...+show&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=10
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if I would consider gangbangers part of our "polite" society! And I'm pretty sure their NOT what I would consider responsible either! Gang members don't care about laws either, I don't see them giving up their weapons. ....ever, for any reason!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I vote no on the gangbusters being members of a polite society.

I was not raised with guns, but for hunting deer in the fall guns were only mentioned on the news as a weapon. So, I was timid ...It was fear of a powerful machine that could kill. Could kill my friends or family. With some training I learn that the gun could not open it case and walk out of the house. A gun though viewed as a killer can not buy ammo, or load it. A gun is a slave to the person who handles it. 

Like a chainsaw, knife, car, plane, or bathtub that have been involved with far more deaths than guns. Heck, I wonder if the peanut has a higher body count than a gun in schools.

It is sad to see the brainwashing of a nation. A gun is a tool.


----------



## Awnry Abe (Mar 21, 2012)

Olive-skinned shooter=terrorist
Dark-skinned shooter= rage-filled
White-skinned shooter=mentally ill
Mexican-skinned shooter=(still waiting for the narrative, but it is coming)

What do they all have in common? They all did something illegal. Shall we all melt our guns into to plowshares and await the bludgeoning with stones? I don't think so.


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Motor vehicle traffic deaths
> Number of deaths: 33,687
> Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.9
> 
> ...


Thank you, thank you very much! 
I am so sick of hearing all this hoopla from gun grabbers that I can't see straight! 
Check the number of deaths a year from stabbings! 
Check the number that come from the cops beating a person to death and puts it on, "They hung themselves!" 
Check the number of deaths from heart attacks of people that slap eat to much. 
There is only one solid steel guarantee in life, and that is if you were born, you are going to die! 
What you die from or how long you might live is a different thing. 
We are all going to die and when we do, it is my belief that it will be when God says we are going to die! Not a second sooner or a second later. Not even a split second before nor after and I will tell you why I say that! 
I fell 48 feet from a cooling tower at a power plant. 
Who can live after a fall like that?
I knew a man that slipped off the second step of a ladder and died right there, instantly! 
Who can fall 32" and die? 
I have also fell 37', 23', twice 10', but the real kicker was when I had double walking pneumonia! 
I was so sick that I prayed for God to just let me die, and I am not going to tell anyone that I heard God, because I didn't, and I won't tell you that I saw him, because I didn't, but I did fell God tell me in my heart with six short words. He said "Son, it's not your time yet!"
That was all there was, just those six words! 
My wife and sisters said that I set up in the bed and told them, "Don't worry about me, I am going to be just fine"and I went back out. 
A few hours later I was setting up reading the newspaper!
The doctors told me the next day they could not understand how I lived. They said that I should have at the very minimum had brain damage from the lack of oxygen in my body, and I just smiled at them! 
I knew why I didn't die! 
there are so many ways for people to die at their own hands, certainly not on purpose, but through neglect of their bodies, which I did with the pneumonia, because I was going to stay there long enough to get my pink slip to draw unemployment, and it nearly cost me my life, but God said, "Son, it isn't your time yet" and he meant it too! 

If anyone wants my guns so bad, come to my house and take them! That just might prove to be a dangerous situation you find yourself in! 

Ranger


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Oggie said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> It might go a little both ways.
> 
> ...


All that may be true, or not. In my home I may be over armed and over confident. So what? I might be totally inept if there ever came a time that I needed to defend my home against one or more armed intruders. So what? 

My gun preps hurt no one and you need not fear my shooting up a school because I have some wacko desire to see myself on the evening news. With very rare exception, it isn't the gun worshipers (as you put it) that have become murderers. Legal gun owners are statistically way less likely to be involved in any violent crime.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Paumon said:


> Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?


Ever notice these shootings happen where there are no guns allowed?
How's that working out?


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Oggie said:


> Other folks' fear of a firearm fuels that perception of power.
> 
> But, in reality, they are just tools and _don't come packaged with any wisdom as to how they should be used or handled_.



Sounds an awful lot like the freedom of speech.

They say the pen is mightier than the sword.
Suppose that still holds true ?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Betcha there's more Chicago murders every yr than all the 'mass' shooting all over the country. Why aren't those in charge of Chicago doing something about that? Or even REPORTING it?


Because they have strict gun control....problem solved


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The first step would be to return the habit of parents teaching their children to be respectful of themselves and others. When we lost our basic values and everyone decided that free expression and no discipline was a good thing is when this nonsense began. There were no lack of guns in days past, but there was very little lack of respect for our elders either. Its not the guns causing the problem.... its people and poor attitudes.


Part of the problem is the government paying families to break up.
It's way more profitable to have a baby and kick daddy to the curb, or make a baby then move on to the next baby mama.
The government rewards them with larger welfare payments, free phones, free rent, food stamps and free medical.
I saw an article a while back that showed what welfare recipients in different states make if you add it all together. Very few states have welfare families living in poverty, some make a pretty decent living and never have to get off the couch.
This has led to the decline of the family, particularly in the inner cities, aka vote plantations.
The government keeps them on the couch, blames rich people for their "plight", nobody raises the kids, kids learn disrespect, hatred and bigotry, and told it's not their fault, they are entitled, and then we wonder why cities like Chicago have gangs using each other for target practice.
The reason this country is going to HIAHB is because we as a people have decided to tolerate anything and everything, accept the demise of the family, encourage divorce, praise perversion and we keep electing the most corrupt people ever to crawl up out of the muck.
Now those same corrupt people are telling us that we must get rid of the guns to protect the children, blah blah blah.
It's like taking away your fire extinguishers to keep your house from burning down.
We don't have a gun problem, we have a people problem, we have a government problem and we have a respect problem.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

7thswan said:


> The Map that the Media Idiot got the info from was made by the commie Bloomburg, the map is bunk.


Yep, already proven to be a lie by Bloomy
I wonder why he hasn't been arrested for fraud?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Forerunner said:


> Sounds an awful lot like the freedom of speech.
> 
> They say the pen is mightier than the sword.
> Suppose that still holds true ?



Freedom of speech is not absolute.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

DEKE01 said:


> All that may be true, or not. In my home I may be over armed and over confident.  So what? I might be totally inept if there ever came a time that I needed to defend my home against one or more armed intruders. So what?
> 
> My gun preps hurt no one and you need not fear my shooting up a school because I have some wacko desire to see myself on the evening news. With very rare exception, it isn't the gun worshipers (as you put it) that have become murderers. Legal gun owners are statistically way less likely to be involved in any violent crime.


One thing that compounds the problem of illegal guns is the ever-increasing supply of available weapons.

A home burglary in our state provides a greater than 50 percent possibility that stolen guns will be on the street, in the hands of criminals.

And, in at least 50 percent of the homes in our state, firearms might be involved in any domestic dispute.

I know some very responsible gun owners. I avoid folks who care more about the image of a gun than its proper handling.

Gun and ammo factories are working extra shifts to keep up with demand. And, while I fully recognize the right of most people to buy a gun, the mere number of guns in the United States makes them fairly easily available.

It's a situation for which there are probably few solutions.

But, when sporting good store ads in the papers around here hawk inexpensive, probably not-all-that-high-quality firearms styled more like military weapons, it gives me the impression that those weapons are being bought more to wear or to hold than they are to be used by serious shooters.

Again, they're free to do what they want.


----------



## rambotex (May 5, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Part of the problem is the government paying families to break up.
> It's way more profitable to have a baby and kick daddy to the curb, or make a baby then move on to the next baby mama.
> The government rewards them with larger welfare payments, free phones, free rent, food stamps and free medical.
> I saw an article a while back that showed what welfare recipients in different states make if you add it all together. Very few states have welfare families living in poverty, some make a pretty decent living and never have to get off the couch.
> ...




:goodjob: Amen Brother


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Oggie said:


> Freedom of speech is not absolute.


Is that the one characteristic that sets it apart from the right to bear arms ?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Forerunner said:


> Is that the one characteristic that sets it apart from the right to bear arms ?



That's what the two rights have in common.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oggie said:


> That's what the two rights have in common.


You are in favor of "rights" limited by the government?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> You are in favor of "rights" limited by the government?


I'm not in favor of child pornography.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oggie said:


> I'm not in favor of child pornography.


Me either, but I don't consider that "speech", that's just something the rights grabbers throw in to muddy the water


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Me either, but I don't consider that "speech", that's just something the rights grabbers throw in to muddy the water



Actually, it does have something to do with speech, given that the visual depiction of child pornography, whether or not an actual act took place, is still illegal.

But, if you want another example, I don't have a real problem with the government outlawing free speech when it comes to revealing pending battle plans at time of war or armed conflict with enemies.

And, I'm OK with the government outlawing or restricting the possession of artillery and bombs.

From the very founding of our nation, the Constitution's guaranty of our rights has been nowhere near absolute.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Oggie said:


> That's what the two rights have in common.


Then you are mistaken as to the nature of rights.

They are absolute....that is, beyond legislation.....barring a trespass under the common law.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Forerunner said:


> Then you are mistaken as to the nature of rights.
> 
> They are absolute....that is, beyond legislation.....barring a trespass under the common law.


Good luck with that.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Sadly, you will continue to see more violence as people turn away from God and embrace liberalism.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> Then you are mistaken as to the nature of rights.
> 
> They are absolute....that is, beyond legislation.....barring a trespass under the common law.


You also are mistaken as to the nature of rights and what is absolute then.

In reality, there is no such thing as rights. Rights are a figment of the imagination that humans use to humour other humans and keep them calm and controlled. All rights, as they are perceived by people, can be revoked and lost forever at any time, especially when people who think they are entitled to their rights are abusing their rights. There is no such thing as absolute. Nothing anywhere is absolute.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Oggie said:


> Actually, it does have something to do with speech, given that the visual depiction of child pornography, whether or not an actual act took place, is still illegal.
> 
> But, if you want another example, I don't have a real problem with the government outlawing free speech when it comes to revealing pending battle plans at time of war or armed conflict with enemies.
> 
> ...


Child porn is illegal because the child's rights have been violated. Like I have a right to shoot my gun, but not at your head. IIRC, the Supremes ruled that faked CP is legal. 

From the founding, the right to bear arms was absolute. Private armies and navies had the latest, greatest, most sophisticated weapons of the time. That's why the USG hired privateers to defend US interests on the high seas. In Boston, and probably elsewhere, captured cannon from Brit ships were auctioned off to the highest bidder. The USG and state gov'ts had to compete with private parties and that is why some privateers had better armed ships than the military. 

From the founding, many rights, like free speech were limited. That does not make it right, it simply means that like all gov'ts since the invention of gov't, they violate their own laws in an never ending goal to exercise dominance over the people.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> There is no such thing as absolute. Nothing anywhere is absolute.


Take a deep breath and see if you can spot the irony. 

...


...


...


{arms crossed, tapping foot}


...


...


{checking watch}


...


...


OK, I can't wait any longer. Is your sentence, "nothing anywhere is absolute" an absolute?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

DEKE01 said:


> Child porn is illegal because the child's rights have been violated. Like I have a right to shoot my gun, but not at your head. IIRC, the Supremes ruled that faked CP is legal.


While technically true, the distribution of those fake images is outlawed. In other words, they are free to speak as long as they don't speak to anyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/washington/20scotus.html?_r=0



DEKE01 said:


> From the founding, the right to bear arms was absolute. Private armies and navies had the latest, greatest, most sophisticated weapons of the time. That's why the USG hired privateers to defend US interests on the high seas. In Boston, and probably elsewhere, captured cannon from Brit ships were auctioned off to the highest bidder. The USG and state gov'ts had to compete with private parties and that is why some privateers had better armed ships than the military.


The rights were not absolute: If for no other reason than that they didn't extend to all people.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> Take a deep breath and see if you can spot the irony.
> 
> {arms crossed, tapping foot}
> 
> ...


Nothing is absolute. You can condescend to go split straws at somebody else about absolute and nothingness.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Nothing is absolute. You can condescend to go split straws at somebody else about absolute and nothingness.


Absolute zero is absolutely zero! Scientists won't argue about this!


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Awnry Abe said:


> Olive-skinned shooter=terrorist
> Dark-skinned shooter= rage-filled
> White-skinned shooter=mentally ill
> Mexican-skinned shooter=(still waiting for the narrative, but it is coming)
> ...


when they come to stone me I will shoot them


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oggie said:


> Actually, it does have something to do with speech, given that the visual depiction of child pornography, whether or not an actual act took place, is still illegal.
> 
> But, if you want another example, I don't have a real problem with the government outlawing free speech when it comes to revealing pending battle plans at time of war or armed conflict with enemies.
> 
> ...


So pretty much any rights the government wants to take away is ok with you?
I mean as long as it's for a "good reason"?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> So pretty much any rights the government wants to take away is ok with you?
> I mean as long as it's for a "good reason"?


No.

That's not what I wrote.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oggie said:


> No.
> 
> That's not what I wrote.


It's not?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to child porn, all that kind of crap, but when we let the government, our servant tell us what to do, when we let them take away our rights "for a good reason", then they are no longer our servant, and we are no longer a free people.
It makes me crazy to listen to people who will willingly give up liberty because a two-bit politician tells them it's for their own good.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> It's not?
> I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to child porn, all that kind of crap, but when we let the government, our servant tell us what to do, when we let them take away our rights "for a good reason", then they are no longer our servant, and we are no longer a free people.
> It makes me crazy to listen to people who will willingly give up liberty because a two-bit politician tells them it's for their own good.


The government can't take away our rights.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Oggie said:


> While technically true, the distribution of those fake images is outlawed. In other words, they are free to speak as long as they don't speak to anyone.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/washington/20scotus.html?_r=0
> 
> ...


On the CP, I stand corrected. 

You are mistaken that the rights were not absolute, probably because you think that rights come from the gov't or the constitution. Our gov't and constitution did not acknowledge the rights and freedoms of some Americans, but the rights existed nevertheless. 

For the individual above who does not believe in rights, if he is correct, that means that "right" is merely the whim of those with might. Might makes right is how most every other country in the world is governed; I maintain hope (foolishly?) that the US will return to a right makes right form of governance. 

This is more than a difference of semantics. When you acknowledge that rights are either god given or a state of nature, which ever you prefer, then your relationship with gov't is fundamentally changed forever. Then gov't is what our founders intended, a means to protect our rights vs what it is now, a means to control the population for the further benefit of the government.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Oggie said:


> The government can't take away our rights.


This perverted version of our government is doing their best to take away our rights, but the only way they can do it is getting people to go along with it.
There are enough brain dead sheep that follow Obama that he might get it done unless the sheep smarten up and stop excusing everything he says or does.
If we go along, there will be nothing left


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Nothing is absolute. You can condescend to go split straws at somebody else about absolute and nothingness.


If your sentence, "nothing is absolute" is true, it is an absolute. That means something is absolute, which proves you wrong. So which is it? 

logic and feel good liberalism rarely coincide.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?


Everyone has guns?? really??


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> Everyone has guns?? really??


In the USA - yeah, pretty much every household where the householder has reached the age of majority and is qualified to own firearms has at least one firearm in the house. Then there's the millions of those who are not qualified but still possess firearms anyway. The people who are not qualified and/or do not possess firearms, such as minors (who make up 24% of the total population), convicted criminals and prisoners, mentally handicapped, and people who don't want to possess firearms, etc. are negligible in numbers by comparison with those who do possess them.

So - the majority of the population are in possession of firearms. My question is, how is this making the society a politer and safer society? 
Answer: It isn't.

Because the problem is not the firearms. The problem is society with or without the firearms.


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Because the problem is not the firearms. The problem is society with or without the firearms.


This is true. The heart of man is desperately wicked.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> In the USA - yeah, pretty much every household where the householder has reached the age of majority and is qualified to own firearms has at least one firearm in the house. Then there's the millions of those who are not qualified but still possess firearms anyway. The people who are not qualified and/or do not possess firearms, such as minors (who make up 24% of the total population), convicted criminals and prisoners, mentally handicapped, and people who don't want to possess firearms, etc. are negligible in numbers by comparison with those who do possess them.
> 
> So - the majority of the population are in possession of firearms. My question is, how is this making the society a politer and safer society?
> Answer: It isn't.
> ...


I suspect you are not getting this on purpose, but just in case...

less than 1% of the population of the US wears a firearm on any given day. Guns locked in a safe back home have nothing to do with the polite society philosophy. 

I've walked into grocery stores in Nevada wearing a sidearm because I had just come out of a shooting school. No one cares. I even asked the clerk how he felt about it and he was surprised I would ask such a question. He assumed I was one of the good guys and was happy to have such a person in the store. 

One of the guys in the class got pulled over for speeding and the cop, after checking the license had no issues, let him off and then curiously asked him what kind of gun he had sitting in the passenger seat. Reportedly they talked a few minutes about the relative merits of that particular gun and the school we were attending, before politely going their separate ways. 

Personally, I make every effort to be my most polite when armed, which is almost all the time I'm not in the shower, bed, swimming pool, post office, or school. I never want it said that I was the cause for escalating a problem to violence.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> *less than 1% of the population* of the US *wears a firearm* on any given day.
> 
> ..... when armed, *which is almost all the time* I'm not in the shower, bed, swimming pool, post office, or school. .....


Aside from the fact that you can - why do you wear it?


----------



## Peggy (Feb 14, 2010)

Paumon said:


> Everyone already has guns. How is that making people more polite?


NO, everyone does not already have a gun. there are many in this county that do not own guns!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Aside from the fact that you can - why do you wear it?


Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away! (sometimes much longer)
And as someone else's sig line says "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy"!

No, really, I carry because I value the lives of my friends and family. There's no way the police can protect us, the courts have ruled they don't have any obligation to do just that! That leaves it up to me, and just so you know, i have far more training than most cops will ever recieve.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Peggy said:


> NO, everyone does not already have a gun. there are many in this county that do not own guns!


See post # 80.


----------



## Malamute (Sep 15, 2011)

This may be a good start. does anyone think its a total coincidence that these shootings are as successful as they've been because they happen at places that doesn't allow anyone to be armed? That only works for the people that obey the rules, and ensures there wont be an effective response. In the cases that there was an SRO (School Resource Officer) or other armed person on the scene, the shooters generally stopped and ended up shooting themselves before getting any farther along. They are NOT looking for a fight, they are looking for soft targets and headlines.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> ..... I carry because *I value the lives of my friends and family*. There's no way the police can protect us, the courts have ruled they don't have any obligation to do just that! *That leaves it up to me*, ......


Okay. So how does you wearing a firearm protect your friends and family? Are your friends and family in your presence 24 hours a day? What exactly is it you are protecting them from?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> I'm not sure if I would consider gangbangers part of our "polite" society! And I'm pretty sure their NOT what I would consider responsible either! Gang members don't care about laws either, I don't see them giving up their weapons. ....ever, for any reason!


That was exactly my point.

Two truly "polite" people, will never need guns to protect themselves, from each other, anyway.

But our society has not be made of of polite people 100 years and yes, gang bangers are part of society.

How many people want to fight, when someone swipes their parking space at the mall? What happens when both are armed?

They both suddenly become "polite"?

Libya's society is pretty well armed and they don't tend to be all that polite. 

We are way past polite.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Okay. So how does you wearing a firearm protect your friends and family? Are your friends and family in your presence 24 hours a day? What exactly is it you are protecting them from?


My wife carries too! It gives me the ability to protect anyone who is around me, if I see fit! I don't have too do anything, but, I may choose too since I have that option. See, I was a boy scout, we were taught to be prepared. Later on in life, I had much better, more intensive training!

Here in America, insane politicians are letting violent criminals out of prison for no real reason other than it's mean to lock up these violent idiots, hoodlum gang criminals, basically anyone willing to jeopardize another's persons life or maybe property. Did you happen to see the guy on American news that was chased by cops in a car, then bailed on foot with a long gun, was up on a roof near a school? That was a few blocks from my house, and I live in what's considered a "nice neighborhood"! Things like that are reason enough! Oh, the guards at the Oakwood Middle School (private) were unarmed at the time, now they have new guards that are. They also have guards at the freeway now because some insane Prius driver who was to busy texting, ran the light at the bottom of the ramp and took 3, 14 year old girls out!

Crime happens, and I refuse to be a victim!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> That was exactly my point.
> 
> Two truly "polite" people, will never need guns to protect themselves, from each other, anyway.
> 
> ...


Well, since there are millions of law abiding citizens already carrying, your scenario doesn't seem to be happening much at all! What I see are criminals bent on committing crimes regardless of any laws, and they don't care about the victim because prison life ain't so bad to them!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> In the USA - yeah, pretty much every household where the householder has reached the age of majority and is qualified to own firearms has at least one firearm in the house. Then there's the millions of those who are not qualified but still possess firearms anyway. The people who are not qualified and/or do not possess firearms, such as minors (who make up 24% of the total population), convicted criminals and prisoners, mentally handicapped, and people who don't want to possess firearms, etc. are negligible in numbers by comparison with those who do possess them.
> 
> So - the majority of the population are in possession of firearms. My question is, how is this making the society a politer and safer society?
> Answer: It isn't.
> ...





Maybe you're right, simply because it's a hard fact to verify, but the surveys and polls have been consistent over the years.......slightly less than half the U.S. households have guns.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=u.s.+households+with+guns&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


As to the OP's question, a solution to the shootings and killings going on, it's been suggested already and known by some of us a long time.
Respect for your parents, school, friends, family and yes, your firearms as well.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> Maybe you're right, simply because it's a hard fact to verify, but the surveys and polls have been consistent over the years.......slightly less than half the U.S. households have guns.
> 
> http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=u.s.+households+with+guns&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


I suspect it's more like 75% of US households have guns just because not everyone is willing to respond to surveys and polls. Some won't respond for the sake of privacy. Others won't respond because they're tinfoil paranoids. And there's others who own prohibited firearms and others who aren't supposed to have any firearms for some reason and would be concerned about incriminating themselves by responding.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Aah! Cornhusker- don't lump divorced people into that lot dragging the country down. I resemble that remark and things aren't always what they seem to be. Besides my son's on the trap team and lettered for the two years he's been in.  He is a good kid (as is my daughter) and straight A students. We're not sending the country to you know where. I promise!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> I suspect it's more like 75% of US households have guns just because not everyone is willing to respond to surveys and polls. Some won't respond for the sake of privacy. Others won't respond because they're tinfoil paranoids. And there's others who own prohibited firearms and others who aren't supposed to have any firearms for some reason and would be concerned about incriminating themselves by responding.


I realize that's what you suspect, and I alluded to my own doubts about the absolute accuracy for the obvious reasons.
But ponder this logic in favor of believing that the true figure IS just about half and leaning towards a minority share rather than a solid majority.....

How would you explain the ability to pass and keep restrictive gun laws like they have in NYC, D.C., Chicago, L.A. etc?
If the big cities have most of the population, and the population is overwhelming gun owners and favor gun ownership, why wouldn't they just vote "No" on concealed carry restrictions, gun registrations, waiting periods, and all the rest?
Why would a simple majority have to put up a fight at all if they were in fact the large majority?
That doesn't make any sense does it?:shrug:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> I realize that's what you suspect, and I alluded to my own doubts about the absolute accuracy for the obvious reasons.
> But ponder this logic in favor of believing that the true figure IS just about half and leaning towards a minority share rather than a solid majority.....
> 
> How would you explain the ability to pass and keep restrictive gun laws like they have in NYC, D.C., Chicago, L.A. etc?
> ...


Do the restrictive gun laws in those big cities mean that the residents of those cities are prohibited from any kind of firearms ownership? I'm not talking about people carrying arms, I'm talking about ownership.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Aside from the fact that you can - why do you wear it?


See JeffreyD's post #85. I could not have said it better but I will add a bit more...

Like JD, I have significantly more training than the average cop. I put in more than 100 hours a year maintaining my skills and that does not include time spent at a computer making sure I haven't fallen behind on some legislation. I travel a lot so I have to know many states' laws. 

I've taken the same house clearing training the LA SWAT teams take, a house clearing class Marines take, too many concealed carry classes to count, advanced classes that are scenario based, like what to do if your vehicle is surrounded by armed thugs and other situations. I do it because it is fun, I meet like minded folks, and I view it as a serious responsibility to be prepared to help myself and others in the very unlikely event real life gets me in a bad guy shooter situation. 

Many cops only have to re-certify once a year and that will be the only time they do live fire. My bud runs a range where local cops come for tune up training if they can't pass their test. They will admit to zero training throughout the year. 

In a real life situation, even if the cops were near enough to do something, why would I trust my life and family to someone like that? I have no idea why people put such faith in cops. My nephew took a 6 month cop school last year and they did very little on firearm training. They spent a lot of time on the legalities of their own and perp firearms, but they were not trained in gun skills to as high a standard as Barney Fife.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> Do the restrictive gun laws in those big cities mean that the residents of those cities are prohibited from any kind of firearms ownership? I'm not talking about people carrying arms, I'm talking about ownership.



The simple answer is "Yes", but we both know I'd get slammed with some technicalities, sidetracked and discredited.
So I can only say that in the case of D.C. that was true until the SCOTUS ruling last year. (Heller) Yes, D.C. flat out banned them and the others make it as difficult as possible to buy and keep one.

But that wasn't the question was it?
It wasn't whether there were legal technicalities about permission to own, it was if your suspicions were indeed fact, that a vast majority (75%) of U.S. households were really gun owners, why would that majority allow a small minority to pass restrictive laws in the first place?


What I'm asking is, if the gun owners truly outnumber the non owners by such a large majority, why don't they just tell them to stuff their gun control laws and never have to worry about it again?
How could such a majority be opposed by a few gun control voters?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> Well, since there are millions of law abiding citizens already carrying, your scenario doesn't seem to be happening much at all! What I see are criminals bent on committing crimes regardless of any laws, and they don't care about the victim because prison life ain't so bad to them!


The crime rate for CCW/CCP holders is well below average. NYTimes reports that in NC, CCW holders commit violent crime ~80% less often than the general population and are convicted of drunk driving about ~84% less often. 

At every instance where concealed carry has been liberalized, the anti-gunners have cried there will be shooting in the streets, shooting in the bars, shooting in the parking lots. But real life experience has consistently shown this to be wrong. CCW holders are the real good guys.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> The simple answer is "Yes", but we both know I'd get slammed with some technicalities, sidetracked and discredited.
> So I can only say that in the case of D.C. that was true until the SCOTUS ruling last year. (Heller) Yes, D.C. flat out banned them and the others make it as difficult as possible to buy and keep one.


Just to be clear now, are you referring to all firearms or only to handguns?



> But that wasn't the question was it?
> It wasn't whether there were legal technicalities about permission to own, it was if your suspicions were indeed fact, that a vast majority (75%) of U.S. households were really gun owners, why would that majority allow a small minority to pass restrictive laws in the first place?


I think it's because the majority of people who are in favour of firearms ownership are not in favour of the general public carrying firearms.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Do the restrictive gun laws in those big cities mean that the residents of those cities are prohibited from any kind of firearms ownership? I'm not talking about people carrying arms, I'm talking about ownership.


Until the recent Heller and McDonald Supreme court decisions, yes, DC and Chicago prohibited certain firearms even in the home.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> Until the recent Heller and McDonald Supreme court decisions, yes, DC and Chicago prohibited certain firearms even in the home.


Certain firearms. Not all firearms, right?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Certain firearms. Not all firearms, right?


from wiki...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A disassembled gun or one locked in a safe provides safety only for the criminal breaking into the home.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Certain firearms. Not all firearms, right?


Google: dc shotgun shell arrest.

The man was arrested for having 1 mis- fired shell. His wife.......well, read the story! Ammunition is the next cause dejure! 

The few types of fire arms they had allowed had to be registered, and if you had a pistol holster or gun cleaning equipment, ammunition. ....you would be up the creek if you were caught. Mostly only criminals had guns, and their own crime stats proved their bans didn't work, but had the opposite effect, criminals weren't afraid of their potential victims anymore!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> In the USA - yeah, pretty much every household where the householder has reached the age of majority and is qualified to own firearms has at least one firearm in the house. Then there's the millions of those who are not qualified but still possess firearms anyway. The people who are not qualified and/or do not possess firearms, such as minors (who make up 24% of the total population), convicted criminals and prisoners, mentally handicapped, and people who don't want to possess firearms, etc. are negligible in numbers by comparison with those who do possess them.
> 
> *So - the majority of the population are in possession of firearms. My question is, how is this making the society a politer and safer society?
> Answer: It isn't.*
> ...


The premise above............


The answer below......



DEKE01 said:


> I suspect you are not getting this on purpose, but just in case...
> 
> less than 1% of the population of the US wears a firearm on any given day. Guns locked in a safe back home have nothing to do with the polite society philosophy.
> 
> ...



Funny how even when getting a ticket or intruding questions, we manage to be polite with that nice man with the gun on his belt huh?
ound:




farmrbrown said:


> The simple answer is "Yes", but we both know I'd get slammed with some technicalities, sidetracked and discredited.
> So I can only say that in the case of D.C. that was true until the SCOTUS ruling last year. (Heller) Yes, D.C. flat out banned them and the others make it as difficult as possible to buy and keep one.
> *
> But that wasn't the question was it?
> ...





Paumon said:


> Just to be clear now, are you referring to all firearms or only to handguns?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's because the majority of people who are in favour of firearms ownership are not in favour of the general public carrying firearms.






And as I predicted, when the premise was disproved, a sidetrack began.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> See JeffreyD's post #85. I could not have said it better but I will add a bit more...
> 
> Like JD, *I have significantly more training than the average cop. I put in more than 100 hours a year maintaining my skills and that does not include time spent at a computer making sure I haven't fallen behind on some legislation.* I travel a lot so *I have to know many states' laws*.
> 
> *I've taken the same house clearing training the LA SWAT teams take, a house clearing class Marines take, too many concealed carry classes to count, advanced classes that are scenario based,* like what to do if your vehicle is surrounded by armed thugs and other situations. I do it because it is fun, I meet like minded folks, and *I view it as a serious responsibility to be prepared to help myself and others* in the very unlikely event real life gets me in a bad guy shooter situation.......


I think this is admirable. You demonstrate that you are conscientious and responsible towards your society and that you take your rights to bear arms seriously.

If all people who want to own and carry firearms were required by law to do the same as you do then your country would have the makings of a well regulated militia as a bonus.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> And as I predicted, when the premise was disproved, a sidetrack began.


No sidetrack. I gave you my opinion, and will repeat it again. I think the majority of people who are in favour of firearms ownership are not in favour of the general public carrying firearms.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I think this is admirable. You demonstrate that you are conscientious and responsible towards your society and that you take your rights to bear arms seriously.
> 
> If all people who want to own and carry firearms were required by law to do the same as you do then your country would have the makings of a well regulated militia as a bonus.


You are correct! Unfortunately, most folks are too busy making a living to be able to afford the time and expense. For some of us, it's something that we take very seriously and, like working out, the more we practice, the better and more knowledgeable we become. Situational awareness doesn't come easily!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Paumon said:


> If all people who want to own and carry firearms were required by law to do the same as you do then your country


 vo



WE, AS A NATION WOULD. BE IN VIOLATION ON OUR CONSTITUTION. IT NOT CANADA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE PREPARED. In your country your view counts and try as you may,your view is nice to hear for discussion value but only voting g American s have standing on this issue. We have freedoms that some do not appreciate thus they are not valued by those lacking those freedoms. I can only express my pity that those who are barred from gun rights and ever face a situation where a gun was not in their toolbox and the job required a gun.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> As to the OP's question, a solution to the shootings and killings going on, it's been suggested already and known by some of us a long time.
> Respect for your parents, school, friends, family and yes, your firearms as well.





Paumon said:


> I think this is admirable. You demonstrate that you are conscientious and responsible towards your society and that you take your rights to bear arms seriously.
> 
> If all people who want to own and carry firearms were required by law to do the same as you do then your country would have the makings of a well regulated militia as a bonus.



How about that?
Differing viewpoints coming to the same conclusion.






Paumon said:


> No sidetrack. I gave you my opinion, and will repeat it again. I think the majority of people who are in favour of firearms ownership are not in favour of the general public carrying firearms.


And I agree with this as well, but not the statement you made about the majority in U.S. being gun owners. I think if that were true, the other situations wouldn't be the same either.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Perhaps if you all had a real organized militia it would solve some of those time and expense problems, as well as relieving some of the societal and law enforcement problems. To the best of my understanding there are State Defense Forces in some of the states but that's not the same thing as an organized (regulated) militia. I've always thought that the bearing of arms of a regulated militia was the real intent behind the 2nd amendment anyway, not that it was intended to apply to everyone.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Do not sweat YOUR misunderstanding of OUR rights as long as we know them it is all good.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> WE, AS A NATION WOULD. BE IN VIOLATION ON OUR CONSTITUTION. IT NOT CANADA. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE PREPARED. In your country your view counts and try as you may,your view is nice to hear for discussion value but only voting g American s have standing on this issue. We have freedoms that some do not appreciate thus they are not valued by those lacking those freedoms. I can only express my pity that those who are barred from gun rights and ever face a situation where a gun was not in their toolbox and the job required a gun.





kasilofhome said:


> Do not sweat YOUR misunderstanding of OUR rights as long as we know them it is all good.


I'm not interested in making comparisons or in talking or hearing about Canada or Canadian policies. Please don't respond to my posts by bringing Canada to my attention again in this topic because Canada is not relevant to my participation in this topic. Canada can go stuff it. Okay? Thank you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Being that non Americans points of view while entertaining, should be vetted for their understanding of the issues. To be vilified for standing up for our freedom by someone ....even if they have good intentions who does not accept that our founding fathers were clear for the intent why infringing arms was needed to remove our personal liberties. 

We also have the freedom of speech ....we do not have the freedom from being offened.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> I think this is admirable. You demonstrate that you are conscientious and responsible towards your society and that you take your rights to bear arms seriously.
> 
> If all people who want to own and carry firearms were required by law to do the same as you do then your country would have the makings of a well regulated militia as a bonus.


thanks, but just because I tend to the excessive when ever I get interested in something, that doesn't mean everyone can or should do the same. I spend 4 to 6 days, 8 - 12 hours a day, training in the desert near Vegas each year. I'll easily go through 1000 - 1200 rounds. That's roughly $250 for ammo and hotel, meals, and travel are additional. Not everyone has the time or money to do that. 

And it is not necessary for CCW holders. If CCWs were out there shooting up the mall, killing innocent bystanders left and right, I would understand your argument. But it doesn't happen. The average poorly trained CCW holder performs better than the average cop. Stats prove that CCWs fire far fewer rounds and score significantly more hits on target than cops do. One explanation for this is that CCWs tend to shoot with more reluctance, waiting until the attacker is slightly more than arms reach away. 

I found study that said CCWs fire on avg 2 shots and hit target 70% of the time. Chicago reports their cops hit the gunman about 20% of the time. LA reports that when 3 or more cops shoot, hit rates fall to 9%. NYC reported a 34% hit rate with an avg of 3.5 shots. If you want a safer America, arm more civilians and disarm the cops.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> I've always thought that the bearing of arms of a regulated militia was the real intent behind the 2nd amendment anyway, not that it was intended to apply to everyone.



In 8 instances, the constitution uses the phrase "the people" 

1. Preamble - "We* the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,..."

2. Article 1 - Section 2 - "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by *the People* of the several States,..."

3. Amendment I - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of *the people* peaceably to assemble, ..."

4. Amendment 2 - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of *the people* to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

5. Amendment 4 - "The right of *the people* to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..." 

6. Amendment 9 - "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by *the people*."

7. Amendment 10 - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to *the people*."

8. Amendment 17 - "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years"

A17 was adopted in 1913 so a century plus had passed since the first use of "the people" and note the consistency of meaning to all the prior uses. In A17, the CONS removed a state's right and gave it to individuals. In cases 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, "the people" clearly means individuals, citizens of the USA. It can't be read that the people means a collective group or a government organization. 

So how can "the people" mean the opposite of individuals, that is how can the people mean a government organized group or militia? In other words, 2A could read - because the gov't will want to raise a militia at times, individuals will have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Deke, I understand what you're saying and you won't get an argument from me about any of that - except that I don't think you're being excessive in your diligance. As you and Jeffrey have both mentioned, the problems with personal time and expenses involved to maintain such vigilance, as well as poor firearms training of law enforcers do pose a barrier. That is why I wonder if you had organized and supported militia that ccw's could be part of and train with regularly it might solve some of those time and expense problems, as well as relieving some of the societal and law enforcement problems and allaying some of the fears of people.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

DEKE01 said:


> In 8 instances, the constitution uses the phrase "the people"
> 
> 1. Preamble - "We* the People* of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,..."
> 
> ...





:hrm:.......
You mean, it's written so clearly that almost anyone can understand it?
Wow.
How many times have we heard this debate start with "The militia means...." instead of what the words "The people" means?
Basic English 101 isn't it?

Yes folks, as the 2nd amendment states, a well regulated militia is a good idea......strike that.........not just a good idea, but a necessity. (See the definition of "necessary")
And we have one, a darn good one too. The U.S. military is second to none.
That's settled, now to the second half of the amendment.:flameproofundies:

The Constitution is the guiding path for a great nation. It wasn't meant to be specific guidelines for your local PTA.
That's for YOU to handle.
Your kids not feeling safe on the way to school?
HANDLE IT.
How?
The methods have been given here on a silver platter.
Teach your kids respect and safety. If your neighbors are ignorant, try to educate them. Failing that, make sure they know that YOU know how to handle yourself and if they are are smart, they'll learn the same or stay out of the way!
Same goes all the way up the chain.
You were put here on this earth with the necessary abilities, now use them.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Paumon said:


> Aside from the fact that you can - why do you wear it?


Why do you have a fire extinguisher and wear a seatbelt?


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Aside from the fact that you can - why do you wear it?


 Because its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!!!:hammer:


----------



## Cookie2 (Feb 21, 2014)

I didn't read all the replies and I'm just posting to point out ...

Media hype aside, the number of school shooting is actually DECLINING.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Cookie2 said:


> I didn't read all the replies and I'm just posting to point out ...
> 
> Media hype aside, the number of school shooting is actually DECLINING.


Don't tell the Obama fans, they'll get a nosebleed. :hysterical:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Don't feed the trolls.
> 
> The OP has another thread on the home defense/gun forum starting out asking a "serious" question about gun laws, and in his third post blasted the respondents, showing his true colors.
> 
> ...


Funny how some of you define troll as "someone who disagrees with me". 

One would hope you would want to be represented by someone other than the nutjobs with AKs at Starbucks. Obviously not.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Cookie2 said:


> I didn't read all the replies and I'm just posting to point out ...
> 
> Media hype aside, the number of school shooting is actually DECLINING.


Do you actually have something to prove that? I would think just the last couple of weeks would have blown that statistic out of the water.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Funny how some of you define troll as "someone who disagrees with me".
> 
> One would hope you would want to be represented by someone other than the nutjobs with AKs at Starbucks. Obviously not.



He actually pointed out some other posts on another thread that backed up the trolling accusation pretty well. It wasn't simply a case of being an opposition opinion.
I've been naive before when someone seemed to innocently ask for opinions or suggestions only to see that they didn't really want to know anything of the sort, just to see if they could make a fool out of someone or better yet, get them mad and in trouble with the moderators.:catfight:

"Why that's a very presumptuous statement for you to make!"
Uh huh......

Similar thread, similar question, asking gun owners how they would fix the problem or reason it out.
In this thread, not one reply in 5 pages of good suggestions and debate.
Seem odd to you?
Or is my tin foil on too tight?:gaptooth::kiss:






Patchouli said:


> Do you actually have something to prove that? I would think just the last couple of weeks would have blown that statistic out of the water.



http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/are-school-homicides-becoming-the-norm

But maybe that isn't the best thing to be measuring in the first place. The Oregon incident isn't a "mass" shooting at all&#8212;the gunman killed two people, and one of those was himself&#8212;but it obviously speaks to the same sorts of fear and grief. If your son was just shot, after all, it's hardly a comfort that his classmates survived. A map darting around the Internet this week claims to show all the school shootings since Sandy Hook. Note the modifier: school, not mass.

So how frequently are people killed at school? The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) keeps a running count of such homicides, with "at school" defined to include deaths not just on school property but "while the victim was on the way to or from regular sessions at school or while the victim was attending or traveling to or from an official school-sponsored event." You might quibble about whether those off-campus killings belong in this category, but still, it's a straightforward definition that doesn't get bogged down in how many people die in one attack or, for that matter, what weapon was used to murder them.

As it happens, the bureau published a new report on school violence this month. Here is the relevant chart:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Do you actually have something to prove that? I would think just the last couple of weeks would have blown that statistic out of the water.


This article

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/13/everytown-gun-safety/have-there-been-74-school-shootings-sandy-hook-clo/

says that avg school homicides has remained flat for the past two decades. With our population increase, that is a percentage decline. 

This Wiki cite is not all inclusive. I know of a teacher killed in Palm Beach COunty, FL in the mid 90s that didn't make the list. But it does show that school shootings are nothing new. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

I'm not trying to minimize school violence, but I do think that the media tends to hype it. I do think something needs to be done. Lots of teachers are former military. Let's give them some training and arm them.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

TripleD said:


> Ok I had time to cool down after my snarkey comment. I graduated high scool in 82. We didnt have all these shootings back then so whats changed ? I carried up to 3 guns in my pickup during hunting season.
> 
> 24 hour news , more violent movies and video games , prescription drugs being handed out like candy. If its not any of that it must be in the water.
> 
> I got my first gun at 10 years old and my brother at 8. We hunted every day during the season just us. Do that today and you would lose your kids.


I think it is because of a lot of influences. Schools are bigger breeding cliques and sometimes adversarial cliques.

Huge amount of peer pressure.

Parents lack of involvement in school.

Kids being in school that don't want to be there, or don't fit there, and those that are forced to be there.

Drugs. Of course.

Video games maybe, be desensitized to death and carnage might play a small part in the psyche of a young undeveloped mind. Now throw in Hollywood. Oh boy!

Less respect for God's laws.

Lots of failings.

Hard problem to solve. Maybe it can't be solved.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> The "media" (propaganda machine) sensationalizes shootings. A shooter that just shot one person is now a mass shooting, the "president" goes on TV, stands on the bodies of the dead and pretends to care.
> The gullible get wound up and thanks to the misinformation, they believe anyone with a gun is a potential killer and should be punished.
> What's changed is we no longer run the country, our children are being taught they can do anything they want, have anything they want, and they can have it right now.
> The leftists have taken God from the schools, taught evolution as a fact, not a theory, bow to illegals and as you said, they hand out drugs like candy.
> ...


It does sell a LOT of newspapers, metaphorically speaking.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Jesus is the lamb of God.
> 
> With that in mind say the poem. Mary had a little lamb.
> 
> Then think about that.


I never caught that. I LIKE that.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

dlmcafee said:


> This appeared a little over a year ago,I guess all those liberal gun control people do not read their own news sources.
> 
> Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/
> ...


Oops, forgot that part..


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Oggie said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> It might go a little both ways.
> 
> ...


Let me know where you find packaged wisdom. I am going to buy lots of them. Two for me, and I will give them as Christmas and birthday presents to my friends.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> In the USA - yeah, pretty much every household where the householder has reached the age of majority and is qualified to own firearms has at least one firearm in the house. Then there's the millions of those who are not qualified but still possess firearms anyway. The people who are not qualified and/or do not possess firearms, such as minors (who make up 24% of the total population), convicted criminals and prisoners, mentally handicapped, and people who don't want to possess firearms, etc. are negligible in numbers by comparison with those who do possess them.
> 
> So - the majority of the population are in possession of firearms. My question is, how is this making the society a politer and safer society?
> Answer: It isn't.
> ...


I talk to people every day that have never shot a gun and do not own a gun.


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Funny how some of you define troll as "someone who disagrees with me".


Not at all, in truth I enjoy opposing opinions. They're fun! Sort of like a high, slow, curve ball right over the plate.

I define a troll as someone who:
1. Starts a controversial thread, and never comes back to it.
2. Misrepresents the purpose of the thread question.

There are very few trolls on this site, in my opinion, but they do need to be called out to forewarn others who might take their thread seriously.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes folks, as the 2nd amendment states, *a well regulated militia is a good idea......strike that.........not just a good idea, but a necessity*. (See the definition of "necessary")
> And we have one, a darn good one too. The U.S. military is second to none.
> That's settled, ......





DEKE01 said:


> ......I do think something needs to be done. Lots of teachers are *former military. Let's give them some training and arm them*.


Why is militia a dirty word to people when the subject of civilians bearing arms comes up? Is it because militia is considered an unpaid civil service and if they don't get paid for their service then it's not worth the civil responsibility?

The military is not militia. It doesn't equate. It's an entirely different entity with different responsibilities. The same thing goes for National Guard and State Defense Services. It is not militia. America does not have a regulated militia but to all intents and purposes of the constitution it is REQUIRED to have one. But it doesn't. Militia is a dirty word that people who support the bearing of arms shy away from the mention of it and they won't even discuss its potential service. 

If lots of teachers are former military then why not have them also be members of militia? If there are lots of other former military who are not teachers and are otherwise not employed then why not have many of them be trained militia members protecting schools?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Paumon said:


> Why is militia a dirty word to people when the subject of civilians bearing arms comes up? Is it because militia is considered an unpaid civil service and if they don't get paid for their service then it's not worth the civil responsibility?
> 
> The military is not militia. It doesn't equate. It's an entirely different entity with different responsibilities. The same thing goes for National Guard and State Defense Services. It is not militia. America does not have a regulated militia but to all intents and purposes of the constitution it is REQUIRED to have one. But it doesn't. Militia is a dirty word that people who support the bearing of arms shy away from the mention of it and they won't even discuss its potential service.
> 
> If lots of teachers are former military then why not have them also be members of militia. If there are lots of other former military who are not teachers and are otherwise not employed then why not have many of them be trained militia members protecting schools?




Well now, that post explained a lot to me in terms of why some feel the way they do about the 2nd amendment.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Why is militia a dirty word to people when the subject of civilians bearing arms comes up? Is it because militia is considered an unpaid civil service and if they don't get paid for their service then it's not worth the civil responsibility?
> 
> The military is not militia. It doesn't equate. It's an entirely different entity with different responsibilities. The same thing goes for National Guard and State Defense Services. It is not militia. America does not have a regulated militia but to all intents and purposes of the constitution it is REQUIRED to have one. But it doesn't. Militia is a dirty word that people who support the bearing of arms shy away from the mention of it and they won't even discuss its potential service.
> 
> If lots of teachers are former military then why not have them also be members of militia? If there are lots of other former military who are not teachers and are otherwise not employed then why not have many of them be trained militia members protecting schools?


Militita has taken on some negative implications due to articles such as this one from ABC News.
>>>>>>>>>
The number of radical hate groups and militias has exploded in recent years in reaction to the changing makeup of America, and new census figures showing the majority of babies born in 2011 were non-white could fuel those simmering tensions, experts who track hate groups warned.
>>>>>>>>>

Somehow armed racists have become militias. That was not the intent of the word in 1787.

Whether you call it a militia or not, many NRA types have called for training and arming teachers. The single greatest limiting factor to mass shootings is the arrival of the second gun. In most cases, as soon as the second gun arrives, there is immediately one more death, that of the murderer, either at his own hand or the second gunman. So having armed teachers would be a help. 

ETA: There is a good chance that teachers who are former active duty military are in the militia, AKA National Guard. I don't know if it is still true, but typical enlistments used to be for 8 years, which would include perhaps 4 years of active duty and 4 years in the inactive reserves. Being in the inactive reserves meant you could be recalled to active duty by order of the president (someone please confirm that's how it works).

Many schools have armed cops and people aren't bothered by that whereas a militia of armed civilians would. It is all perception. Somehow, many folks have come to believe that cops are somehow a superior being that can do things that us ordinary mortals can not. The benefit of armed teachers, is that they are closer to the kids and it is a better deterrence when perps do not know who is armed.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> The military is not militia. It doesn't equate. It's an entirely different entity with different responsibilities. The same thing goes for National Guard and State Defense Services. It is not militia.


That is your opinion and not in keeping with the modern definition of militia. Prior to WW1, a militia was civilians who knew how to use guns and could be called up, trained to march for a week, and a country had a supplemental armed force. As technology increased and training cycles became months and even years, National Guard and Reserve forces became the militia. They actively serve two weeks a summer and one weekend a month unless called to duty because of a national emergency such as a major hurricane or service in wartime.


From Wiki>>>

_The National Guard of the United States, part of the reserve components of the United States Armed Forces, is a reserve military force, composed of National Guard military members or units of each state and the territories of Guam, of the Virgin Islands, and of Puerto Rico, as well as of the District of Columbia, for a total of 54 separate organizations. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. Â§ 311. The majority of National Guard soldiers and airmen hold a civilian job full-time while serving part-time as a National Guard member.[1][2] These part-time guardsmen are augmented by a full-time cadre of Active Guard & Reserve (AGR) personnel in both the Army National Guard and Air National Guard, plus Army Reserve Technicians in the Army National Guard and Air Reserve Technicians (ART) in the Air National Guard._


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Thanks. That does clarify some questions for me.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Militias are also a state right issue as the were under the state control and were ....are not to be under control of the Fed real government. Alaska has a national guard AND an active militia. The fed has nothing to do with our militia. It is not a hidden group it is part of our st ate constitution. Guns are not provided training is. On group is active in our brought. Typical everyday business owners and a true cross section of people belong to it to various degrees of activity. The training is what they seem to stress. Guns are very need here due to our lifestyle. No pay.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> Militias are also a state right issue as the were under the state control and were ....are not to be under control of the Fed real government. Alaska has a national guard AND an active militia. The fed has nothing to do with our militia. It is not a hidden group it is part of our st ate constitution. Guns are not provided training is. On group is active in our brought. Typical everyday business owners and a true cross section of people belong to it to various degrees of activity. The training is what they seem to stress. Guns are very need here due to our lifestyle. No pay.


That makes a lot of sense for Alaska since in many cases, LEOs can be hours away. I wish every state had something similar. It doesn't sound all that different in concept than volunteer fire depts.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> Militias are also a state right issue as the were under the state control and were ....are not to be under control of the Fed real government. Alaska has a national guard AND an active militia. The fed has nothing to do with our militia. It is not a hidden group it is part of our st ate constitution. Guns are not provided training is. On group is active in our brought. Typical everyday business owners and a true cross section of people belong to it to various degrees of activity. The training is what they seem to stress. Guns are very need here due to our lifestyle. No pay.


Exactly! That is precisely the kind of militia I was talking about and what has always been my understanding of it being intended to be. Kudoes to Alaska!


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

Our culture is sick. When a child experiences trauma, the school counselor shoves crayons and a piece of paper(crappy paper to boot) and sez "draw what you feel". The child wants a hug and just to know that the good things the child knows of still exists. The child doesn't get that hug, and sez "screw that" and draws a clown with its head cut off with lots of blood to get the counselor's goat.

The kids are screaming and we can't hear them. We drug them so they shut up and sit still, and hammer them with behavioral expectations so they turn out alright and we don't have to explain ourselves. Everyone is disconnected. 

On the other hand thank God for people that have figured this out and got out of the dang box of this culture and are the change of love. How many times does a real smile save a life? The joke's on us...we'll never know. There but for the grace of God go we. Escape the clockwork orange.


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Paumon said:


> In the USA - yeah, pretty much every household where the householder has reached the age of majority and is qualified to own firearms has at least one firearm in the house. Then there's the millions of those who are not qualified but still possess firearms anyway. The people who are not qualified and/or do not possess firearms, such as minors (who make up 24% of the total population), convicted criminals and prisoners, mentally handicapped, and people who don't want to possess firearms, etc. are negligible in numbers by comparison with those who do possess them.
> 
> So - the majority of the population are in possession of firearms. My question is, how is this making the society a politer and safer society?
> Answer: It isn't.
> ...


 I for one have noticed that there are a lot more self defense shootings and it has caused home invasions to fall off a bit. The police are beginning to not be so anxious to arrest someone for defending themselves. I think the real reason is because there is less paperwork LOL.


----------



## Reboopie (Sep 12, 2013)

The biggest issue is as a society children are no longer parented. Everyone is special and the most important person in the world. Most children are taught that if the "throw a fit" they will get what they want. Discipline is no longer used. 

Everyone gets a trophy, children are taught that they are great and can do everything. It is not realistic, I learned early on I wasn't good at baseball/softball I wanted to play my parents let me and when it became clear I sucked, the other kids let me know. My parents told me to try something else since baseball wasn't my thing. Now no matter how bad a child is at something they get a trophy and are told they are Great. 

If you choose to have children someone needs to stay home and raise them. I don't care if it is the mother or father but someone needs to be at home with kids. 

Teach children Consequences for their actions. If you break something you have to fix it or replace it. Saying sorry doesn't cut it. 

Allow children to be angry and learn to resolve the problem. How many times did each of us hate our best friend, then the next day be best friends again. Now if a child hates someone and doesn't want to play with another child they are being a bully, parents get involved and do not allow children to resolve conflict. 

Lack of parenting and responsibility lead to the issues we have in our society.


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

HDRider said:


> I think it is because of a lot of influences. Schools are bigger breeding cliques and sometimes adversarial cliques.
> 
> Huge amount of peer pressure.
> 
> ...


Sure it can be solved! :sarcasm: Just give every kid a trophy! Lmao


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Being that non Americans points of view while entertaining, should be vetted for their understanding of the issues. To be vilified for standing up for our freedom by someone ....even if they have good intentions who does not accept that our founding fathers were clear for the intent why infringing arms was needed to remove our personal liberties.
> 
> We also have the freedom of speech ....we do not have the freedom from being offened.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Funny how some of you define troll as "someone who disagrees with me".
> 
> One would hope you would want to be represented by someone other than the nutjobs with AKs at Starbucks. Obviously not.


And I would hope that most would want to be represented by someone other than a flaming liberal.


----------



## calliesue (Sep 5, 2009)

By the time I read all the posts I have almost forgotten what I wanted to say. 
However... I know lots of people who don't own guns, so I am not sure where the 50 % or 75% stats come from.
I think the polite society might come from the idea that if I think my neighbor has a gun, I might be less inclined to be a rude jerk. (hopefully I wouldn't be anyway)
People might shy away from the idea of a militia because of the bad rap militias get, and the fact that being in one can get you on a watch list.
Mostly though my rights do not come from the government. The government wants to control people and take away rights.They are not righteous and benign, so I do not trust the government to safeguard me or my family or my rights.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Ozarks Tom said:


> Not at all, in truth I enjoy opposing opinions. They're fun! Sort of like a high, slow, curve ball right over the plate.
> 
> I define a troll as someone who:
> 1. Starts a controversial thread, and never comes back to it.
> ...


It's possible she came back and found all the responses so depressing she couldn't bring herself to reply. That was pretty much my reaction. Seems to me all she was looking for was a bit of common sense and all she got was the standard better not take my guns, 'Murica one instead.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> It's possible she came back and found all the responses so depressing she couldn't bring herself to reply. That was pretty much my reaction. Seems to me all she was looking for was a bit of common sense and all she got was the standard better not take my guns, 'Murica one instead.


If someone has common sense, they won't try to take weapons!!!


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> This article
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...here-been-74-school-shootings-sandy-hook-clo/
> 
> ...



Okay on the first link there were 74 school shootings. Literally there were 74 shootings at schools. While I understand their quibble over what the popular notion of a school shooting today is it does not negate the facts. It's strange that we have reached a point now where facts can no longer stand as facts we have to judge them through a political spin lens. 

I do think that certain types of violence are growing. I don't remember ever hearing of a school shooting when I was a kid. They may have happened but I never heard of it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Okay on the first link there were 74 school shootings. Literally there were 74 shootings at schools. While I understand their quibble over what the popular notion of a school shooting today is it does not negate the facts. It's strange that we have reached a point now where facts can no longer stand as facts we have to judge them through a political spin lens.
> 
> I do think that certain types of violence are growing. I don't remember ever hearing of a school shooting when I was a kid. They may have happened but I never heard of it.


We had shootings by gang members back in the early 70's. Many stabbings, also gang related. The biggest killer of kids at school was when a teacher set off a bomb....Bath School Bombing. That was way back! Facts are spun to fit a certain agenda, and mostly it's done by liberals and the groups they support. 

What has changed that has caused this "increase"?


----------



## sonofthunder (Apr 10, 2014)

Flip Wilson who was a brilliant Comedian back in the day when one could watch TV and never have to view the type of crap that's on today, had as part of his schtick the bit, "The devil made me do it."

Well in today's society, it's the gun that makes the bad guys kill the good guys. Meaning that we have grown or digressed in to a society that blames everything or everyone ELSE for our screw ups. So let's take a look at the problems...

First, the problem starts with the liberal bleeding heart judges NOT upholding the laws that are already on the books that actually are very stiff for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. Do the Crime, Do the time....ALL OF IT. Harm someone with a gun, then the sentence should be doubled without the possibility of parole.

The solution is quite simple, ENFORCE the laws that are ALREADY strict and on the books. Maximum sentencing for any crime that involves a firearm....

Stop watching the news....once the viewership starts dropping, the revenue shrinks and when the revenue starts shrinking, there will be sudden attack of conscience and less of the BS will be bantered about. 

Make it a federal prosecutable crime for any news source that is NOT owned by the Government to publish ANY piece that favors one political entity over the other. It should be illegal for ANY news source to publish only bits of truth and only one side of the debate.

Simply by enforcing the gun laws that are already and have long been in place, these mass shootings will decrease exponentially. 

Btw I would like for all to take a close look at where these shootings take place. While not ALL of the mass killings take place in Liberal leaning cities, the vast majority of them do. In the states where conservatism reigns, these shootings take place where guns are not allowed.....So take a look, compare the whats, wheres, whens, whys and hows and you will see a dominant and clear pattern.....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

if someone lives in America, and understands the constitution,they would understand that gun rights are a gift of necessary presented to us from men who knew trying time from a government that was over bearing, and financially enslaving the citizens via laws and the equal equivalent of regulations. Those men were wise enough to write a list of things and actions that would aid is preserving freedom to be try and succeed in private and community goals.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Let me just say one more time: no one thinks the gun made anyone do anything. What we know for a fact is that a gun can kill a whole lot more people than most any other weapon. Cutting down on the number of guns in the hands of felons and mentally ill people would cut down on the number of mass shootings and deaths in this country.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> *Cutting down on the number of guns in the hands of felons and mentally ill people* would cut down on the number of mass shootings and deaths


That's the dilemma. How can that be done?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Paumon said:


> That's the dilemma. How can that be done?


First tighten up the laws around selling guns. Everyone gets a background check no matter who or where they buy from. Yes there will always be a black market but most of the recent shooters bought from a store. 

Second tighten up reporting of mental illness. Someone on multiple meds and routinely seeing a psychiatrist should not be able to buy a gun. That covers every major shooter except the Las Vegas one for the last several years that I can think of off the top of my head. 

Third the police have to be more diligent when someone is reported to them. In the case of the Santa Barbara shooter and the Las Vegas shooter both were visited by police and considered too well mannered to be a problem. A quick Google would have painted a dramatically different story on both of them.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Patchouli said:


> First tighten up the laws around selling guns. Everyone gets a background check no matter who or where they buy from. Yes there will always be a black market but most of the recent shooters bought from a store.
> 
> Second tighten up reporting of mental illness. Someone on multiple meds and routinely seeing a psychiatrist should not be able to buy a gun. *That covers every major shooter except the Las Vegas one for the last several years that I can think of off the top of my head. *
> 
> Third the police have to be more diligent when someone is reported to them. In the case of the Santa Barbara shooter and the Las Vegas shooter both were visited by police and considered too well mannered to be a problem. A quick Google would have painted a dramatically different story on both of them.


I don't think it would have covered Lanza and the Sandy Hook tragedy. He used his mother's guns, at least that's what it said in the media. She made a huge mistake in allowing him to have access, and she paid for that mistake with her life. Hopefully anyone else with a mental patent living in their house will take heed after what happened to her and at the school.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> It's possible she came back and found all the responses so depressing she couldn't bring herself to reply. That was pretty much my reaction. Seems to me all she was looking for was a bit of common sense and all she got was the standard better not take my guns, 'Murica one instead.


Bull. There was lots of common sense, just none that the gun haters like to hear. You might not agree with arming teachers, and it may be an imperfect approach, yet it is a common sense solution that no one has bettered. Libs seem to be OK with armed cops in the schools, so why not teachers? 

Yes, the thread did drift across several related topics, like militias vs Nat Guard, but that's what threads do in HT.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Okay on the first link there were 74 school shootings. Literally there were 74 shootings at schools. While I understand their quibble over what the popular notion of a school shooting today is it does not negate the facts. It's strange that we have reached a point now where facts can no longer stand as facts we have to judge them through a political spin lens.
> 
> I do think that certain types of violence are growing. I don't remember ever hearing of a school shooting when I was a kid. They may have happened but I never heard of it.


Bull again. Literally there were not 74 shootings at schools, some of those shootings were on streets near schools, some of the shooting were accidental discharges, at least one of which was by a cop, 6 were suicides. The number is misleading and reading the first link will tell you why. No need for me to repeat it here, because you've already ignored it once. 

The fact that you didn't hear of shootings as a kid is not all that accurate of an indicator. You were a kid, did you watch the news? Did you watch one of the 5 or 6 24 hour cable news shows? I don't know how old you are, but they probably did not exist when you were a kid. And if you did not ignore the second link I posted, you would see a list of school shootings by decade. It is nothing new. 

There is no need to lie about the number of school shootings. One is too many and one is enough for me to know that gun free school zones are not the answer. That is a common sense solution you wanted to hear about, isn't it? Gun free zones not only do not work, they actually invite more crime. See Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, in addition to all the school shootings.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> First tighten up the laws around selling guns. Everyone gets a background check no matter who or where they buy from. Yes there will always be a black market but most of the recent shooters bought from a store.
> 
> Second tighten up reporting of mental illness. Someone on multiple meds and routinely seeing a psychiatrist should not be able to buy a gun. That covers every major shooter except the Las Vegas one for the last several years that I can think of off the top of my head.
> 
> Third the police have to be more diligent when someone is reported to them. In the case of the Santa Barbara shooter and the Las Vegas shooter both were visited by police and considered too well mannered to be a problem. A quick Google would have painted a dramatically different story on both of them.


I'm told California has some of the toughest background checks in the country, they also ban lots of gun types and limit mag size. He had FORTY ONE LOADED MAGAZINES. Gov't screws up, laws do not stop determined criminals or the criminally insane. Even if we could come up with a workable plan to address your 3 points, there still needs to be a good guy, armed with a gun, right where he is needed when a bad guy strikes - hence the teacher idea.

There is a problem asking the gov't to limit rights due to mental illness. Homeland Security has already declared that some vets, people who are anti big gov't or pro third party candidates, and those who display anti-abortion bumper stickers may be potential "right-wing extremists". Lately we've seen big gov't in action, NSA spying, IRS targeting conservative groups and individuals, Obama-care website lacking basic security measures to prevent the loss of private medical data. Do you really want gov't deciding behind closed doors who gets to keep and who loses their rights? 

Stalin had all sorts of people sent to gulags for the mental illness of not thinking he and his version of communism were heaven sent. I do not trust our gov't to always do the right thing. No one should lose their right without due process.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

DEKE01 - Thanks for saying what I wish I could have said.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> It's possible she came back and found all the responses so depressing she couldn't bring herself to reply. That was pretty much my reaction. Seems to me all she was looking for was a bit of common sense and all she got was the standard better not take my guns, 'Murica one instead.


Really? Funny, I got statistics showing armed folks have fewer killings in their societies.
Ever see that sign saying something to this effect: "This school is protected by armed teachers/janitors/principals"? I don't remember the wording but betcha its more effective than: "Gun Free Zone" where no one can defend the kids/teachers.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Bull again. Literally there were not 74 shootings at schools, some of those shootings were on streets near schools, some of the shooting were accidental discharges, at least one of which was by a cop, 6 were suicides. The number is misleading and reading the first link will tell you why. No need for me to repeat it here, because you've already ignored it once.
> 
> The fact that you didn't hear of shootings as a kid is not all that accurate of an indicator. You were a kid, did you watch the news? Did you watch one of the 5 or 6 24 hour cable news shows? I don't know how old you are, but they probably did not exist when you were a kid. And if you did not ignore the second link I posted, you would see a list of school shootings by decade. It is nothing new.
> 
> There is no need to lie about the number of school shootings. One is too many and one is enough for me to know that gun free school zones are not the answer. That is a common sense solution you wanted to hear about, isn't it? Gun free zones not only do not work, they actually invite more crime. See Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, in addition to all the school shootings.


This needs to be read over&over&over by those who want stricter gun control as well as more laws that will do nada.

IF those who have noticed there's more shootings now than 60 yrs ago, what has changed?
Back then if you wanted to wank to school w/shotgun to go hunt later, you could. 
Back then were there MORE laws? 
Back then were there more single mom families or less? 
Back then was the out of wedlock birth rate 72% in many communities?
Back then were there nearly 50% of the country on some sort of gov't assistance?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Let me just say one more time: no one thinks the gun made anyone do anything. What we know for a fact is that a gun can kill a whole lot more people than most any other weapon. *Cutting down on the number of guns in the hands of felons and mentally ill people* would cut down on the number of mass shootings and deaths in this country.


I am pretty sure we dont allow prisoners or patients in mental hospitals the use of guns. Both felons and mental patients need to locked up securely.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> I don't think it would have covered Lanza and the Sandy Hook tragedy. He used his mother's guns, at least that's what it said in the media. She made a huge mistake in allowing him to have access, and she paid for that mistake with her life. Hopefully anyone else with a mental patent living in their house will take heed after what happened to her and at the school.


True. I still don't understand why she didn't get rid of them or store them more securely.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> Bull again. Literally there were not 74 shootings at schools, some of those shootings were on streets near schools, some of the shooting were accidental discharges, at least one of which was by a cop, 6 were suicides. The number is misleading and reading the first link will tell you why. No need for me to repeat it here, because you've already ignored it once.
> 
> The fact that you didn't hear of shootings as a kid is not all that accurate of an indicator. You were a kid, did you watch the news? Did you watch one of the 5 or 6 24 hour cable news shows? I don't know how old you are, but they probably did not exist when you were a kid. And if you did not ignore the second link I posted, you would see a list of school shootings by decade. It is nothing new.
> 
> There is no need to lie about the number of school shootings. One is too many and one is enough for me to know that gun free school zones are not the answer. That is a common sense solution you wanted to hear about, isn't it? Gun free zones not only do not work, they actually invite more crime. See Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, in addition to all the school shootings.


I did read your links, if you give me a link I will read it even if I have issues with the source. Maybe I should make the statement a little tighter and say they all involved guns being fired on school grounds? That is about as hyperliteral as I can go.



> We reviewed news reports for all 74 shootings and did our best to sort them into five categories. Hereâs our breakdown. (See individual shootings by category here, with clickable links to news reports on each shooting.)
> â¢ _Incidents such as Sandy Hook or Columbine in which the shooter intended to commit mass murder_: 10 instances
> â¢ _Incidents related to criminal activity (such as drug dealing or robbery), or personal altercations_: 39 instances
> â¢ _Incidents unconnected to members of school community and/or that took place outside school hours_: 16 instances
> ...


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...here-been-74-school-shootings-sandy-hook-clo/

Let's look at that Wiki link you posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

It's only 2014 and the 2010's are racking up shootings like crazy. There are more in there than there were when I was in school. Then look at the list of school attacks. One in 1927 and then none until 1966. 3 in the 70's, 5 in the 80's, 25 in the 90s, 44 in the 2000s, and 68 so far in the 10s. I would say this decade will be a banner one. 

When I was in grade school we had 4 TV stations and the television still went off the air every night. I agree that the 24/7 news cycle blows a lot of things out of proportion these days.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Seems to me all she was looking for was a bit of common sense and all she got was the standard better not take my guns, 'Murica one instead.


Ok.... lets look at "common sense" for a moment. Our nations founders had quite a bit of common sense when they formed the country in my opinion.... and went to extra lengths to ensure that our citizens would have the right to keep and bear arms.... without infringement. This shows up not only in our nations Constitution, but in numerous state Constitutions as well. Maybe the anti gun folks think we would be a better nation today had George Washington not been allowed to carry? I await to hear how disarming our country makes any sense.... common or otherwise. So far all I have been hearing is that guns kill people. Funny thing is, my guns dont kill anyone... they sit right there in the cabinet minding their own business until I pick them up.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> I'm told California has some of the toughest background checks in the country, they also ban lots of gun types and limit mag size. He had FORTY ONE LOADED MAGAZINES. Gov't screws up, laws do not stop determined criminals or the criminally insane. Even if we could come up with a workable plan to address your 3 points, there still needs to be a good guy, armed with a gun, right where he is needed when a bad guy strikes - hence the teacher idea.
> 
> There is a problem asking the gov't to limit rights due to mental illness. Homeland Security has already declared that some vets, people who are anti big gov't or pro third party candidates, and those who display anti-abortion bumper stickers may be potential "right-wing extremists". Lately we've seen big gov't in action, NSA spying, IRS targeting conservative groups and individuals, Obama-care website lacking basic security measures to prevent the loss of private medical data. Do you really want gov't deciding behind closed doors who gets to keep and who loses their rights?
> 
> Stalin had all sorts of people sent to gulags for the mental illness of not thinking he and his version of communism were heaven sent. I do not trust our gov't to always do the right thing. No one should lose their right without due process.


Just the one thought on the mags: in the hands of a true professional large mags vs. small won't really matter. In a case like this kid the time to reload might be the window needed to take him down. (he was in a car, yada yada, I think you can get my point)

On the mental illness I hear you and I agree. It is a very serious concern. I know there are already Vets who won't seek help because of concerns over labels and tying gun ownership to a mental diagnoses would be even more detrimental. It would have to be done very carefully. 

Currently our laws are very much in favor of the mentally ill. The pendulum has swung very far from the days anyone could be locked up for almost any reason and for any amount of time. In most ways that is a good thing but in some not so much. If you talk to families struggling with a mentally ill family member they are often frustrated because they can not do anything or get them the help they need so long as the person refuses it and a person who quit their meds will pretty much always refuse it. 

We have seen an increase these days in mentally ill people being killed by the police because they are on the streets or the family calls for help and the police over react. Our current system is not working either. 

I don't have a grand solution it is complicated. But I don't think that means we should not try to help in some way.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Patch...can one have common sense and still fall under t be mentally ill umbrella? 

So many illness do fall under mental illness. And the government health care and just the way test the paper work forces a coding for classification

Dealing with rape
Death in the family
Getting married
Having a baby
moving
Going away to college
Witness a shocking event
Lose a job
Can not sleep
Over weight
Etc

All of these life event could trigger link your name, ssn, medical chart number to you preferred to requesting a councler. And with the violation of the privacy of you medical records ......I read medical stuff ....hipa is really just about not allowing parents and family from knowing and being involved. Just about every governmental clause has been used to allow them in to you records. P


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Dealing with rape
> Death in the family
> Getting married
> Having a baby
> ...


Ok, all of the above "life events" other than the rape thing are pretty much normal life events that reasonable people deal with on a regular basis without "going off the deep end". I would also point out that most rape victims are able to deal with those issues without losing their grip on reality. Why on earth should these types of things "trigger" anything? What ever happened to "get over it already". :shrug:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, all of the above "life events" other than the rape thing are pretty much normal life events that reasonable people deal with on a regular basis without "going off the deep end". I would also point out that most rape victims are able to deal with those issues without losing their grip on reality. Why on earth should these types of things "trigger" anything? What ever happened to "get over it already". :shrug:


I think what she is referring to is the stress list: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTCS_82.htm

Too many highly stressful events can cause mental issues like depression or even PTSD. It's not a matter of going off the deep end it is a matter of not being able to function normally. And people don't just get over it already. They may try to power through it like nothing happened but the mind and body still struggle with it and it will show up somewhere if you don't deal with it.

Stuffing it all down is why so many of our fathers died at younger ages. Stress has very real physiological effects and it can do damage that leads to chronic inflammation and chronic illness and heart attacks and strokes.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Patch...can one have common sense and still fall under t be mentally ill umbrella?
> 
> So many illness do fall under mental illness. And the government health care and just the way test the paper work forces a coding for classification
> 
> ...


Which is why I think we will need to be careful in how we go about flagging people who are mentally ill. I will say this though for the the first year after we lost everything in a fire I was not operating on all cylinders. I had no potential for shooting any other people but I did have some very down times where I considered shooting myself. I asked my spouse to lock up all the guns and they did. 

I think communication may be the single biggest key to stopping this sort of thing. Family and friends talking to each other and sorting through this stuff together.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I firm agree with you that the label of mental illness is too broad to use that as a medical reason o bar persons from guns. Those personnel under the care of a doctor and in compliance both with meds (if ordered) and consulting (if needed and ordered) are often more able like yourself to know when to temporarily remove guns till such time as needed.

You farm right... personally I hate having to cut off the heads of newborn baby goats but I can not care for every goat born here and I am quite rural thus the market is limited. The meat is used for those in need and us. 

I have to find someone with the right size gun to avoid the hatched..well machete really. Guns are farm tools. Hunting rifle just is not always the right tool to use.

I see that there is a group of well funded people in power who want to restrict guns and ammunition and due to their spinning and living they are exploring every gun shooting. Guns are currently very well regulated. You will never know or here about the shooting that never happened because of the regs currently in place.

I know of a man ...I know him personally who won a gun went to claim it ...did the paperwork and was rejected. 8000 dollars later he a current gun owner learned who. Due to a bad side effect to a blood pressure med he he had a blackout and drove up the road ....it was a few hundred mile but he did not leave the bought ...it was thought attorney on point the he was suffering from dementia. Which made it into his medical notes. In time he got the right medical dios but that one code flagged him. The later notes dismissing the wrong dio. Well he had the money and state wide he is well known his denial of a gun educated many of the impact of medical codes and our future.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

dlmcafee said:


> This appeared a little over a year ago,I guess all those liberal gun control people do not read their own news sources.
> 
> Study: Gun homicides, violence down sharply in past 20 years
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/
> ...


Seriously. 

The liberals say conservatives are brainwashed by Fox. Too funny. The pot calling the kettle black.


I want the folks who are all for more gun control to remember this: 

Armed members of society kill each other at about the rate of 1 to every 10,000 killed by a government.

Government's are more of a threat to citizens than anyone else could be.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Let's look at that Wiki link you posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
> 
> It's only 2014 and the 2010's are racking up shootings like crazy. There are more in there than there were when I was in school. *Then look at the list of school attacks. One in 1927 and then none until 1966. 3 in the 70's, 5 in the 80's, 25 in the 90s, 44 in the 2000s, and 68 so far in the 10s.* I would say this decade will be a banner one.
> 
> When I was in grade school we had 4 TV stations and the television still went off the air every night. I agree that the 24/7 news cycle blows a lot of things out of proportion these days.


what the heck are you reading? There are dozens of school shootings on the list between 1927 and 1966. There are more than a dozen each in the 60's. 70's. and 80's. And I remind you, this is not a definitive list. There is a shooting at a school in West Palm Beach, FL (where I lived) in the 90s, young boy killed his fave teacher, and it did not make the list. I shared the list not for quantity analysis, but just to say it has been a problem forever. We don't know who made up this list and how many more there were.

In the 70's when I was in high school, bomb threats became epidemic. Any kid who wanted to prank his or another school would call in a bomb threat. The schools would empty out, news crews would swarm and interview kids and teachers, and the kids would be sent home. It was a lot of copy cat garbage, so much so that the local news channels decided to quit reporting these stories. And within a year or so, bomb threats went out of fashion. I wonder how much of this suicide by school shooting is a very evil fad.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

> In the 70's when I was in high school, bomb threats became epidemic. Any kid who wanted to prank his or another school would call in a bomb threat. The schools would empty out, news crews would swarm and interview kids and teachers, and the kids would be sent home. It was a lot of copy cat garbage, so much so that the local news channels decided to quit reporting these stories. And within a year or so, bomb threats went out of fashion. I wonder how much of this suicide by school shooting is a very evil fad.


Prank bomb threats where nobody actually got hurt can be called a fad. School shooting murder/suicides and any other kind of mass shootings that are murder/suicides shouldn't be called an evil fad nor fashionable by any stretch of the imagination. It's a sickness that's reaching epidemic proportions.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Prank bomb threats where nobody actually got hurt can be called a fad. School shooting murder/suicides and any other kind of mass shootings that are murder/suicides shouldn't be called an evil fad nor fashionable by any stretch of the imagination. It's a sickness that's reaching epidemic proportions.


Wait, so you think school shootings are no worse than the common cold? 

:spinsmiley:

See how annoying it is when someone does their best to not get an analogy? All I'm saying is that the young men who do these crimes have seen it on TV news so often that there is an element of copy cat to it. Where it never occurred to me to shoot up a school when I was that age, a down and out, bullied, mentally unstable kid doesn't have to have much imagination these days to dream up a way to fame and glory (in his twisted view) to end his own life while taking down a bunch of his real or imagined tormentors.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, all of the above "life events" other than the rape thing are pretty much normal life events that reasonable people deal with on a regular basis without "going off the deep end". I would also point out that most rape victims are able to deal with those issues without losing their grip on reality. Why on earth should these types of things "trigger" anything? What ever happened to "get over it already". :shrug:


More and more counseling is mandated....forced.... required in ordered in these events that people go thru. Think of all the children and co.workers who .....had to attend meetings with a grief counselor. 

Well I claim that with ever life event for which "counseling" is advised or becomes more of the norm then stats will show more and more impressed under care for mental health issues.

Please note that under the clause that so many issues ....every role will see an increase of mental health and just verbiage of ...seeking mental health could be due to having to see a counselor to see if you are a good candidate for weight loss operation. And the media will. ..... jets as any shooting in a town is now a mass shooting at a school. Every one can be mentally ill..... when the powers that be want disinformation the public.....Think how severe the school shooting numbers are.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> what the heck are you reading? There are dozens of school shootings on the list between 1927 and 1966. There are more than a dozen each in the 60's. 70's. and 80's. And I remind you, this is not a definitive list. There is a shooting at a school in West Palm Beach, FL (where I lived) in the 90s, young boy killed his fave teacher, and it did not make the list. I shared the list not for quantity analysis, but just to say it has been a problem forever. We don't know who made up this list and how many more there were.
> 
> In the 70's when I was in high school, bomb threats became epidemic. Any kid who wanted to prank his or another school would call in a bomb threat. The schools would empty out, news crews would swarm and interview kids and teachers, and the kids would be sent home. It was a lot of copy cat garbage, so much so that the local news channels decided to quit reporting these stories. And within a year or so, bomb threats went out of fashion. I wonder how much of this suicide by school shooting is a very evil fad.


You might want to re-read my post because I said what I was reading: Then look at the list of* school attacks*.  

I do definitely think some of it is a fad. I also think there are a lot of angry people out there.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> You farm right... personally I hate having to cut off the heads of newborn baby goats but I can not care for every goat born here and I am quite rural thus the market is limited. The meat is used for those in need and us.
> 
> I have to find someone with the right size gun to avoid the hatched..well machete really. Guns are farm tools. Hunting rifle just is not always the right tool to use.


Why don't you go buy a .22 either pistol or long rifle would do the trick, is there a reason need to find someone else with a gun??


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Simple solution and one day I will have the money to buy one but I just paid off the first deed of trust, bought my water rights, and just owe a grand one the ONLY trust deed left on the land. I live within my means ....it cost a lot to live here in ALaska gas is often times a buck a gallon higher than the lower 48. Driving to tow and back is4 gallons a trip. Right now I have to make two round trip a day for five weeks this summer.

Simple solution sometimes have snags but seeing how 22 ammo is so scarce here people slowed Down and that size gun is one stores are are not carrying enough. I do have a box of 22 ammo so I am not causing friends from using theirs when they help out. 20 years ago I got the wrong bullets for rifle.......I have learn much more about guns since then.

There are lots of things I need but I will make due till I can pay up front..... no debt ever again. Till then in a pinch I can suck it up and use the machete.

Many homesteaders, like my self make do and plan for better times.

Oh...a long rifle I have. I do not wish to fire it up close to the skull as I see a danger there. I want a safe quick kill. .....if only the little guys would stay still ....do your little one stand stop for you? My little one are not trained at that age not to struggle while on the stand for the first time.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I always assumed you didn't use guns at your household because you have posted here before that you are legally blind and your husband is mentally handicapped.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> Oh...a long rifle I have. I do not wish to fire it up close to the skull as I see a danger there. I want a safe quick kill. .....if only the little guys would stay still ....do your little one stand stop for you? My little one are not trained at that age not to struggle while on the stand for the first time.


I have a Remington .22 rifle that I use for everything, I picked it up for $25 bucks at an auction, still don't know the year of it, it is a bit old or quite old maybe, no serial number, odd and the number was not sanded off or it couldn't have been sold.

I walked up to a Possum nosing around my chicken yard last week, and bang, from about a foot away, I am very quiet the Possum didn't even know I was there. You don't even have to put it to your shoulder and aim, just hold it and put it towards the back of the critters head.

Granted I choose to live in a place where things are cheaper, you choose to live in a place where they are not, but even in Alaska it shouldn't be that hard to find a decent .22 pistol for not much $$.

I don't mind chopping the heads of chickens, but goats, nope sorry, I understand you have no choice, but I couldn't do it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Easier to invite and share the meat. I never want to make a mistake with a gun. I can not imagine getting even a used gun for less than a few hundred. I really avoid the long rifle I can shoot it. I feel better with a smaller gun. I live most of my life afraid of guns. I have come along way. Knowledge made a difference.


----------



## Brighton (Apr 14, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> Easier to invite and share the meat. I never want to make a mistake with a gun. I can not imagine getting even a used gun for less than a few hundred. I really avoid the long rifle I can shoot it. I feel better with a smaller gun. I live most of my life afraid of guns. I have come along way. Knowledge made a difference.


How much meat is there on a day or two old male goat??

You have friends, find someone who can help you get comfortable with a gun if your own husband is not capable teaching you, it isn't hard, it is definitely not rocket science!

As far as gun prices, if you took the time to look around and do some searches you might be surprised with what you find, better at least in my mind that hacking the heads of baby goats with a machete, sorry that is just how I feel about it.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> You might want to re-read my post because I said what I was reading: Then look at the list of* school attacks*.
> 
> I do definitely think some of it is a fad. I also think there are a lot of angry people out there.


So what are you calling a school attack? There are shootings in schools on that list in the time period you said there were no attacks, where the shooter deliberately entered a school with the apparent intent to shoot someone and did so. If that is not an attack, what is?


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

Take a look at killology.com. Col. David Grossman does training for police and military. He is exceptional. One of his books is
""Stop teaching our kids to kill". Take a look at his site and I recommend the book. It give an explanation of why many of these shootings occur.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

300 to 500 dollars....I know the funds I have better than anyone. What others can afford and seem cheap is often out of my range.

My husband is disabed. So, I prefer a hand gun vs a rifel.

One baby per person per meal. brined and roasted over a spit. I but herd 37 newborn from one tow seven days old in a two day event. That is one meal a month toss in two breeding cycles and it adds up. Due to LIMITING the herd size I put down doelings too and I get grief from folks about that too. It is not rocket science to shoot a rifle but I will not be pressured into anything I am uncomfortable. Remember using a machete is not rocket science. You just are not comfortable beheading a goat. Remember some may not like it done to a chicken. Individualism in not a crime


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

FireMaker said:


> Take a look at killology.com. Col. David Grossman does training for police and military. He is exceptional. One of his books is
> ""Stop teaching our kids to kill". Take a look at his site and I recommend the book. It give *an explanation of why many of these shootings occur*.


Give us the short version.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> 300 to 500 dollars....I know the funds I have better than anyone. What others can afford and seem cheap is often out of my range.
> 
> My husband is disabed. So, I prefer a hand gun vs a rifel.
> 
> One baby per person per meal. brined and roasted over a spit. I but herd 37 newborn from one tow seven days old in a two day event. That is one meal a month toss in two breeding cycles and it adds up. Due to LIMITING the herd size I put down doelings too and I get grief from folks about that too. It is not rocket science to shoot a rifle but I will not be pressured into anything I am uncomfortable. Remember using a machete is not rocket science. You just are not comfortable beheading a goat. Remember some may not like it done to a chicken. Individualism in not a crime


My dad grew up poor. You didn't waste bullets killing stock. Chickens got their neck wrung and everything else got a hammer.

I've seen my dad kill many a beef with an 8 pound sledge...


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> 300 to 500 dollars....I know the funds I have better than anyone. What others can afford and seem cheap is often out of my range.
> 
> My husband is disabed. So, I prefer a hand gun vs a rifel.
> 
> One baby per person per meal. brined and roasted over a spit. I but herd 37 newborn from one tow seven days old in a two day event. That is one meal a month toss in two breeding cycles and it adds up. Due to LIMITING the herd size I put down doelings too and I get grief from folks about that too. It is not rocket science to shoot a rifle but I will not be pressured into anything I am uncomfortable. Remember using a machete is not rocket science. You just are not comfortable beheading a goat. Remember some may not like it done to a chicken. Individualism in not a crime


The religion of the Sihks requires beheading because it is the quickest death. Jewish kosher methods require slitting the throat in a certain manner for a longer bleed out. Different strokes for different folks. If what you were doing was causing unnecessary pain and suffering, I would be the first to call you out on it. A quick beheading is probably one of the least pain causing slaughter methods. 

And I wholeheartedly agree, you do not let other folks squeamishness stop you from a humane slaughter. For many city folk, ANY method of slaughter is too gruesome to contemplate.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> So what are you calling a school attack? There are shootings in schools on that list in the time period you said there were no attacks, where the shooter deliberately entered a school with the apparent intent to shoot someone and did so. If that is not an attack, what is?


Again this is from the link *you* posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...the_United_States#List_of_U.S._school_attacks

*List of U.S. school attacks*



I am not defining anything your Wiki article made the definition. Read the list.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> 300 to 500 dollars....I know the funds I have better than anyone. What others can afford and seem cheap is often out of my range.
> 
> My husband is disabed. So, I prefer a hand gun vs a rifel.
> 
> One baby per person per meal. brined and roasted over a spit.* I but herd 37 newborn from one tow seven days old in a two day event. *That is one meal a month toss in two breeding cycles and it adds up. Due to LIMITING the herd size I put down doelings too and I get grief from folks about that too. It is not rocket science to shoot a rifle but I will not be pressured into anything I am uncomfortable. Remember using a machete is not rocket science. You just are not comfortable beheading a goat. Remember some may not like it done to a chicken. Individualism in not a crime


Individualism is not a crime but I have to say as a goat owner your methods turned my stomach and they are a serious waste. Why breed your goat at all if you don't want kids? I can't decipher the sentence in bold. Are you saying you had 37 baby goats born in 2 weeks? And you are breeding your does twice a year? Have you considered rabbits instead?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Again this is from the link *you* posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...the_United_States#List_of_U.S._school_attacks
> 
> *List of U.S. school attacks*
> 
> ...


Ahhh, I see what you are missing now. Scroll up from where that link takes you. You'll see dozens more shootings in the time periods when you say there are no attacks. Wiki simply has not integrated the several lists in that article. To me, there is no discernible difference between a school shooting and a school attack other than how the article was patched together by different authors.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

Guns have been around a long time. I don't think guns are the issue at all. 

The two real issues are 

gangs,

and to a smaller degree, children that have no self worth, no dreams, no healthy distractions and are raised by children themselves.

They watch this video stuff and decide to "get even" with the world that does not "understand" them. What lots of kid need is a boot up the backside when they get out of line and put the fear of dads wrath in them and they would straighten up.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

doingitmyself said:


> Guns have been around a long time. I don't think guns are the issue at all.
> 
> The two real issues are
> 
> ...


Well there you go just beat those kids more and we will end the violence problem overnight!


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

From Proverbs 13:24;

"He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."

From Proverbs 23:13;


"Withhold not correction from the child: for _if_ thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die."


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Forerunner said:


> From Proverbs 13:24;
> 
> "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."
> 
> ...


I don't think either of those mention anything about reducing violence.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

I didn't say they did.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Paumon said:


> In the USA - yeah, pretty much every household where the householder has reached the age of majority and is qualified to own firearms has at least one firearm in the house. .


:smack That's 100% incorrect, where are you pulling that from (I have an idea)


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I believe that most of these school shooting and all mass shooting are a result of 3 things. One: As we have pushed God further out of our society, more evil and hate has moved in. Two: Families are so broken and kids left so far out in the cold they cant figure anything out and get frustrated and confused and feel they have no place to turn besides drugs. Three: DOCTORS! They keep pumping up our kids and adults on these mind altering and warping drugs. They are beyound dangerous and should be banned. All anti depressents and SSRI's should be trashed. They perm alter the brains ability to produce its own chemicals and maintain healthy levels. If they skip taking it one or two days they can crash and have a total breakdown. As a result they cant mentally cope and you see what happens. We need to focus on better health, better treatment of people who are feeling down instead of drugs and we need to focus on building a moral nation again.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Well there you go just beat those kids more and we will end the violence problem overnight!


finally we agree on something. 

no amount of beating or jerking them up by the collar was going to stop the Va Tech or the Sandy Hock shooters. I suspect if I was to investigate the backgrounds of most all of these wackos, they were too sick to be stopped except by locking them up. But except in the movie, "_Minority Report_" arrests prior to the crimes are pretty hard to come by.


----------



## chickflick (Oct 20, 2003)

Since Day ONE... (that 'they' started requiring 'lock down') whenever that was... This whole 'lockdown' issue has been completely off.

"Hey - let's give all the shooters a chance to turn into mass killers by immediately locking down the area where he is!"

I sure as hell would want to make my own choices to hide, run, or push down the shooter if it was me stuck in that position. NOT being cloistered together with all present with no control whatsoever, and just WAITING to be shot.

It's just nuts! Remember when people could RUN and get away?
I'm jus sayin'.  That MIGHT help w/less casualties.
Not to mention EVERYONE armed and open carry. Check out videos on YT where there's a legal carrying gun owner and a robbery in progress.. it's pretty funny to watch the 'bad guys' tuck tail and run like little girls.


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

Ok, short version of Col. Grossman's book, Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill. Lack of direction, lack of leadership at home, violent computer games that desensitize kids to death and killing. The issue is more over the free speech of being able to have these games than the issue of weapons. He predicts that the next terrorist threat is a massive school shooting/incident like was in Russia.

I had Col Grossman for training multiple times. What he says is research based and realistic. Our son is 23, we did not let him play computer based shooting games of any kind as he grew up. We started him shooting very young so that he was a safer gun handler and enter shooter at 12 than most of the folks at the PD. that approached served us well.


----------



## doingitmyself (Jul 30, 2013)

^^thats it in a nutshell^^


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> Individualism is not a crime but I have to say as a goat owner your methods turned my stomach and they are a serious waste. Why breed your goat at all if you don't want kids? I can't decipher the sentence in bold. Are you saying you had 37 baby goats born in 2 weeks? And you are breeding your does twice a year? Have you considered rabbits instead?


I never mastered the art of milking rabbits, I have the goats for milk. Making a liquid meal sub for my husband is important for us. Killing any animal quick and humanly is far more important to me than dealing with my personal discomfort. My nubs must be healthy as I have large litters triplets most common and 5 is expected from one line so yes. 

We eat eggs,fowl,moose, cheeses and yogurt fruits and veg along with goat meat. I save the hides too. I homestead Good thing I I did not post or join a peta forum. So, guns are important to us. First the bear gun....it is heavy next a butchering gun for goats. Duck hunting gun days are over for my husband maybe the boy will take interest in that some day. Different tasks lend themself to different styles of the same tool. Which might explain why people who own guns often have more than just one gun. The are not gun nuts but in a family the quantity of guns would be impacted by the uses and person preference of the user of the gun. I like small ... My boy handles the heavy bear gun.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

LOL

So a good "wuppin" is all we need to end this insanity?

Charles Whitman received regular beatings as a child.

In the case of Adam Lanza, perhaps his autism could have been spanked out of him. 

We can continue to parrot "it's not about the guns", but the truth is that relatively easy access to guns made it easy for them to not just hurt someone, but create great carnage, often to many.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

Throughout history, it has often been easy, even commonplace, to be armed.

The trouble only mounts when that ease of armament is easy for the criminal, and difficult for the "law-abiding".

Equality levels it's own playing field.

Tamper with that, and you'll see the extremes increase.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Forerunner said:


> Throughout history, it has often been easy, even commonplace, to be armed.
> 
> The trouble only mounts when that ease of armament is easy for the criminal, and difficult for the "law-abiding".
> 
> ...


True.

The term "an armed society is a polite society" may have been much more relevant in the past, because people - for many reasons, tended to be more "polite" in general, anyway.

There seems to be more of a tendency today, to "settle the score", whether it's road rage, a jilted lover or gang differences. Guns don't always play into the equation favorably, although often they can.


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

Forerunner said:


> Throughout history, it has often been easy, even commonplace, to be armed.
> 
> The trouble only mounts when that ease of armament is easy for the criminal, and difficult for the "law-abiding".
> 
> ...


That was worth reading again....so there you go!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> True.
> 
> The term "an armed society is a polite society" may have been much more relevant in the past, because people - for many reasons, tended to be more "polite" in general, anyway.
> 
> There seems to be more of a tendency today, to "settle the score", whether it's road rage, a jilted lover or gang differences. Guns don't always play into the equation favorably, although often they can.


Why is that?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

FireMaker said:


> Ok, short version of Col. Grossman's book, Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill. Lack of direction, lack of leadership at home, violent computer games that desensitize kids to death and killing. The issue is more over the free speech of being able to have these games than the issue of weapons. He predicts that the next terrorist threat is a massive school shooting/incident like was in Russia.
> 
> I had Col Grossman for training multiple times. What he says is research based and realistic. Our son is 23, we did not let him play computer based shooting games of any kind as he grew up. We started him shooting very young so that he was a safer gun handler and enter shooter at 12 than most of the folks at the PD. that approached served us well.


Ah the ever popular video games theory. All of mine played video games including first person shooters and they also had real guns and amazingly enough none of them went off on any rampages. There is no evidence that links video games to actual shootings.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Ah the ever popular video games theory. All of mine played video games including first person shooters and they also had real guns and amazingly enough none of them went off on any rampages. There is no evidence that links video games to actual shootings.


Agreed. Millions of kids and adults play violent video games but millions do not shoot up schools. There is an extremely negative correlation between playing the game and acting it out in real life. As the list of school shootings/attacks shows, these events predate both movies and video games.

However, if a kid is nuts to begin with, he might get ideas from a book, movie or video game. In addition to the constitutional problems, Americans are not not prepared to censor all forms of entertainment to eliminate all violence. It is better that we learn to recognize and treat mental illnesses and the criminally insane.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl (May 13, 2013)

There is a solution, but, unfortunately, it can't be implemented, by definition. 

Violent movies, music, and video games certainly desensitize people, especially young ones, to violence. Violent media may even give them ideas, but the violent media, alone, does not incite people to violence.

Easy access to weapons (be it guns, knives, or pipe-bombs) certainly provides an avenue for those who wish harm on others to manifest their urges. Some commonly available weapons and commonly distributed plans to make them may make it easier for those people to do more harm in a short period of time, but access to an instrument of death does not, by itself, cause people to kill.

Erasing the media or the weapons, if either could even be done, would not end the problem. People will always find inspiration to do harm, and find or make the tools with which to do it. 

The cause of the problem, which, by its own nature cannot be "solved", is a lack of faith in God or at least something greater than ourselves. 

The jurisdiction of man is extremely limited, and has no repercussion against someone who has no fear of death or imprisonment. Without faith in something greater, the only thing we are accountable to are those laws of man and the punishment they carry. If you wish to do harm, are ready to die, and don't believe that there is any accountability to anything beyond your own death, then there is nothing to stop you from acting on that wish to do harm and then die at its culmination. 

Faith, though, by its nature, can't be enforced. Even if every member of our society were mandated to attend some church or another, you can't put faith into the unfaithful. Unfortunately, our societal trend has been away from faith and towards vanity. 

Over the past 100 years or so, we've evolved into a culture of sociopaths. We don't respect others as we love ourselves, and we don't fear judgment beyond the extent of our own lives. 

There is no solution to that that we can enact. All that you can do is arm yourself to protect the ones you love, shield your loved ones as best you can from the culture of vanity and violence, and pray. 

Mostly, pray.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> So a good "wuppin" is all we need to end this insanity?
> 
> ...


Clearly you do not understand the meaning of discipline.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

History proves to us at least two givens, both very relevant and dark.

1. Totalitarian governments disarm their populace out of fear and, to them, necessity, for the eventuality of genocide.

2. If you give government an inch in re control over any particular thing, they will presume, shortly, absolute control over that thing.

Therefore, the veneer of benevolence in which the "anti-gunner" would cloak both, his hatred for his own kind and his love for tyranny, is the thinnest and most malevolent hypocrisy.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> Ah the ever popular video games theory. All of mine played video games including first person shooters and they also had real guns and amazingly enough none of them went off on any rampages. There is no evidence that links video games to actual shootings.


While I agree its not just the gams that cause it. They do play a part. I too played COD and many others and so did my son. And we would never do something like that. But while they may not cause these types of things, they do 100% desenseitize kids to death and violence. Ive seen it with my own eyes with several of my sons friends. And there was a very large study done in both the US and GB one the affects of violent games. The US study tested 1800 kids that had no prior video game experiences. Ages 9-16 They used art and random physical play to test them. They had them draw and paint pictures for 3 weeks prior to the study. Then they allowed them to play violent video games including COD, GTA and others for 3 weeks. After that three weeks they were giving three weeks off. Then asked to paint pictures again for 1 week. The three weeks prior only 5% had painted a picture with even a hint of violent them. The one week after the test, over 67% of the kids drew violent themed pictures. Their physical play also became more aggressive. So they do have an affect on many kids.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

But they also did a study on the affects of positive themed video games where you play the role of the good guy trying to save the world or a friend ect.. and found that those types of games actualy decreased the agressive tendencies. So Im not against video games and play them with my son when ever I get free time. Like I said several years ago I played COD all night with friends. Then played WOW for years. I think they can be very stress relieving at times. But I have def changed my stance on violent games for kids and youths. Ive seen it so many times where kids that play those games too young do get very aggressive and tend to have lack luster attitudes towards many things.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Well here's the thing. The OP is one of those poorly informed people with possibly good intentions but very naive solutions. What isn't being discussed are the thousands of instances of people who use guns to protect themselves from rape, murder, kidnapping and theft. Those stories don't get much attention from MSNBC, or any of the major media outlets.

Here's a good site that keeps track of local news throughout the country and maintains a listing of guns used to save lives everyday;http://gunssavelives.net/

I like that one because they site their local news sources. There are others if you care to do the research.

So, the bottom line is that people who want to make it difficult for Americans to realize their constitutional right to keep and bear arms are advocating for the death, rape, theft and assault of thousands of people. They are making a choice, between saving the lives of some who may be assaulted by a legal firearm ( which is a small fraction of actual gun crimes ) and saving the lives of people who use guns to defend themselves and their families. *They don't care if you die because you were unarmed and unable to defend yourself...thats a sacrifice they are willing to make*, so long as the talking heads in the media are appeased.

Like I said, these are very naive, poorly informed, and impressionable people that are being used in order to push a long standing political agenda. They are unaware that they are being manipulated. We must'nt allow them to get their way, for their sake and ours.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bottom line. If for some reason the government proclaimed that all firearms are now illegal and must be turned in, how many would comply? Forget all the hoopla this thread has lead to and ask yourself if you were a firearm owner would you disarm because of a government proclamation? The actual number of firearms in this Country is at best a guess. The actual confiscation would be probably one of the largest and potentionally dangerous undertaking our government would ever attempt. There are many sheep in this Country but sheep don't count. There are also many lions and tigers and bears and they do count. Would police and military follow such orders? Many would, but many would not. I know they all take an oath, but the ones who really believe in an oath are the ones the government should fear. You will never disarm America regardless of legality. History has provided many examples of the consequences if that happens.
If you want to decrease the so called "gun violence" I suggest making firearm safety training part of every schools curriculum. Set up shooting teams in every school, every town and city. Make guns easier to get with less restrictions and ENFORCE THE GUN LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE!!!


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

JJ Grandits said:


> Set up shooting teams in every school, every town and city. Make guns easier to get with less restrictions and ENFORCE THE GUN LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE!!!


I should note that here in MN trap is one of the fastest growing sports. They had to turn some kids away it was so popular. My son loves it and is an excellent shot. :grin:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Some good posts.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> Agreed. Millions of kids and adults play violent video games but millions do not shoot up schools. There is an extremely negative correlation between playing the game and acting it out in real life. As the list of school shootings/attacks shows, these events predate both movies and video games.
> 
> However, if a kid is nuts to begin with, he might get ideas from a book, movie or video game. In addition to the constitutional problems, Americans are not not prepared to censor all forms of entertainment to eliminate all violence. It is better that we learn to recognize and treat mental illnesses and the criminally insane.


I think the Bible has inspired quite a lot of insane people over the years to commit some pretty horrible crimes. The mentally ill can latch onto anything like you say.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Fortunately the Bible has also inspired many, many more people to act in a manner of love and charity to their fellow man. Actually that is more of the norm while you state the rare exception.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> True.
> 
> The term "an armed society is a polite society" may have been much more relevant in the past, because people - for many reasons, tended to be more "polite" in general, anyway.
> 
> There seems to be more of a tendency today, to "settle the score", whether it's road rage, a jilted lover or gang differences. Guns don't always play into the equation favorably, although often they can.


Note one of those examples of rational for violence are new to any society. The gun free zones and gun grab are recent changes so IF gun violence is increasing maybe gun restrictions are to blame.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Thats what I said! Nobody has ever done a home invasion of a gun club. especially during a meeting.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I think the Bible has inspired quite a lot of insane people over the years to commit some pretty horrible crimes. The mentally ill can latch onto anything like you say.


Agreed, with no disrepect, at least by me, meant for the Bible or Christianity. So has the Quran.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> Fortunately the Bible has also inspired many, many more people to act in a manner of love and charity to their fellow man. Actually that is more of the norm while you state the rare exception.


I think you missed my point. Anything and everything no matter how good or innocent can be used to inspire a madman even the Bible. So to try and cherry pick one thing or another like movies or music or video games doesn't work.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> I think you missed my point. Anything and everything no matter how good or innocent can be used to inspire a madman even the Bible. So to try and cherry pick one thing or another like movies or music or video games doesn't work.


So. Claiming that an armed populace is the PROBLEM or how mental health is health with is just blowing off steam cause that is picking one.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Clearly you do not understand the meaning of discipline.


LOl, perhaps you could enlighten me. 

I was not spanked as a child. i turned out "OK" (at least I think so). We didn't spank our kids. None of them have ever been in trouble.

for those interested in reality, most everyone has spanked kids for hundreds of years, but we have also hanged horse thieves and have prisons, jails and juvenile detentions centers everywhere, so apparently, discipline then - as is now, does not always ensure a model citizen.

Adan Lanza surely received proper gun safety training and was told what to shoot and what not to shoot. He may have even been spanked as a child.

Didn't seem to make much difference. Although he could have stabbed somebody, or beaten a puppy to death, with a baseball bat, having unfettered access to ammo, assault rifles and semi-auto pistols, seemed to make all the difference in the world.

To not factor the availability of guns is denial or political rhetoric, IMO.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Note one of those examples of rational for violence are new to any society. The gun free zones and gun grab are recent changes so IF gun violence is increasing maybe gun restrictions are to blame.


Huh? 

Road rage and gang shootings, have only been prevalent in the past 25-30 years or so. A jilted lover, used to punch the new guy in the nose.

You missed my point, IMO.

If "everybody" was armed, more people would be shooting each other. To assume there would be more "politness" - in 2014, is just ludicrous.

"gun free" zones being the problem, does not even make sense.

If one is crazy/angry enough to shoot a bunch of children and then kill yourself, with your own gun, any armed resistance, would not really seem to be much of a deterrent.

Just like those who choose _death by Cop_. They just really don't care.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Natiowide gun ownership is at an all time high. Meanwhile the FBI reports that violent crime has been steadily dropping. Please explain.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Huh?
> 
> Road rage and gang shootings, have only been prevalent in the past 25-30 years or so. A jilted lover, used to punch the new guy in the nose.
> 
> ...


The car is just a more modern form of transportation... there are historical examples of wagon rage and what of the hole in the wall gang. Gang is the equaled of a group of people that join together.

Gun free zone prevent law abiding person the ability to limit a shooting spare of slander from simply being a minor event. There have been many times that one private person with simply displaying that they are named and willing to stand up to protect and lives that the criminal backed down. 

I hope this make it clear why I feel gun free zones not legal person carrying a gun is a major problem. On my kindle I can not show links but search out Oregon mall .

Oh it seems that shooter shoot themselves when the are equally overly power via at least on gun in the hands of a good person with a gun. It matters not if the person is an leo. 

Crimes of passion that ended in death is far from modern.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> LOl, perhaps you could enlighten me.
> 
> I was not spanked as a child. i turned out "OK" (at least I think so). We didn't spank our kids. None of them have ever been in trouble.
> 
> ...


Agreed on the discipline. I'm not totally against spankings as appropriate, never found it necessary with my DD, I just don't view it as a magic bullet that will stop all the ills of society and history proves that true. Some kids should get spanked, most not. 

As to gun availability guns being the cause of gun violence, that is a tautology. Obviously no guns means no gun violence. Lanza's mother should have been charged with a crime of making her guns available to someone she knew to be insane. But the left doesn't want to put blame where it belongs, they would rather take my guns and make me defenseless.

Even if you ignore the 2A issue, disarming me, a law abiding CCW constant carry kind of guy, it does not disarm gangs. So that ship has sailed, too many guns are out there.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Huh?
> 
> If one is crazy/angry enough to shoot a bunch of children and then kill yourself, with your own gun, any armed resistance, would not really seem to be much of a deterrent.
> Just like those who choose _death by Cop_. They just really don't care.


You are ignoring the single most critical factor in ending a mass shooting, and that is the time until the second gun is on site. In almost all these mass shooter cases by an insane young person, the shooter kills himself as soon as a good guy (civilian or cop) with a gun arrives on scene or the good guy ends it within minutes with a couple of well placed shots. In all cases I have ever seen, at a minimum, the second gun stops the killing of innocents. 

Armed teachers might not stop every shooter before he gets started, but if the teacher prevents the killing of the second, third, or 20th victim, we have improved the situation.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

JJ Grandits said:


> Natiowide gun ownership is at an all time high. Meanwhile the FBI reports that violent crime has been steadily dropping. Please explain.


Come on all you common sense gun control people, answer my Question. The facts seem to fly right in the face of your self righteous reality.
There are waiting lists to purchase many types of firearms. The number of firearms training classes have gone through the roof. Ammunition manufacturers are working 24/7 and there is still a shortage and the violent crime rate nationwide is dropping like a rock. As I stated before, the only place where violence is going through the roof are the major cities with extremely restrictive gun control laws. You can explain that one too. When you do please do not waste your breath with the tired old "The guns come in from outside the cities" line. It doesn't matter if they do. The laws only stop honest citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals will always be armed, and an unarmed public is easy prey. This explains places like Chicago and Detroit. Actually those two cities are prime examples of why gun control does not work. I await your answer with baited breath.





Seriously, I haven't brushed my teeth yet this morning and I think I smell like minnows.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Twobottom said:


> Well here's the thing. The OP is one of those poorly informed people with possibly good intentions but very naive solutions. What isn't being discussed are the thousands of instances of people who use guns to protect themselves from rape, murder, kidnapping and theft. Those stories don't get much attention from MSNBC, or any of the major media outlets.
> 
> Here's a good site that keeps track of local news throughout the country and maintains a listing of guns used to save lives everyday;http://gunssavelives.net/
> 
> ...












With thanks & credit to Topaz Farm for the icon.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

In the interest of fairness, here's a little bit of the left showing their grits as badly as the guys in the OP's pic.

http://joemiller.us/2014/06/lib-rad...il&utm_term=0_065b6c381c-02ef1c1406-230980529

&#8220;I guess what I&#8217;ll do if I&#8217;m ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle like that, I&#8217;ll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and they&#8217;re going to run out of the store and if that rifle isn&#8217;t shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.&#8221;


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

> âI guess what Iâll do if Iâm ever in that situation and I see one of these half-witted yahoos walking in with a weapon, high-caliber rifle like that, Iâll just put on a berserk act. I will just start screaming Gun! Gun! Gun! Watch out, everybody hit the deck! Guns! Guns! Everybody! And then dial 911 and I will say, shots fired, which will bring every cop within 15 miles. And then the half-wits with the long guns are going to panic and theyâre going to run out of the store and if that rifle isnât shouldered properly, the cop is going to take a look at that and put a bullet right in their forehead.â


Looks like someone graduated drama school at the top of their class.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> Come on all you common sense gun control people, answer my Question. The facts seem to fly right in the face of your self righteous reality.
> There are waiting lists to purchase many types of firearms. The number of firearms training classes have gone through the roof. Ammunition manufacturers are working 24/7 and there is still a shortage and the violent crime rate nationwide is dropping like a rock. As I stated before, the only place where violence is going through the roof are the major cities with extremely restrictive gun control laws. You can explain that one too. When you do please do not waste your breath with the tired old "The guns come in from outside the cities" line. It doesn't matter if they do. The laws only stop honest citizens from protecting themselves. Criminals will always be armed, and an unarmed public is easy prey. This explains places like Chicago and Detroit. Actually those two cities are prime examples of why gun control does not work. I await your answer with baited breath.
> 
> Seriously, I haven't brushed my teeth yet this morning and I think I smell like minnows.


I will ask the same thing I asked in another gun thread: I have noticed Gun rights advocates frequently bring up Chicago as the poster child for gun control laws not working. After doing some googling I am not seeing Chicago on the top of violent crime lists by cities. I do see a lot of southern cities where the gun laws are quite liberal like St. Louis, Atlanta and Little Rock. How do you explain that?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> I will ask the same thing I asked in another gun thread: I have noticed Gun rights advocates frequently bring up Chicago as the poster child for gun control laws not working. After doing some googling I am not seeing Chicago on the top of violent crime lists by cities. I do see a lot of southern cities where the gun laws are quite liberal like St. Louis, Atlanta and Little Rock. How do you explain that?


You are having a failure of logic. We say gun control does not equal reduced violence. That does not necessarily mean that by simply eliminating gun control, violence will end. I don't think anyone has proposed that no gun control is a panacea for all the ills of the world. Big cities have lots of problems, arguably caused by big gov't, liberal policies that encourage fatherless families, living on the gov't dole, not working, etc. 

By analogy - a country eliminates free speech, a civil right similar to gun rights, and ends up with an evil, oppressive gov't. By re-instituting free speech, that does not necessarily mean the gov't will all of a sudden be perfectly efficient and benevolent. Free speech helps encourage benevolence, but does not guarantee it. Concealed carry does prevent some crime, but does not guarantee the elimination of all crime. Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, Baltimore, etc, merely prove gun control does not work.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> You are having a failure of logic. We say gun control does not equal reduced violence. That does not necessarily mean that by simply eliminating gun control, violence will end. I don't think anyone has proposed that no gun control is a panacea for all the ills of the world. Big cities have lots of problems, arguably caused by big gov't, liberal policies that encourage fatherless families, living on the gov't dole, not working, etc.
> 
> By analogy - a country eliminates free speech, a civil right similar to gun rights, and ends up with an evil, oppressive gov't. By re-instituting free speech, that does not necessarily mean the gov't will all of a sudden be perfectly efficient and benevolent. Free speech helps encourage benevolence, but does not guarantee it. Concealed carry does prevent some crime, but does not guarantee the elimination of all crime. Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, Baltimore, etc, merely prove gun control does not work.



Snort! I am the one suffering a logic failure eh? 

I am sorry but you guys are the ones proposing that an armed society equals a polite society and that the reason that Chicago and Washington DC are plagued by crime is because the bad guys flaunt the laws and buy illegal guns and the good guys don't which leaves them as ripe pickings. You might want to look back over this thread at what your fellow conservatives are actually saying.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well a society that controls speech by force and intimidation has white men and Christians altering their behavior and if people would emlimated gun free zones and freely carry or not many criminals would think twice. Rapist rarely rape in an open populated lite area, fear of being caught alters their violent urge. Criminals would realize really quickly after a few were shot and instead of the criminal getting an ego stroke from the media the hero only mentioned.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Snort! I am the one suffering a logic failure eh?
> 
> I am sorry but you guys are the ones proposing that an armed society equals a polite society and that the reason that Chicago and Washington DC are plagued by crime is because the bad guys flaunt the laws and buy illegal guns and the good guys don't which leaves them as ripe pickings. You might want to look back over this thread at what your fellow conservatives are actually saying.



An armed society *usually* equals a more polite society.........._provided_.........those that armed have some manners. Just arming any ole thugs sure won't yield good results, lol.


Now to clear up the confusion that is plaguing the comprehension of this proposed theory. 
Merely _allowing_ gun possession/carrying doesn't automatically ensure that many good people will follow up by doing it.:bored:
The first step is important, but the ones that follow are equally important in getting to that goal of an armed, polite society.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Snort! I am the one suffering a logic failure eh?
> 
> I am sorry but you guys are the ones proposing that an armed society equals a polite society and that the reason that Chicago and Washington DC are plagued by crime is because the bad guys flaunt the laws and buy illegal guns and the good guys don't which leaves them as ripe pickings. You might want to look back over this thread at what your fellow conservatives are actually saying.


once again, you have a logic failure. Right to carry does not equal everyone carries. You have created a "false dilemma" logic failure. There are not only two choices where one of them must be true and the other false. There are quite a range of choices from zero guns, police only guns, .05% of the general populace actually carrying guns (that's close to the national average of routine concealed carry) to as much as every single person is armed. 

Once again, concealed carry has not been presented as a panacea that will end all crime. Insisting that our use of the phrase, "an armed society is a polite society" means an end to all violent crime is yet another logical error called the straw man where a person substitutes an actual position (guns = polite society) with a distorted, exaggerated, or otherwise misrepresented position ( guns = a society without crime). 

I know these arguments will not sway you because the anti-gunner crowd depends on an appeal to emotion rather than an appeal to logic. You might logically argue why, but the facts demonstrate Chicago style gun control is a failure. Anti-gunners ignore how many times they have been wrong with dire predictions of death and mayhem, but the facts over the last years demonstrate that legal concealed carry reduces crime and results in angry gun play almost never.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

The question was, firearm ownership is at an all time high while nationwide violent crime is dropping like a rock. Lets not play the liberal game of misdirection. Would one of our gun control advocates answer the question instead of side stepping it ?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> The car is just a more modern form of transportation... *there are historical examples of wagon rage *and what of the hole in the wall gang. Gang is the equaled of a group of people that join together.


LOL Perhaps I am out of touch. 

It's settled then.

Guns for everybody, is the answer, to all of our violence problems.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> LOL Perhaps I am out of touch.
> 
> It's settled then.
> 
> Guns for everybody, is the answer, to all of our violence problems.


Yes, just like free speech for everyone, at least until it infringes on the rights of others, like we can't hold this discussion in the middle of an interstate highway. You can also lose 2A rights after due process due to mental disability or because of criminal activities.

If you don't like the constitution as is, work to change it. if you allow your gov't to ignore it, you do so at the peril of all your rights.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> Snort! I am the one suffering a logic failure eh?
> 
> I am sorry but you guys are the ones proposing that an armed society equals a polite society and that the reason that Chicago and Washington DC are plagued by crime is because the bad guys flaunt the laws and buy illegal guns and the good guys don't which leaves them as ripe pickings. You might want to look back over this thread at what your fellow conservatives are actually saying.


Your hyperbole sensor is broken. Need to get that looked at. A little over half of America suffers the same malady. It can lead to other troubles if left untreated.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, just like free speech for everyone, at least until it infringes on the rights of others, like we can't hold this discussion in the middle of an interstate highway. You can also lose 2A rights after due process due to mental disability or because of criminal activities.
> 
> If you don't like the constitution as is, work to change it. if you allow your gov't to ignore it, you do so at the peril of all your rights.


Using your logic, the Constitution should be amended, to specifically state, that one cannot shout "FIRE", in a crowded theater. 



> You can also lose 2A rights after due process due to mental disability or because of criminal activities.


Where is this specified in the 2nd amendment? Just curious.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> LOl, perhaps you could enlighten me.
> 
> I was not spanked as a child. i turned out "OK" (at least I think so). We didn't spank our kids. None of them have ever been in trouble.
> 
> ...


Ok, I'll give it a try.
Discipline is not spanking. I'l be willing to bet that a lot of inmates were far worse than 'wailed upon' as children-not disciplined.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Article 4 section 4 of the constitution then also look in to the bill of rights 4.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> You are ignoring the single most critical factor in ending a mass shooting, and that is the time until the second gun is on site. In almost all these mass shooter cases by an insane young person, the shooter kills himself as soon as a good guy (civilian or cop) with a gun arrives on scene or the good guy ends it within minutes with a couple of well placed shots. In all cases I have ever seen, at a minimum, the second gun stops the killing of innocents.
> 
> Armed teachers might not stop every shooter before he gets started, but if the teacher prevents the killing of the second, third, or 20th victim, we have improved the situation.


Wait! Are you saying that the big sign: "GUN FREE ZONE" is ineffective?
Gosh. What will the libs do now?

How about a sign: "THE STAFF AT THIS SCHOOL/FACILTIY IS ARMED" ?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Snort! I am the one suffering a logic failure eh?
> 
> I am sorry but you guys are the ones proposing that an armed society equals a polite society and that the reason that Chicago and Washington DC are plagued by crime is because the bad guys flaunt the laws and buy illegal guns and the good guys don't which leaves them as ripe pickings. You might want to look back over this thread at what your fellow conservatives are actually saying.


Ok, Snort!
What is is you think is right? repeal the amendment?
Confiscate all guns? Like Hitler did? What is it we are arguing about? The FACT that laws ON THE BOOKS are not followed by criminals? So you want more laws?
What IS IT?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, just like free speech for everyone, at least until it infringes on the rights of others, like we can't hold this discussion in the middle of an interstate highway. You can also lose 2A rights after due process due to mental disability or because of criminal activities.
> 
> If you don't like the constitution as is, work to change it. if you allow your gov't to ignore it, you do so at the peril of all your rights.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> LOL Perhaps I am out of touch.
> 
> It's settled then.
> 
> Guns for everybody, is the answer, to all of our violence problems.


Yes horse drawn carriages in New York and in Boston had a few act's of people losing it. Also the horse drawn fire truck in Philly caused quite a chain of events.

A lack of knowledge does not change history. I loved horses and read lots of books of the period in history when horses were the norm. Horses were injured in road rage events. The Morgan breed of horse is a descend of a road rage event.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Using your logic, the Constitution should be amended, to specifically state, that one cannot shout "FIRE", in a crowded theater.
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this specified in the 2nd amendment? Just curious.


on the "fire," wrong, that infringes on the rights of others. that does not pass the logic test. 

as to due process, that is addressed in 5A as well as 14A. 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
5A. _No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; *nor shall any person* be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor *be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law*; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation._
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

To be honest, I think curtailing rights due to mental incapacity is a grey area that needs to be fixed. I could argue 5A applicability either way in regard to that. 

While I believe we have the greatest constitution the world has ever seen, it is still the product of men and less than perfect. I would like to see an every 20 year cons convention which would address issues as they come up. I picked 20 years because Thomas Jefferson thought we needed a new revolution every 20 years. Who am I to argue with my hero?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> on the "fire," wrong, that infringes on the rights of others. that does not pass the logic test.
> 
> as to due process, that is addressed in 5A as well as 14A.
> 
> ...


Exactly what is a "logic test"? Not familiar with that law. Is that your logic, my logic, someone else's?

Although "defined" in the Constitution, due process, just like the second amendment, is more than a little, vague, to say the least.

IT' *LAWS*, that truly define due process and gun ownership, just as it has always been, since the Constitution was written.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Yes horse drawn carriages in New York and in Boston had a few act's of people losing it. Also the horse drawn fire truck in Philly caused quite a chain of events.
> 
> A lack of knowledge does not change history. I loved horses and read lots of books of the period in history when horses were the norm. Horses were injured in road rage events. The Morgan breed of horse is a descend of a road rage event.


For sure, but how do your facts even compare with the fact, that that are 250 million cars on the road today, many operated by highly stressed, sometimes highly medicated 

drivers.?.



> In the U.S., more than 300 cases of road rage annually have ended with serious injuries or even fatalities &#8211; 1200 incidents per year, according to the AAA Foundation study, and rising yearly throughout the six years of the study that examined police records nationally.[2] A number of studies have found that individuals with road rage were predominantly young (33.0 years of age on average) and male (96.6%)


.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_rage

Men used to occasionally challenge each other to a "duel" with single shot black powder pistols. Are we to compare that with today's Chicago gangland shootings?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Hard cider, mead, beer, ale, wine, tonic, snake oil, pot, not new. Sorry but man has been behaving badly since the first diet that prohibited Apple's. 

The clothes, and tools might have changed over time but man is still just an animal in nature. Thus the search to be alpha in a situation has lead to the over powering of others. Tools have saved many lives and snuffed the lives of others. These days it is guns that are feared. That Rodgers kid used successfully knives to kill too. The tool was planned so as to kill quietly. So want to ban knives?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Exactly what is a "logic test"? Not familiar with that law. Is that your logic, my logic, someone else's?
> 
> Although "defined" in the Constitution, due process, just like the second amendment, is more than a little, vague, to say the least.
> 
> IT' *LAWS*, that truly define due process and gun ownership, just as it has always been, since the Constitution was written.


what is a logic test? :whistlin: Sorry, I don't have enough time.

I suggest you reread both yours and my messages in this thread. Logic doesn't belong to you or me. Look up the definition of logic, that might help you.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> what is a logic test? :whistlin: Sorry, I don't have enough time.
> 
> I suggest you reread both yours and my messages in this thread. Logic doesn't belong to you or me. Look up the definition of logic, that might help you.


When a counter point, dwindles down to this, it's not hard to understand logic, at all.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> For sure, but how do your facts even compare with the fact, that that are 250 million cars on the road today, many operated by highly stressed, sometimes highly medicated
> 
> drivers.?.
> 
> ...


Oh. Its settled then. We take away all cars.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Oh, and one of ya can explain how it is that the pols have all this gun control talk, but I haven't heard the plans to get the guns from the criminals, only how to control the law abiding folks.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> When a counter point, dwindles down to this, it's not hard to understand logic, at all.


When someone doesn't understand the difference between endangering people by yelling FIRE in a theatre and legally carrying a gun for self protection, I pretty much figure why expend any more effort.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> When someone doesn't understand the difference between endangering people by yelling FIRE in a theatre and legally carrying a gun for self protection, I pretty much figure why expend any more effort.


Yup, sometimes ya just run out of crayons & puppets...


----------



## MistysShady (Dec 31, 2013)

I wish it were as simple as all hand guns and military grade weapons could be recalled from every civilian and police officer. Leave the people-killing machines to the military and maybe to things like Swat teams. It is very disturbing to me that weapons designed specifically for use on humans are sold at all. That's a big --- to me. Pointless post, sorry, but it is a thought that fills my mind at times with a big resounding "WHY?!"

I do understand that it is the unregistered guns that couldn't simply be taken back which are the real threat. Assuming these are the guns that belong to gang members, etc. Like I said, useless post, but there you have it. Boooo on guns. Yay to having a baseball bat by the front door and under your bed and a knife in your pocket on the streets.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bears are bigger that humans and moose and those wild hogs ,elks cows come. On there needs to be some size and heaft along with speed, scopes are not just for sniping. Just remembering seeing the deer hunts from my childhood those gun have just been improved on. heck my blender today has more power today than my mom's did and I am not scared of it ....change is good. Right.I


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I'm not following this discussion closely, but why do people always use Detroit and Chicago together as examples of gun control not working? Chicago, certainly, but Detroit doesn't go in that category. In Detroit, concealed carry is not only legal, but encouraged by the police chief. Castle doctrine is the law of the land. And there's no law against open carry of a handgun, which makes it even more gun-friendly than the state of Texas. I'm completely against gun control, but Detroit really isn't a good example. I'm sure it would be much worse with Chicago's gun laws.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Ok, Snort!
> What is is you think is right? repeal the amendment?
> Confiscate all guns? Like Hitler did? What is it we are arguing about? The FACT that laws ON THE BOOKS are not followed by criminals? So you want more laws?
> What IS IT?


How come none of the gun-control proponents have answered this? Too complicated?


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

"The right of the people, to keep and bear arms *shall not be infringed*" -2nd Amendment US constitution.

*Infringe= To limit or undermine*. ( oxford dictionary )

Keep= Have, to retain possession of

Bear= Carry. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* Rights..." -US declaration of independence.

*Unalienable= unable to be taken away from *or given away by the possessor.


Sorry guys, its the law. The constitution is the law of the land. The only way to legally impose gun control is by amending the constitution. Without that, any attempt to limit the right of the people is a criminal act.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> An armed society *usually* equals a more polite society.........._provided_.........those that armed have some manners. Just arming any ole thugs sure won't yield good results, lol.
> 
> 
> Now to clear up the confusion that is plaguing the comprehension of this proposed theory.
> ...


Do you have any idea how armed the South is actually? Or for that matter how much more polite and respectful?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Do you have any idea how armed the South is actually? Or for that matter how much more polite and respectful?


Do you have any idea? I've told you several times, but here it is in a bit more detail. 

Florida has the most CCW licenses of any state at 887K: http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/aug/14/rick-scott/florida-no-1-concealed-permits-rick-scott-says/

Some of those folks live outside of Florida because FL's easy application process and it is one of the top states for reciprocity. A FL CCW is good in over 30 states, last time I checked. My first CCW was issued by FL and I still lived in VA at that time. 

The population of FL in 2011, the same year as the CCW data is 19M: http://www.stateofflorida.com/Portal/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=95

Not everyone with a CCW carries. My bud has a CCW and is a NRA CCW trainer but he never carries unless he is going to the range. But let's assume everyone with a FL CCW lives in the state and carries all the time. That means the rate of carry is well less than 5%. Conflating rates of carry with total number of guns is utter nonsense. Guns left at home mean nothing when it comes to robbing a bank or stopping a bank robbery. 

I own 12 guns, 10 are antiques and have not been loaded or fired since before the 1970's; one I carry all the time; and 1 was non-functioning for the last 40 years but I recently found a gun smith to make parts to fix it. 

My bud has well more than a dozen guns and all but a couple of them have not left his home/yard in the last 10 years. 

I haven't been able to find a site to link to, but rates of carry are reportedly well under 1% and I have seen as low as 0.5%. There may be lots of guns in the US and even more in the South, but less than 1 in 100 are likely to be armed at any given time.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> I haven't been able to find a site to link to, but rates of carry are reportedly well under 1% and I have seen as low as 0.5%. There may be lots of guns in the US and even more in the South, but less than 1 in 100 are likely to be armed at any given time.


Don't take any of mine out with me either but a whole lot of violent crime happens in homes so you would expect in a heavily armed city or state to see some of that scare factor wouldn't you?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Don't take any of mine out with me either but a whole lot of violent crime happens in homes so you would expect in a heavily armed city or state to see some of that scare factor wouldn't you?


whole lot, some, scare factor, no differentiation of violent crime in the home between friends and family vs criminal break in or cops raiding the wrong house. 

When you are using such precise :smack terms, who is to say?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The greatest scare factor for me is a disarmed population with with only government and military armed. Too many historical examples have shown me that absolute power absolutely becomes corrupt. A level playing field keeps all sides in line MUCH better than inequality.

Wether it is men or women or Irish Americans vs Scottish Americans or rich vs poor it as long as everyone has a shot to strive for personal goals and satifsction .....with a level playing field. Have a gun or not is a personal choice and a right the was soundly declared to maximise person freedom and safety.

Everything can be abused, meds, cars,planes,rope,....in the hands of man great things can be done and so great evil to. It is the person not the tool that is the deciding factor.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Do you have any idea how armed the South is actually? Or for that matter how much more polite and respectful?


Why, yes ma'am, I do.:cowboy:


----------

