Another mass shooting...

[jbscout2002 1]

I guess maybe these seemingly minute "rights" would mean more to some of you if you actually put your ass on the line to protect them, or if you have ever been to a country where the people have no rights.

[wmw999 2,122]

I lived eight years in Brazil, most of that while it was under a dictatorship. Does that count?

That said, personally I think the way around the easy accessibility of guns is a constitutional amendment. Which means it won't happen anytime soon. Regardless of what the founding fathers meant when they worded the second amendment (and no, I'm sure they didn't imagine life as it is now), they wrote it.

If everyone were as responsible as you (or me and my husband,'or my ex, or my son -- we all have in the past or currently own), it wouldn't be an issue.

One irresponsible/psycho person with a gun can multiply the damage disproportionately. It's much harder if they have a knife or baseball bat.

I do find it interesting that many who are (ahem) rabidly pro-gun rights seem to be the same ones who are horrified at the incredible damage that a single unauthorized vote can do. (That's a general comment -- you've never weighed in on that).

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jbscout2002 1]

There are actually a few (IMO) "sensible" gun laws that were proposed by the NRA and voted into law in an effort to stem "gun" violence. Making misdemeanor crimes committed while in possession of a gun automatically upgrade to a felony, mandatory sentencing for crimes where a firearm was used, harsher punishments for misuse of firearms and straw purchases are some of the results of the NRAs efforts to solve some of the violence problems while (and in order to) protect gun rights.

I agree with your point on "responsible" ownership. I have seen some pretty ignorant gun owners in my day. Perhaps the irresponsible ones should be charged with negligence, or criminal negligence, if it is found that their irresponsible practices enabled the criminal to gain possession of the gun.

I felt that Adam Landzas mother should have been charged with manslaughter for having firearms unsecured in a house with her son whom she knew to be unstable. The problem is, she was killed, so that was not an option to be considered and was never brought up.

[RMK 3]

jbscout2002

I believe in the theory that these shootings are becoming more common because the American society is becoming desensitized to violence through video games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty.

I don't really play video games, but a lot of my Soldiers do. They showed me a level on Call of Duty, where you walk through a mall and kill all the civilians with a medium machine gun. Why? What is the point of having that in the story line of the game? And the. GTA is all about crime. You get your point based on how many murders and rapes you commit.

These games and the Internet and such, tends to keep people isolated in their house or room rather than being out and socially interacting with other people. I'm guessing most of these mass shooters are introverts, and not members of a church, volunteer fire department, or play on a local softball team or whatever.

Combine all this with making it illegal and taboo to spank a kid when they screw up, and it's a recipe for disaster. This everyone is a winner, nothing is your fault, your not being a trouble maker you just have ADHD mentality.

We've got these same video games in all European countries. Mass shootings are due to kids playing Grand Theft Auto??

"Pain is the best instructor, but no one wants to attend his classes"

[jbscout2002 1]

RMK

***I believe in the theory that these shootings are becoming more common because the American society is becoming desensitized to violence through video games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty.

I don't really play video games, but a lot of my Soldiers do. They showed me a level on Call of Duty, where you walk through a mall and kill all the civilians with a medium machine gun. Why? What is the point of having that in the story line of the game? And the. GTA is all about crime. You get your point based on how many murders and rapes you commit.

These games and the Internet and such, tends to keep people isolated in their house or room rather than being out and socially interacting with other people. I'm guessing most of these mass shooters are introverts, and not members of a church, volunteer fire department, or play on a local softball team or whatever.

Combine all this with making it illegal and taboo to spank a kid when they screw up, and it's a recipe for disaster. This everyone is a winner, nothing is your fault, your not being a trouble maker you just have ADHD mentality.

We've got these same video games in all European countries. Mass shootings are due to kids playing Grand Theft Auto??

According to many gun control advocates, the mere presence of a gun leads to violence. It's as if a gun possesses people and forces them to pick it up and use it in a violent way. So according to that mindset, why not? I say yes. If you play Grand Theft Auto, you will walk into a Burger King with a Tech 9 and start wasting people. I think some countries actually require that disclaimer to be displayed on the packaging.

[christelsabine 1]

Jesus Christ!

Am I the only one who noticed that your posts more and more sound like you're the PR manager of NRA?

Wonder why you guy did not enter political stage - with all the explanations/solutions you offer here ....

I am well aware what your reply will be. Pffff ....

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[jbscout2002 1]

Besides, gun violence is a drop in the bucket. If we want what the hippies referred to as " love, peace, and hair grease" we should unite the world in an effort to ban religion. You say guns are killing people, but how many people have been killed by, Al Qada, Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al-shabaab? Religion is way more of an epidemic of violence than guns.

[jbscout2002 1]

christelsabine

Jesus Christ!

Am I the only one who noticed that your posts more and more sound like you're the PR manager of NRA?

Wonder why you guy did not enter political stage - with all the explanations/solutions you offer here ....

I am well aware what your reply will be. Pffff ....

It's just that they fight to protect the rights of the people, while also working to come up with actual solutions to the crime problems that threaten those rights.

Gun control advocates just scream for stricter laws, but usually don't know what the current laws are, don't know anything about the guns they are trying to restrict, and offer no real solutions to the violence problem.

[kallend 1,623]

jbscout2002

******I believe in the theory that these shootings are becoming more common because the American society is becoming desensitized to violence through video games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty.

Of course, they don't have video games in Canada, Australia and Britain.


You appear to be a soldier. Don't you think that maybe your training gives you a different view of the effectiveness of a firearm for self defense in a high stress situation than would be the case for an untrained civilian?

Gun control in Austrailia and UK was a systematic disarming of those countries. After mass shootings in both countries, the citizens agreed to a thorough registration system. The governments then enacted laws that banned semi automatic riffles, then pistols, then severely restricted remaining rifles and shotguns. With the registration systems they had, police simply knocked on gun owners' doors with a warrant and confiscated them (this is we us diehards oppose centralized registration).

In both countries there are very limited firearms with even more limited access to them. Someone from the UK or Austrailia please chime in and tell me how easy it is to take your son out in the back pasture and teach him how to shoot a .22, or take him on his first turkey hunt.

To a slightly lesser extent, the same has/is happening in Canada, it just hasn't gotten that far yet, and it's too cold to go out and commit crimes.

How about answering my question rather than going off on yet another tangent?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,122]

No, the mere presence of a gun doesn't cause violence. However, easy access to one makes its use more likely. Combined with alcohol, drugs, anger, desperation, etc. it's kind of like having something that needs pounding, and only a sledgehammer to use.

It makes interpersonal violence easier, safer, and more bloodless. If you're pissed at someone and you have a knife or a bat, generally one considers ones own safety before "teaching him a lesson." With a gun, hey, you don't have to get as close. Yes, I'm talking about idiots here, but they're who's behind a lot of the incidental gun violence.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jbscout2002 1]

I've spent my whole day arguing my point of view, and pretty much for nothing. Gun control advocates will never agree with anything pro gun people say, and pro gun people will always fight every effort to impose additional restrictions on guns. Nothing will change.

I have this same argument with my wife at least three times a week. I'm from Country Fuck, OK and she is from NYC, so we do not see eye to eye on this topic. It ends the same way every time. I explain to her why she is wrong and she gets mad and says, "we're not having this discussion again".

[jbscout2002 1]

Post numbers 185 and 201 were my answers to your two questions.

[kallend 1,623]

www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

It is a gun free zone
and you know it
Even the 1 security guard did NOT have a weapon

The only feeling I have is feeling sorry for you

In Canada it is completely normal for security guards to be unarmed. And they do not feel unsafe. I walk around downtown in public surrounded by unarmed citizens. We all feel safe. The only one I feel sorry for in this conversation is you. It must suck to feel unsafe without a firearm. Especially when you consider that if one of your armed compatriots decides to gun you down, he will almost certainly get the drop on you.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

[kallend 1,623]

jbscout2002

Post numbers 185 and 201 were my answers to your two questions.

Nope. Just your bio.

No comments on how you think an untrained but armed civilian would respond if suddenly placed in a high stress life or death situation. Would you like that person in the same crowded room with you when a psycho starts shooting?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,122]

The thing is that no one will convince you to move completely across on your opinion. You won't convince anyone to completely change their opinion. But by engaging intelligently (which you have done), you humanize your point of view, and possibly moderate some opinions, and educate.

You might also get some of the "guns -- heh-heh" crowd to actually think a little bit. Which is also a good thing. Ignore the idiots, just state your points, and actually address what others say, rather than just repeating the same lines, or parroting some website with a name like "gunsaregoodlibsareidiots.com".

Thanks both for your engagement, and your service.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 1,623]

jbscout2002

***www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/gun_control_by_state_tougher_laws_mean_fewer_deaths.html

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

Big decrease in murders when Chicago banned handguns. When the ban was lifted in 2012 and CCW allowed in 2014, we now have a 21% INCREASE in murders.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

***Post numbers 185 and 201 were my answers to your two questions.

Nope. Just your bio.

No comments on how you think an untrained but armed civilian would respond if suddenly placed in a high stress life or death situation. Would you like that person in the same crowded room with you when a psycho starts shooting?

My bio lol. Post 207 I kind of answered that question.

[gowlerk 1,912]

Quote

I believe in the theory that these shootings are becoming more common because the American society is becoming desensitized to violence through video games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty.

I'm not believing this theory at all. Have you ever heard the saying "when the only tool you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail"? I believe that with so many guns so easily available, and people being people, a small but significant percentage of them loose it long enough to use the available tool. It's not all gun owners, but guns are such efficiently deadly killing machines that the number of deaths is relatively high. And with the numbers of gun owners growing, the death rate will as well. It's the price American society must pay for it's gun fun. So enjoy your lovely beautiful collection of killing machines. And hope that your loved ones are not among the victims.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[kallend 1,623]

jbscout2002

******Post numbers 185 and 201 were my answers to your two questions.

Nope. Just your bio.

No comments on how you think an untrained but armed civilian would respond if suddenly placed in a high stress life or death situation. Would you like that person in the same crowded room with you when a psycho starts shooting?

My bio lol. Post 207 I kind of answered that question.

Well, how about actually answering this: You are listening to a talk in a crowded room with with a bunch of strangers (none of whom have any tactical training to the best of your knowledge). Suddenly a psycho walks in the back of the room and starts shooting the place up. How do you feel about the possibility that some of those strangers might themselves be armed and think themselves the reincarnation of Rambo? (We know there are people like that, several of them post here).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jbscout2002 1]

I don't use my words very well. That's why I was a Soldier and not a politician. I'm just afraid of going to bed perfectly legal, and wake up in the morning breaking the law. It happened with the SAFE act. I had to load up a couple things and drive them cross country to my dads house because they became illegal that night.

I can get rid of high capacity magazines and make cosmetic modifications to semi automatic rifles to make them compliant, by that only goes so far. Eventually I reach a point where I can't comply. I can give away thousands of dollars worth of hunting, sporting, competition, and collectible firearms because of a lack of common sense, or I can take my chances with mandatory prison time and demonization by the public.

[jbscout2002 1]

kallend

*********Post numbers 185 and 201 were my answers to your two questions.

Nope. Just your bio.

No comments on how you think an untrained but armed civilian would respond if suddenly placed in a high stress life or death situation. Would you like that person in the same crowded room with you when a psycho starts shooting?

My bio lol. Post 207 I kind of answered that question.

Well, how about actually answering this: You are listening to a talk in a crowded room with with a bunch of strangers (none of whom have any tactical training to the best of your knowledge). Suddenly a psycho walks in the back of the room and starts shooting the place up. How do you feel about the possibility that some of those strangers might themselves be armed and think themselves the reincarnation of Rambo? (We know there are people like that, several of them post here).

The initial reflexive action, even among moderately trained people is to duck for cover and then assess the situation. While most people will be in a panic and will try to make themselves as low and small as possible (I swear to God himself that I have actually tried to take cover behind an empty soda bottle during a battle where I was caught off guard out in the open), the shooter will be standing. Out of the handful of armed strangers, some will panic and freeze up and stay low with everyone else, and some will shoot at the one guy who is still standing or walking around. As I mentioned in a previous post, a couple of untrained people focusing their fire on one person are likely to hit him (or her). IMO, the risk of ricochets and crossfire is outweighed by the definite enevitabilty that the gunman will methodically and systematically work his way through the room killing everyone there until he runs out of amo or authorities arrive.

I would rather see one victim and the shooter get shot and one additional person get hit by a stray bullet, then be in a room full of people and listening to them cry, beg, and pray, while waiting their turn to be shot in the head at point blank.

[jbscout2002 1]

I can't imagine anything in the world comparing to the feeling of absolute hopelessness. Being in a plane that is going down, cutting away and having a total mal on the reserve, being a Yazidi girl in ISIS controlled territory, or being in those rooms hoping he either runs out of amo or doesn't see you. Some things are completely out of our control. For me, being in that room without a chance is something I can control, unless I'm the first one inside the door, then hopefully someone else who thinks like me is there as well.

[mpohl 1]

If you are still active in the military.
And man enough.

Let me have the contact info for your commanding officer.

Because it is not your job as a soldier to decide which orders to follow or not. A soldier's job is to die!

I am dead-serious. Let me have the contact info and I will contact your commanding officer. If you are man enough!

jbscout2002

Also remember that Soldiers are more sympathetic to their communities and civilian friends and family than they are to a questionable government. We aren't brain washed robots that will mindlessly follow questionable orders. America. It's a beautiful country.