little_socrates there's no way i would have chosen to engage an assault rifle with a hand gun. I just wouldn't do it, I would have ran like that guy did. I am just pointing out that the common notion is the way to solve this problem is arming more people. I would hope all concealed carry holders are very responsible, but this guy could have unloaded his whole gun on them and no one would have said anything, in fact they would have called him a hero. But lets not get away from the real question. Since you are against gun control, please offer some solutions to this. I have offered mine which has only been met with scoffing at the idea. I have yet to see those who are against gun control offer a solution. I am not dogmatic in the belief that I know best and my way is the best way. But so far it is the only way that has been offered to correct a problem. Please take your opportunity to offer a plan or solution.
Another mass shooting, three or four hours ago.
by James Mixon 238 Replies latest social current
-
-
freemindfade
I think what little_Socrates is getting at is not to be armed to act as a vigilante and actively engage a terrorist, but if escape is impossible whether you are armed or not would you choose:
- Lay face down on the ground and wait to be executed? or
- Die on your feet (again with or without a gun, in that case preferably with a gun)
I really don't imagine most people who have gone through the steps to legal carry would be a brazen cowboy running to certain death or putting others at further risk. But I as a gun owner think about the way some in Paris were executed, with no discredit to them, honestly if I'm gonna die, its not gonna be face down on the ground. If there was no way out, and I had a handgun, assault rifles or not, I don't want to make it easy for them. I'm history anyway and there is no way out.
The guy that got the hell out and was armed I would have done the same. I'm not a cop, I'm not a soldier. With no way out though id use whatever I had at my disposal.
-
JeffT
That's a ruling. They need to make a better one.
The constitution can be amended and / or re-interpreted and laws change all the time.
The right has already had conditions placed on it ... just add some more. Nothing mandates the type of arms or the quantity. Are people allowed nukes? No - that would be crazy. We just need to find a better line of where "crazy" starts. An arsenal of weapons is crazy.
It just needs some political will.I have no problem with some restrictions. Background checks are reasonable. Here in Washington State it's illegal to take a gun into a bar even if you have a concealed carry permit. I've known since I was a kid that guns and alcohol don't mix. This is a reasonable restriction.
Food for thought, how do the members of this board advocating reasonable restrictions on guns feel about reasonable restrictions on abortion?
-
Finkelstein
Here's a plausible theory .
The more guns being sold and distributed in a established population incites others to own one themselves to appeal to their own protection from other members of that population..
A recognized gun industry would therefore ideologically embrace that concept to support their own particular business or industry.
Why do you hear the gun industry say that to make the population more safer is to have more guns in ownership ?
-
talesin
Food for thought, how do the members of this board advocating reasonable restrictions on guns feel about reasonable restrictions on abortion?
When you start randomly attacking pregnant women and aborting their babies, legally, the two may be comparable.
-
sloppyjoe2
I am still waiting for just some type of solution other than gun control. All the other side comments seem to be made in order to avoid this answer. -
Finkelstein
Food for thought, how do the members of this board advocating reasonable restrictions on guns feel about reasonable restrictions on abortion?
That's being intellectual disingenuous to compare and evaluate two separately different situations.
They are distinctly unique to themselves.
An intellectually dishonest tactic seen and used many times by JWS supporting their doctrines of faith.
-
adjusted knowledge
sloppyjoe2
Let's use what it was when they were banned from 1994-2004. And anything that would meet that criteria that has been invented since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_BanI'm ok with that ban. Not quite sure on what would be considered a duplicate of the Colt AR-15. I suspect the sig saur, bushmaster, ect... type based on the 5.56mm. As long as it isn't a total ban on weapons using 5.56mm.
I didn't notice any mention on high capacity clips. The ruger 10/22 I own and mentioned in a previous posting is very easy to customize. It is a low caliber ammo but a .22 round is used quite often in gang shootings because it is very cheap. Though extremely hard to find for purchase in my area. But a box of 500 rounds go for $24. I have several 30 round clips so even a low caliber ammo I can pump out probably 60 to 90 rounds in a minute as long as the gun doesn't jam while changing out the clip. The gun will still be legal under the propose ban. And this is a gun mainly used for small game animals.
On my 9mm glock I have a 50 round clip. It looks completely ridiculous, but I was able to unload the whole clip without it jamming in under a minute. Perfectly legal in Florida and would still be legal under the propose assault rifle ban.
-
sloppyjoe2
@adjusted knowledge you're only adding fuel to what I think should happen which is total gun reform in the U.S. I am well aware of the damage non assault rifles do. An assault rifle ban should be a no brainier already. But to be clear total gun banning would be my solution. I know so far everyone disagrees with me, but at least I'm trying to fix a terrible problem our country has. But now is your opportunity to say what your solution would be. -
freemindfade
I am still waiting for just some type of solution other than gun control. All the other side comments seem to be made in order to avoid this answer.
I suggest watching some serious documentaries on this type of thing, they never say that gun control is the answer and these are unbiased people in favor of gun control. In mass shooting gun control is part of the problem it is not the problem. If you offer a solution it could include stricter gun regulations, but that is not a solution to make mass shootings go away either.
My first step towards a solution is stop looking at it through such a narrow view. Start there, then if you really want your gun control to have an impact you cannot ignore the individuals who perpetrate these things and what they have in common and what brings them to this point. Suicide + rampage shooting to fame.
I think to say that you do have an answer is short sited. Kind of like the witnesses that put the solutions to problems in the context of "this will fix it". Its a super complex problem and I would not be so arrogant to admit to have the ultimate answer to something so complicated. I just know gun control is small band-aid on a big wound. Its something, but its not going to stop it.
What are there 400 million guns in america? Those aren't gonna disappear for a very very long time and mexico has a steady supply of illegal knock offs coming in daily.