Another shooting..

[ssteele18 10+ year member]

just a couple things to think about...
Morgan Freeman's statement about these random shootings....

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you kn

ow the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem."

also...

-In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

-China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Australia.. well you get the idea.

If the US population actually had control of who went into office i wouldn't worry about protecting myself from the government, but if you really look at things its clear we do not.

Sad, but true... :/

 

[SourDeez 10+ year member]

just a couple things to think about...
Morgan Freeman's statement about these random shootings....

"You want to know why. This may sound cynical, but here's why.

It's because of the way the media reports it. Flip on the news and watch how we treat the Batman theater shooter and the Oregon mall shooter like celebrities. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris are household names, but do you kn

ow the name of a single victim of Columbine? Disturbed people who would otherwise just off themselves in their basements see the news and want to top it by doing something worse, and going out in a memorable way. Why a grade school? Why children? Because he'll be remembered as a horrible monster, instead of a sad nobody.

CNN's article says that if the body count "holds up", this will rank as the second deadliest shooting behind Virginia Tech, as if statistics somehow make one shooting worse than another. Then they post a video interview of third-graders for all the details of what they saw and heard while the shootings were happening. Fox News has plastered the killer's face on all their reports for hours. Any articles or news stories yet that focus on the victims and ignore the killer's identity? None that I've seen yet. Because they don't sell. So congratulations, sensationalist media, you've just lit the fire for someone to top this and knock off a day care center or a maternity ward next.

You can help by forgetting you ever read this man's name, and remembering the name of at least one victim. You can help by donating to mental health research instead of pointing to gun control as the problem."

also...

-In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

-China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-Australia.. well you get the idea.

If the US population actually had control of who went into office i wouldn't worry about protecting myself from the government, but if you really look at things its clear we do not.

Sounds right to me

Hypothetically if our guns were to be "taken away" it would be game over. But it wont happen.

 

[VWBobby 10+ year member]

I couldn't have said it better myself!

You'd better believe they are trying harder than ever. Unfortunatly I don't own any guns //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif

However, I feel like everyone should hold onto their arms as much as possible.

Benjamin Franklin said:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

This is why a lot of sheeple are quick to jump on the banning guns kick.

 

[perfecxionX 10+ year member]

Why do arguments on this board concerning gun control so frequently turn into 'all guns allowed' vs 'no guns at all?' Very few people want to completely ban all guns.

The debate in the real world is what type of guns should be available (concealable, high capacity, semi automatic, automatic, explosive, etc), and to whom (under 18?, under 21?, felons?, people diagnosed with depression?, people diagnosed with schizophrenia, people connected to hate/terrorist groups?, etc).

When people talk about gun control theyre talking about things like mandatory waiting periods to buy a gun, background searches, requirements to have a lock on gun in the home, special permits for specific types of weapons, etc. Stop oversimplifying the debate and pidgeon holing gun control advocates

 

[VWBobby 10+ year member]

The reason is because every gun since the 1800's is considered "semi-automatic", under their definitions.

Unless you want to go back to flint lock muskets, you are stuck with Some single shot pistols and rifles. Any gun that uses a magazine, clip, or even some revolvers are being considered "semi-automatic".

If you do the research on this issue, these people are not your "normal" psychopaths, loonies or anything of the sort. Why would this kid's mom, a school teacher, own an assault rifle? Think about it.

Your sig is perfect for this topic //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif:

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" Charles Darwin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEIV7-PkdRQ

Forgive his use of "obama-r" lol

Possible proof of a second gunman:

 

[jdawg90 10+ year member]

In the 1700's all there was was flint lock muskets and cannons. Today the military has weapons far more destructive than a semi automatic ar-15. Back then flint lock muskets were on par with what the military had.

 

[DB-Audio 10+ year member]

taking away guns is a bunch of bs its not guns that kill its people that kill guns cant pull the trigger by themself

 

[CHEMMINS 10+ year member]

Yes, gun control is just that. They don't take away your weapons...unless they are automatics. They are prohibited. Handguns are restricted, and rifles are fairly easy to obtain.

Now who in north America needs an automatic weapon to protect themselves?

For the handguns and rifles, it is just harder to get them. An actual course and test. And you have to register them.

They are not taking away your "right to bear arms" they are just making the screening process a bit better.

Also if the teacher was a responsible gun owner, he weapons would have had trigger locks on them and been in a gun vault.

 

[Phoenix Risen 10+ year member]

the problem with the "assault weapons" ban is that from there it is a very, very small jump to an all out firearms ban, and depending on the wording of the bill could be slipped in under the noses of the majority of America that doesnt pay attention to a **** thing our government does, all they would have to do is slip in a small line in the middle of a massive bill that mentions semi-automatic firearms(which its been done before with other things in large bills), and poof, ALL of our guns are illegal, look how far SOPA got and that was just to stop piracy not murder...

personally if someone wants to spend the time and money it takes to go through legal channels to get a pre-ban full auto weapon, then i see no reason why they shouldnt be allowed to have it, if its a matter of it not being necessary then vehicles that can do more than the highest legal posted speed limit in the country should be outlawed as well. Unless the people that make the laws want them in a select few people's hands...

 

[Ignatowski 5,000+ posts]

i never seen a mass murderer obey the law

 

[Bettr n' Revrse 5,000+ posts]

I don't agree with banning any sort weapon that's like saying O you can't drive these vehicles cuz the government says you dont need them as a common citizen... The people that are aloud to own automatic weapons go though the process of getting a license and pay their dues to do so just like you would to drive a motorcycle or a semi...

 

[Bettr n' Revrse 5,000+ posts]

the problem with the "assault weapons" ban is that from there it is a very, very small jump to an all out firearms ban, and depending on the wording of the bill could be slipped in under the noses of the majority of America that doesnt pay attention to a **** thing our government does, all they would have to do is slip in a small line in the middle of a massive bill that mentions semi-automatic firearms(which its been done before with other things in large bills), and poof, ALL of our guns are illegal, look how far SOPA got and that was just to stop piracy not murder...
personally if someone wants to spend the time and money it takes to go through legal channels to get a pre-ban full auto weapon, then i see no reason why they shouldnt be allowed to have it, if its a matter of it not being necessary then vehicles that can do more than the highest legal posted speed limit in the country should be outlawed as well. Unless the people that make the laws want them in a select few people's hands...

Exactly or for that matter limit how loud a stereo system can be because why does anyone need a car system that does 150+ Db? We don't but we still do it for the fun of it...

 

[DoesDad 10+ year member]

As far as banning certain weapons I say if the government has it, I should be able to have it. The 2nd amendment was designed first and foremost to protect yourself from an overzealous and overreaching government. How are you going to go to war with assault rifles and rockets launchers when all you have is a deer rifle? Disarming society is not the answer. All it would do is make pretty easy pickins' for the criminals and make an honest, tax paying citizen subservient out of fear.

 

[quackhead 10+ year member]

Exactly or for that matter limit how loud a stereo system can be because why does anyone need a car system that does 150+ Db? We don't but we still do it for the fun of it...

this is true. Saying "let's ban a certain type of gun" is like saying "let's ban all amps over 1000 watts because they can cause hearing loss". Full auto weapons can be had and the requirements are not easily met. I have yet to see one used in one of these mass killings, so they should not even be mentioned in that context.

 

[Jerhemy 10+ year member]

Yes, gun control is just that. They don't take away your weapons...unless they are automatics. They are prohibited. Handguns are restricted, and rifles are fairly easy to obtain.
Now who in north America needs an automatic weapon to protect themselves?

For the handguns and rifles, it is just harder to get them. An actual course and test. And you have to register them.

They are not taking away your "right to bear arms" they are just making the screening process a bit better.

Also if the teacher was a responsible gun owner, he weapons would have had trigger locks on them and been in a gun vault.

It is extremely difficult to get fully automatic weapons. As has been said already, none of these mass shootings have involved automatic weapons.

Why should NEED necessitate legality and availability. We don't NEED pretty much any on the things we use everyday, cars, computers, stereos, but we as free individuals should be able to have them even if we don't need them.

The problem with heavy gun registration and partial gun bans is that it is often the first and biggest step towards a total gun ban. Once you let the far too big Federal Government decide what we can have as far as guns, who is to stop them from simply adding all guns to that list. The phrase "you give them an inch, they take a mile" comes to mind here.

The guns are not to blame, you can't punish someone (taking away our rights) for crimes they have not and will not commit. Again, being able to own any gun the police can have is key to the idea of the second amendment. It is not about hunting and sport shooting. It is about keeping the true power of this country with the people in the end. The officials that we 'elect' into office lie out their asses to the entire population on a regular basis and do what they want/are told without thought of what we truly want. You can't really argue that the government will protect you, all they will do lay down martial law and lock us down, monitor everything we do and make it illegal to question their all mighty system and logic. I don't know about you But i do not want to live in a worse police state than we already do.