guns

[soberups]

The ammo is getting more powerful, the guns carrying more ammo than ever, the "Stopping" power as Sober would call it is greater as bullets are going through people and into other people.

TOS

Your statement is completely false.

The AR-15/M-16 rifle design is approximately 50 years old, as is the .223 cartridge that it fires. The standard ballistics of the .223 round have not changed in that time.

The 9mm Parabellum cartridge is over 100 years old, dating back to 1902. As with the .223, the standard ballistics of the round have not significantly changed. "High capacity" handguns chambered for this caliber, such as the Browning Hi Power, have been around since the 1930's.

50 years ago, it was commonplace for guns to be freely sold in hardware stores and department stores such as Sears and JC Pennys. No background checks or permits were required and no waiting periods were imposed. Guns could also be ordered through the mail, again without any sort of background check being required.

55 years ago, my father was a member of his high school rifle team. He and his teammates would ride the bus to school with their rifles and ammunition. Upon arriving at school, they would simply place their rifles in the closet in the principals office and then retrieve them when school was out so that they could ride the bus to the local armory where the shooting matches were held.

50 years ago---the guns were basically the same and the ammo was basically the same.
50 years ago---guns were far easier to obtain without permits or background checks.

Those are the facts.

If you want to have a discussion about the need to change gun laws, then you need to start by getting your facts straight instead of spewing out a bunch of inaccurate and emotionally charged rhetoric.

What has changed in the last 50 years isnt the guns or the ammo...it is the spiritual condition of our nation. 50 years ago, kids werent solving their emotional problems by showing up to school and blowing people away. I dont claim to have any sort of easy solution for such a complex and multifaceted societal problem...but I do know that if laws and permits and restrictions and background checks and limits on magazine capacity were the answer then we wouldnt keep seeing these horrible tragedies unfold.

 

[bbsam]

Since you acknowledge the deficient state of spiritual condition, do you still favor no gun laws? I don't have the answers either, but I feel pretty certain that isntbit. Bad guys may get guns, but I have yet to see gan bangers wipe out a kindergarten class.

 

[soberups]

A teacher would have NO CHANCE against the semi auto pistols this man was carrying. To even suggest this is the greater problem in america.


TOS

An unarmed teacher certainly has no chance, as we have witnessed numerous times when defensless victims are slaughtered in "gun free zones" that serve no purpose other than to (a) provide a convenient located supply of unarmed and helpless victims to a would-be murderer and (b) provide a warm and fuzzy feeling to stupid liberals who have bought into the fantasy that a " no guns allowed" sticker on a door will stop that would- be murderer in his tracks.

The current success rate of unarmed teachers pitted against armed lunatics stands at 0%, which is pretty lousy when you stop to think about it. Perhaps we should consider another alternative. I dont see how it could make the odds any worse.

 

[BigUnionGuy]

The ammo is getting more powerful.

Peace

TOS

 

[toonertoo]

Scratch,I know you have several unregistered guns,as do millions of Americans.
I would like to see this change.
They could build 3 space shuttles out of the surplus.

they could have built a whole fleet out of cash for clunkers.

 

[over9five]

Why don't we ban those awful CARS, that kill a hell of a lot more people than guns?
Why don't we blame the CAR for the death when a drunk driver runs an innocent person down? If you blame GUNS when a psycho kills someone, shouldn't you also blame the CAR when a drunk runs over someone?
IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING.
If you meant what you said about GUNS, you'd also be calling for the banning of all CARS.

 

[soberups]

Since you acknowledge the deficient state of spiritual condition, do you still favor no gun laws? I don't have the answers either, but I feel pretty certain that isntbit. Bad guys may get guns, but I have yet to see gan bangers wipe out a kindergarten class.

I never said that I favored "no gun laws."

There are already any number of laws in place pertaining to the sale, posession and carry of guns. Some of them I agree with, others I dont.

What I am opposed to...is warm-and-fuzzy "feel good" laws that serve no purpose other than to allow those who passed them to feel like they are doing something meaningful.

The so-called "assault weapon ban" of 1994-2004 is a perfect example of such a law. To the uninformed, it "felt" like a law that would make all those icky scary "assault" guns simply vanish. It "felt" like a solution and it made them "feel" safer.

The reality...was that the so-called "assault weapons" that they were so afraid of were never "banned" at all. The only thing the law did was to ban the manufacture or import of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and it banned the manufacture or import of weapons with certain "scary looking" cosmetic features such as flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

It was still perfectly legal during this time frame to buy and sell such weapons or magazines. I know this because I legally purchased such items myself.

The Columbine and Thurston High School massacres both took place during the "assault weapon ban", with weapons that were compliant with that ban. The ban had no material effect on the outcome of either massacre, since both massacres took place in a "gun free zone" that afforded the shooters a total monoply of force on their helpless and unarmed victims.

If you are a lunatic who wants to commit mass murder and you have at your disposal a large group of unarmed victims conveniently herded into a "gun free" zone...it doesnt really matter how many bullets your gun(s) hold or what your guns look like.

 

[bbsam]

I asked before if we had to wait for the psycos to do something before we the public could do something. You responded in the affirmative. I wouldb say that puts you against all gun laws. As to feel good laws.i agree. What laws could you support?

 

[wkmac]

Naomi Wolf, progressive, feminist and social critic has said the following in the aftermath of the school shooting:

It is a terrible tragedy in CT, the school shooting. The shooting in Oregon, a terrible tragedy. But I am uneasy about all these elected officials all the way to Bloomberg saying, Now give up the guns....seems tacky and opportunistic and playing politics with a tragedy. And now that I know how militarized the police are -- who are those soldier types in khaki in the pictures from CT? -- I think: no actually, it is not wise to rush to disarm everyone....I hate guns and I hate but the gun lobby argument that guns are a deterrent -- well in a situation in which the state is more and more violent might that not be reasonable? To stress, hate guns hate violence; but I don't want to see a mad thoughtless -- remember patriot act, mad, thoughtless? rush to disarm everyone but the militarized cops....and the military...

 

[bbsam]

I think Naomi misses the point. I don't think we should disarm, but we damn sure better keeps dialogue going and not be cowed into accepting that these things just happen sometimes. I don't know where the dialogue ends,but it needs to continue.

 

[Babagounj]

" Today, 20 innocent children died for the rights of gun sellers to make a profit on weapons that are designed to KILL PEOPLE.

Today, 6 school employees died for the rights of gun owners to have high powered assault weapons as toys. "

TOS #3232

Again here is an example of you just making up facts.

No high powered assault weapons were used in this horrid incident .
Yet you had to add that to your spew .

​

 

[wkmac]

If Adam Lanza is considered evil for killing 20 innocent children, maybe he should have waited 20 years, run for President and then with a phone call or executive order, he could kill hundreds of kids and be considered a hero and even awarded a peace prize!

 

[av8torntn]

If Adam Lanza is considered evil for killing 20 innocent children, maybe he should have waited 20 years, run for President and then with a phone call or executive order, he could kill hundreds of kids and be considered a hero and even awarded a peace prize!

I found it interesting that governments kill far more people than citizens with firearms but nobody seems to be interested in banning government.

 

[Babagounj]

I asked before if we had to wait for the psycos to do something before we the public could do something. You responded in the affirmative. I wouldb say that puts you against all gun laws. As to feel good laws.i agree. What laws could you support?

Due to past liberals and their cost cutting procedures most of the Mental Health centers were closed down and the land sold .
These good do-ers allowed the ill to be mixed back into the general population , while also giving them Section 8 housing and SSI benefits . They were not required to seek any professional help until they were convicted of some serious crimes.
Please bring back the Mental Health Wards.
I may seem cruel for isolating these individuals but honestly for the good of all they need help & care , something that by just dumping them onto the streets will never accomplish .

 

[wkmac]

Why do you pound your fists at Adam Lanza and yet you blindly hold allegiance to the biggest mass murderer of children on the planet?

Monster Madge - YouTube

 

[wkmac]

I found it interesting that governments kill far more people than citizens with firearms but nobody seems to be interested in banning government.

It is the gun in the room but then as you said.

 

[wkmac]

I would also assert that without large, organize states who use violence in order to maintain the ability to assert it's will of domination, the proliferation of guns in society would not exist. Violence begets violence.

 

[The Other Side]

Why don't we ban those awful CARS, that kill a hell of a lot more people than guns?
Why don't we blame the CAR for the death when a drunk driver runs an innocent person down? If you blame GUNS when a psycho kills someone, shouldn't you also blame the CAR when a drunk runs over someone?
IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING.
If you meant what you said about GUNS, you'd also be calling for the banning of all CARS.

I heard this ridiculous claim on right wing radio yesterday morning, and now I see on on Brown Cafe.

Lets put it in perspective, since you clearly cannot do it for yourself. THE CAR isnt designed to KILL PEOPLE. Its a mode for transportation. CARS are not used in the planning of a mass killing, unless you can demonstrate where a person planned to take a car into a school house, and drive through all the classes running over people and then running himself over when it was over.

THE CAR is involved in "ACCIDENTS" and GUNS are not accidents and are designed to KILL.

Dont be an ...... never mind.

Peace

TOS

 

[moreluck]

I would also assert that without large, organize states who use violence in order to maintain the ability to assert it's will of domination, the proliferation of guns in society would not exist. Violence begets violence.

Is that kind of like "Stupd is as stupid does"?....(Forrest Gump's saying)

 

[The Other Side]

I never said that I favored "no gun laws."

There are already any number of laws in place pertaining to the sale, posession and carry of guns. Some of them I agree with, others I dont.

What I am opposed to...is warm-and-fuzzy "feel good" laws that serve no purpose other than to allow those who passed them to feel like they are doing something meaningful.

The so-called "assault weapon ban" of 1994-2004 is a perfect example of such a law. To the uninformed, it "felt" like a law that would make all those icky scary "assault" guns simply vanish. It "felt" like a solution and it made them "feel" safer.

The reality...was that the so-called "assault weapons" that they were so afraid of were never "banned" at all. The only thing the law did was to ban the manufacture or import of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, and it banned the manufacture or import of weapons with certain "scary looking" cosmetic features such as flash suppressors and bayonet lugs.

It was still perfectly legal during this time frame to buy and sell such weapons or magazines. I know this because I legally purchased such items myself.

The Columbine and Thurston High School massacres both took place during the "assault weapon ban", with weapons that were compliant with that ban. The ban had no material effect on the outcome of either massacre, since both massacres took place in a "gun free zone" that afforded the shooters a total monoply of force on their helpless and unarmed victims.

If you are a lunatic who wants to commit mass murder and you have at your disposal a large group of unarmed victims conveniently herded into a "gun free" zone...it doesnt really matter how many bullets your gun(s) hold or what your guns look like.

So if i understand you correctly, you favor a 100 round drum mag on a AR15 to be sold to the public over the counter? And in addition, you feel as if this kind of magazine which was banned by clinton was unneccessary?

peace

TOS