Everyone is scared, everyone has guns.

[joshh]

Posted by Mike Kojima. If you know anything about the car world, you know who he is.


"Why do you NEED a semi auto 'assault' rifle??? (assault is erroneous, but thats been beaten to death)HERE IS HIS POST REGARDING GETTING OUTGUNNED WHEN YOU ARE ALONE AND NO ONE IS THERE TO HELP YOU................Quote-----"I lived in Long beach during the Rodney King riot. Me and my roommate cowered in our house for 3 days while the riot raged outside. We had an old AR15, a 12 gauge and 2 1911's between us with a few hundred rounds of ammo. Outside we could hear automatic weapons fire as every gang member in the world ran a muck. The news basically said they were getting white people and Koreans. We hastily made some bug out bags and hid. I could look Korean and my roommate was white. On the second night, a couple of gangs massed right on our street and for a moment, I thought we were gonna get overun. It was so scary. Fortunately they were just regrouping for more looting. After that I vowed I would never be outgunned again. Now that I am a husband and a father, it is my duty to never be outgunned again. So yes living in an area prone to natural disasters were people could riot, I do as a civilian need mass firepower to protect my family. I pray I never need to use it but I sleep better at night knowing that rioters will hopefully bypass me and find an easier target if it comes."

[Mr. Burns]

I ran out to the corner store last night to grab some milk, bread and lunchmeats.

I put my shoes on, coat, grabed my wallet and car keys.

at no point, did I feel like I needed to grab a weapon...if I did, I'd check myself in to the coo-coo's hospital.

having to live in a state of fear where the "automatic" feeling to grab my cell phone, AND A GUN is just common practice would be fucking depressing.

[canadiankid]

Those who will trade essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty and will lose both.
-Ben Franklin

The bigger issue here is the UN is working on global disarmament(small arms treaty) to pave the way for total control. I for one will never give up my guns. Just wait.
1st comes licensing owners
2nd registering firearms(us canucks beat that and shitcanned it)
3rd prohibit entire classes of firearms and use the registry to go get them. They dont care if criminals still have them. They want to general populace to submit. We have many examples of this while we had the long gun registry.

MOLON LABE

[cale]

The fact that you see that as the major issue highlights the problem with pro-gun culture and tells us that the OP is spot on. The issue isn't gun violence, it's trying to take your precious guns away.

While I do accept that the world has changed lately significantly for the worse, I do not believe a situation will come up where it is the population vs. the government with bullets being exchanged. Don't forget every one of those men and women in uniform have your flag on their chest/shoulder. Theyre not sheep who are going to start shooting their frienda and family because they're told to.

[canadiankid]

Why do the police need guns? Why do they need ar-15s?

[Mr. Burns]

Why do the police need guns? Why do they need ar-15s?

seriously?
that's your argument?

the police have a purpose, they are also tested for mental health instabilities.

John Smith, local raging alcoholic, loves his nascar, spousal abuse and highpowered semi-automatics.

see the difference?
which one will likely abuse their right to arms?

[iamsam]

I didn't read this thread (I will later when I have more time), but I figure I can put this here. It is my response to an email from my mom (a left wing gun control advocate), where she basically argued that the ability to own guns is the root cause of the recent massacre, and I think it is relevant here.

Again, I didn't read the thread, so this is not necessarily a continuation of whatever raging argument is going on now, but relevant to this thread.

It also saddens and depresses me to hear about the latest shooting, and makes me angry as well. What also makes me angry is the immediate response by politicians calling out to restrict magazine capacities (like restricting magazines to 10 rounds instead of 30), it looks to me like a hilariously pathetic attempt to appear sympathetic to the families who lost their kids while also boosting their own popularity. The outcry for increased gun control is just a knee-jerk reaction by people who haven't thought through the situation more deeply.

You only need to think about this logically:

Fact #1: There WILL be people like this in the world as long as humans exist (crazy nutcases who want massacre innocent people), and there is nothing we can do to change that.
Fact #2: If magically all production and sales of any and all firearms were to instantly cease, there will STILL be more guns under private ownership in the US than the population of the US, as in, more guns than people, at this moment.
Fact #3: Most guns used in massacres and other illegal activities are stolen from private owners, like for example this recent shooting.
Corollary #1: Restricting sales and production of guns will not significantly decrease gun violence for probably the next 300 years (about the time it takes for a gun to deteriorate past usefulness)
Fact #4: An attempt by the government to collect and destroy all guns under private ownership would not only be met with violent resistance, but will be an enormously costly operation (and I hear we can't be spending a ton now), AND it can only be effectively enforced on people who a.) legally own a gun AND b.) still have that gun and haven't sold it in the meantime. This greatly narrows down the number of guns the government actually knows about. Example: I own two guns that the government doesn't know about, and that is fairly common.
Corollary #2: There will be plenty of guns in existence in the US for the foreseeable future regardless of any realistic government activity.
Conclusion #1: (Part 1): There WILL be people attempting to carry out mass murders in the foreseeable future, regardless of what we do to try and prevent it (there will always be nut-cases). (Part 2): There is NO way to foresee a possible mass murder, as proven historically and logically. ("...but he was such a nice boy, we never thought he would do anything like this!")

Resulting question: How do we realistically prevent these atrocities from happening in the near future?

The only realistic answer I see is there needs to be someone at the scene, at the time the crime begins to be available to prevent or stop the crime before it escalates. Why? because historically, responders cannot show up in time to prevent mass killings. How do we do this? Do we station police at every school and public crowded venue everywhere? It would work if possible, but that is a lot of police, a lot of salaries, and a lot of needed revenue. Also, unless the police were undercover, the uniform would make the policeman the first target of a shooter. Second possibility: If someone were armed who appeared as a regular civilian, with a hidden firearm, and NOT on a government salary, and were present at the beginning of a planned massacre, I believe that a planned massacre can be easily prevented, as the shooter would not expect to be shot back at, and would quickly retreat, kill himself (as we see historically), or be shot by the armed civilian.


Closing thoughts: If all guns in the world were to magically disappear, the frequency of these massacres would drastically drop, there is no arguing that. However, we can't physically do that. Also, arming every single person would not be wise either, there are many people who I think are stupid enough to use a gun out of anger if they had one (even though they would probably be quickly shot down). All I can say is that when Riana goes to school, I hope one of her teachers has a concealed carry permit and knows how to use a gun, that is the only way I will feel safest. Also, I hope to get my concealed carry permit soon. Regardless of what I think about gun laws and who should and shouldn't have a gun, I think I should carry a gun, because I know I would only use it for the right reasons, therefore I will carry one. I can't speak for everyone else.

[canadiankid]

seriously?
that's your argument?

the police have a purpose, they are also tested for mental health instabilities.

John Smith, local raging alcoholic, loves his nascar, spousal abuse and highpowered semi-automatics.

see the difference?
which one will likely abuse their right to arms?

Holy stereotyping batman! There are 190 million guns in america. Do all gun owners meet those criteria?

Ill finish it for you. Police need guns because criminals have guns. And now you know why citizens need guns too.

[JasonC]

seriously?
that's your argument?

the police have a purpose, they are also tested for mental health instabilities.

John Smith, local raging alcoholic, loves his nascar, spousal abuse and highpowered semi-automatics.

see the difference?
which one will likely abuse their right to arms?

Seeing that good can go bad and bad can become good. It's kind of a moot point there that you are saying between two humans.

Also, what is one to do when they live in an area that the police can't get there in a timely manner?

[Vedubin01]

the police have a purpose, they are also tested for mental health instabilities.

Not as much as you think.... this is a case that is local here.

Manuel Pardo: The saga of a Sweetwater ex-cop convicted of mass murder, now set for execution

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/08/3133320/the-saga-of-sweetwater-ex-cop.html

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/12/0...#storylink=cpy

[Holland]

I didn't read this thread (I will later when I have more time), but I figure I can put this here. It is my response to an email from my mom (a left wing gun control advocate), where she basically argued that the ability to own guns is the root cause of the recent massacre, and I think it is relevant here.

Again, I didn't read the thread, so this is not necessarily a continuation of whatever raging argument is going on now, but relevant to this thread.

This whole thread is a massive shit storm with poor arguments on both sides. I agree with this for the most part and think this is really the reality of the situation.

[canadiankid]

This whole thread is a massive shit storm with poor arguments on both sides. I agree with this for the most part and think this is really the reality of the situation.

Way to pick a side.

[iamsam]

This whole thread is a massive shit storm with poor arguments on both sides. I agree with this for the most part and think this is really the reality of the situation.

You agree with my response? or something else?

But I agree with your statement, most gun arguments turn into base bickering, personal attacks, and diving deeper and deeper into arguments about minutia and irrelevant topics.

As such, I invite someone to argue with the macro-scale topics I introduced in my post above. I think at that level it can be argued with simple logic, without the need to bring up discreet historical events, discreet and unique hypothetical situations, or specific politics or statistical studies regarding very specific parameters.

The recurring problem I see in these types of threads is that the argument starts broad, and someone brings up something a little more specific, and then someone argues about that specific topic and thus bringing up something even more specific, and it spirals down from there. It would be interesting having an argument with (mostly) logic rather than citing article after article, and bickering about the validity of those articles 'till the cows come home. I believe we can argue starting with something we all agree on: mass murders suck, and we wish there were less of them, and then go from there. I dunno.

Way to pick a side.

what?

[canadiankid]

Priority 1 calls(murder in progress) have a response time of 24 minutes in detroit.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1992425,00.html

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

911 or 1911, you decide.

[Holland]

You agree with my response? or something else?

But I agree with your statement, most gun arguments turn into base bickering, personal attacks, and diving deeper and deeper into arguments about minutia and irrelevant topics.

As such, I invite someone to argue with the macro-scale topics I introduced in my post above. I think at that level it can be argued with simple logic, without the need to bring up discreet historical events, discreet and unique hypothetical situations, or specific politics or statistical studies regarding very specific parameters.

The recurring problem I see in these types of threads is that the argument starts broad, and someone brings up something a little more specific, and then someone argues about that specific topic and thus bringing up something even more specific, and it spirals down from there. It would be interesting having an argument with (mostly) logic rather than citing article after article, and bickering about the validity of those articles 'till the cows come home. I believe we can argue starting with something we all agree on: mass murders suck, and we wish there were less of them, and then go from there. I dunno.



what?

I agree with what you posted. I am a gun owner but don't carry at the moment. Honestly what you posted is the only realistic outlook I have seen in this thread so far.

I don't have loads of statistics or millions of internet links, just an opinion. We all know what that's like but that's why I don't participate in these threads. I never watch the news or follow the media because I feel the portrayal and impact are very negative. That might sound jaded but I really just worry about the immediate problems in my life.

With all that, I feel nothing actually constructive to solve the problem has been mentioned yet. I realize that this is fairly moot, but yelling and name calling is hardly getting anywhere.