Empty those pockets

JohnInCarolina

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

It is a bit of cognitive dissonance to believe that people have changed significantly but that their access to dangerous weapons should not.  

I forgot to add that, no you can't outlaw trucks but you can isolate pedestrians from them. I never saw many metal detectors or concrete barriers growing up, now they are a fact of life.  

Kind of amazing the truckers rights association didn’t protest that their freedom to drive on sidewalks has been infringed, isn’t it?

lkapigian

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

It is a bit of cognitive dissonance to believe that people have changed significantly but that their access to dangerous weapons should not.  

I forgot to add that, no you can't outlaw trucks but you can isolate pedestrians from them. I never saw many metal detectors or concrete barriers growing up, now they are a fact of life.  

You should see the vegas strip and the money they invested to protect the sidewalk.

billt01

**My Opinion**

One should realize its easier to procure a gun illegally than legally in the United States. With this being the case, everyone here will be dead before any corrective action with merit would occur.  One only gets so many minutes to live your life, stop worrying about $#!+ one cant fix.  

'cause when your dead, like Metallica so eloquently put... "Nothing else matters."

"An estimated 40% of the guns acquired in the U.S. annually come from unlicensed sellers who are not required by federal law to conduct background checks on gun purchasers.10

Nearly 80% of Mexico’s illegal firearms and most recovered crime guns in major Canadian cities are imported illegally from the U.S."

 -https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-traffickingprivate-sales-statistics/

frazzdaddy

lkapigian said:

frazzdaddy said:

JohnInCarolina said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

It is a bit of cognitive dissonance to believe that people have changed significantly but that their access to dangerous weapons should not.  

I forgot to add that, no you can't outlaw trucks but you can isolate pedestrians from them. I never saw many metal detectors or concrete barriers growing up, now they are a fact of life.  

You should see the vegas strip and the money they invested to protect the sidewalk.

Yepp, was there couple months back. Stayed at Mandalay Bay ironically. 

KKoterski

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

Absolutely there needs to be limits, but limiting someone's ability to defend themselves is 100% not the answer. If you have kids you care about, I would suggest teaching them how to defend themselves and to not rely on the government and criminals following laws. 

JohnInCarolina

KKoterski said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

Absolutely there needs to be limits, but limiting someone's ability to defend themselves is 100% not the answer. If you have kids you care about, I would suggest teaching them how to defend themselves and to not rely on the government and criminals following laws. 

I don't think anyone here has suggested that anyone's ability to defend themselves should be limited. But if you can point to a specific counter-example, I'm all ears.

JohnInCarolina

Of course if your view is that anyone with a credit card or Paypal account should be able to order up a tactical nuke from the Field and Stream catalog to defend themselves, then, well...

GATraveller

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.  Why are we not making it harder to get unhealthy food?

Legume

GATraveller said:

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.  Why are we not making it harder to get unhealthy food?

Because bbq forum.  Bacon.  Butts.  Brisket.  Belly.

Legume

Or because the topic raised is guns.

alaskanassasin

 Icicle 

frazzdaddy

I don't need KKoterski said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

Absolutely there needs to be limits, but limiting someone's ability to defend themselves is 100% not the answer. If you have kids you care about, I would suggest teaching them how to defend themselves and to not rely on the government and criminals following laws. 

Not going to address teaching my kid self defense or common sense. That's been done. No one needs a 40 round mag and insert fav AR,H&K MR762 or Fostech12 here for self defense. Unless said kids or LEO's for that matter are caring one of these at (pick your target) they are going to be ill equipped to defend no matter what they have in the small of their back 

KKoterski

JohnInCarolina said:

KKoterski said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

Absolutely there needs to be limits, but limiting someone's ability to defend themselves is 100% not the answer. If you have kids you care about, I would suggest teaching them how to defend themselves and to not rely on the government and criminals following laws. 

I don't think anyone here has suggested that anyone's ability to defend themselves should be limited. But if you can point to a specific counter-example, I'm all ears.

Again, not arguing against having limits. However, the more limits and layers that are put on firearms, the harder it is to get a firearm and defend yourself. 

There was a case in New Jersey (strict gun control) where a woman was beat up routinely by her boyfriend. She separated from him, he stalked her. She got a restraining order, he still stalked her. She filed for a firearm permit to defend herself and the wait was so long to get the permit (months?), that the boyfriend eventually broke in and murdered her. 

Should we have rockets and heavy machine guns? Probably not. Would that woman still be alive had she been able to defend herself? Very likely.

That's not even to mention the real reason of the 2nd Amendment... Protection from your government...

NCSmoky

JohnInCarolina said:

Of course if your view is that anyone with a credit card or Paypal account should be able to order up a tactical nuke from the Field and Stream catalog to defend themselves, then, well...

HeavyG

fishlessman said:

anyways....a friend of mine back 30 years shot himself in the heart after finding out he had a week or two to live, but my brother was stabbed, a roommate was stabbed, an employee here that had just gotten fired was stabbed to death, and on my way to school one day i came across 2 gangs in a brutal knife fight.......the govt math isnt adding up here..... i know, things have changed, its not the 80's

the roommate stabbing was spectacular, gut wound and he was standing behind a large fan

and should a gang fight with knives be considered  a mass stabbing

When is your life going to be made into a Hollywood blockbuster???

I'm ready right now to start righting a treatment and shopping it around!

JohnInCarolina

GATraveller said:

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.  Why are we not making it harder to get unhealthy food?

Maybe we should be, at least in public schools.  After that, I think the main issue here is that people who make poor lifestyle choices are mostly hurting themselves.  There is a larger cost to society as well but we’re not quite there yet to really think that strategically.

Eoin

KKoterski said:

Not many people remember that not that long ago, firearm safety and marksmanship was taught in public schools. Likewise, firearms were even easier to purchase than they are today. I'm pretty sure Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle from a catalog.

Bottom line is that firearms have not changed. People have.

If I want to kill someone, how do I determine how it's done? If I have a firearm, knife, or a hammer, what do I choose? Well obviously the firearm is most effective and vastly easier to use. Now look at the UK, now your options are a knife and hammer. Well the knife is more likely to cause the damage I want, so the knife. No knife? Hammer. No hammer? Find something else.

If I want to kill someone, the tool is irrelevant. Outlaw everything and I'll use my hands. People did it for years before firearms and were perfectly capable of killing each other. 

A firearm is a machine, a tool. It only does what the operator makes it do. When there is a machine being used to kill people, do we blame an inanimate object, or the person operating it?

There was an attack in Europe a while back that killed a bunch of people and the attacker used a truck to plow through crowds. So should we ban trucks next?

On an unrelated topic, when did humanity make the shift of "I disagree with you, so now I hate you and you must die". I disagree with people all the time, but difference in thought is what makes us human. If we were all the same, it'd be boring as hell. Just food for thought. Don't hate your neighbor because you disagree, just understand that not everyone thinks like you or has the same opinion as you. AND THAT'S OK.

We have had attacks using vehicles and knives, terrorist related. The most recent was 3 guys with knives in a crowded night life area. They killed 8 people. Arm those guys with semi automatic weapons and the death toll gets much bigger.

billt01

KKoterski said:

JohnInCarolina said:

KKoterski said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

Absolutely there needs to be limits, but limiting someone's ability to defend themselves is 100% not the answer. If you have kids you care about, I would suggest teaching them how to defend themselves and to not rely on the government and criminals following laws. 

I don't think anyone here has suggested that anyone's ability to defend themselves should be limited. But if you can point to a specific counter-example, I'm all ears.

Again, not arguing against having limits. However, the more limits and layers that are put on firearms, the harder it is to get a firearm and defend yourself. - Nope, legally maybe but if I really wanted a gun I could get one in about 45 minutes.

There was a case in New Jersey (strict gun control) where a woman was beat up routinely by her boyfriend. She separated from him, he stalked her. She got a restraining order, he still stalked her. She filed for a firearm permit to defend herself and the wait was so long to get the permit (months?), that the boyfriend eventually broke in and murdered her. 

Should we have rockets and heavy machine guns? Probably not. Would that woman still be alive had she been able to defend herself? Very likely.

That's not even to mention the real reason of the 2nd Amendment... Protection from your government...

alaskanassasin

I never understood the clip argument because they are so easy to change 

HeavyG

Legume said:

I’m glad this has been a relatively civil conversation and we’re finally getting to focus on knives.

After they take our knives...

They can take my spork when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!

billt01

alaskanassasin said:

I never understood the clip argument because they are so easy to change 

Its a magazine, damnit

JohnInCarolina

KKoterski said:

JohnInCarolina said:

KKoterski said:

frazzdaddy said:

@KKoterski, you used to be able to by explosives at the feed store in town too. You are right, people have changed. There needs to be limits on dangerous things some of them have access to. If that infringes on some ones right to own something that can erase 200 people in the 4 minutes it takes for the initial response, so be it . I have kids I care about. 

Absolutely there needs to be limits, but limiting someone's ability to defend themselves is 100% not the answer. If you have kids you care about, I would suggest teaching them how to defend themselves and to not rely on the government and criminals following laws. 

I don't think anyone here has suggested that anyone's ability to defend themselves should be limited. But if you can point to a specific counter-example, I'm all ears.

Again, not arguing against having limits. However, the more limits and layers that are put on firearms, the harder it is to get a firearm and defend yourself. 

There was a case in New Jersey (strict gun control) where a woman was beat up routinely by her boyfriend. She separated from him, he stalked her. She got a restraining order, he still stalked her. She filed for a firearm permit to defend herself and the wait was so long to get the permit (months?), that the boyfriend eventually broke in and murdered her. 

Should we have rockets and heavy machine guns? Probably not. Would that woman still be alive had she been able to defend herself? Very likely.

That's not even to mention the real reason of the 2nd Amendment... Protection from your government...

Well it sure sounds to me like you are, in fact, arguing against limits.

You’ll always be able to find anecdotal cases like the woman you mention.   They’re useful to some degree but they can’t be the sole basis for developing laws.  Legislation shouldn’t need to account for 99% of the cases to be effective.  

And this sort of thing is exactly why discussions around these topics tend to go in circles, because at the end of the day we’re just bad at understanding statistics and risk.

alaskanassasin

What do you want I prefer wheel guns, and thundersticks

billt01

Eoin said:

KKoterski said:

Not many people remember that not that long ago, firearm safety and marksmanship was taught in public schools. Likewise, firearms were even easier to purchase than they are today. I'm pretty sure Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle from a catalog.

Bottom line is that firearms have not changed. People have.

If I want to kill someone, how do I determine how it's done? If I have a firearm, knife, or a hammer, what do I choose? Well obviously the firearm is most effective and vastly easier to use. Now look at the UK, now your options are a knife and hammer. Well the knife is more likely to cause the damage I want, so the knife. No knife? Hammer. No hammer? Find something else.

If I want to kill someone, the tool is irrelevant. Outlaw everything and I'll use my hands. People did it for years before firearms and were perfectly capable of killing each other. 

A firearm is a machine, a tool. It only does what the operator makes it do. When there is a machine being used to kill people, do we blame an inanimate object, or the person operating it?

There was an attack in Europe a while back that killed a bunch of people and the attacker used a truck to plow through crowds. So should we ban trucks next?

On an unrelated topic, when did humanity make the shift of "I disagree with you, so now I hate you and you must die". I disagree with people all the time, but difference in thought is what makes us human. If we were all the same, it'd be boring as hell. Just food for thought. Don't hate your neighbor because you disagree, just understand that not everyone thinks like you or has the same opinion as you. AND THAT'S OK.

We have had attacks using vehicles and knives, terrorist related. The most recent was 3 guys with knives in a crowded night life area. They killed 8 people. Arm those guys with semi automatic weapons and the death toll gets much bigger.

Using knives was their choice, if those people wanted to use assault rifles, they could have.

frazzdaddy

alaskanassasin said:

I never understood the clip argument because they are so easy to change 

Not everyone is as smooth as Halie Berry

HeavyG

billt01 said:

alaskanassasin said:

I never understood the clip argument because they are so easy to change 

Its a magazine, damnit

Maybe he owns an M1 Garand.

frazzdaddy

GATraveller said:

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.  Why are we not making it harder to get unhealthy food?

Mass murder by brisket is so much more humane

billt01

HeavyG said:

billt01 said:

alaskanassasin said:

I never understood the clip argument because they are so easy to change 

Its a magazine, damnit

Maybe he owns an M1 Garand.

those are not easy to change

Phaqallyall

billt01 said:

Eoin said:

KKoterski said:

Not many people remember that not that long ago, firearm safety and marksmanship was taught in public schools. Likewise, firearms were even easier to purchase than they are today. I'm pretty sure Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle from a catalog.

Bottom line is that firearms have not changed. People have.

If I want to kill someone, how do I determine how it's done? If I have a firearm, knife, or a hammer, what do I choose? Well obviously the firearm is most effective and vastly easier to use. Now look at the UK, now your options are a knife and hammer. Well the knife is more likely to cause the damage I want, so the knife. No knife? Hammer. No hammer? Find something else.

If I want to kill someone, the tool is irrelevant. Outlaw everything and I'll use my hands. People did it for years before firearms and were perfectly capable of killing each other. 

A firearm is a machine, a tool. It only does what the operator makes it do. When there is a machine being used to kill people, do we blame an inanimate object, or the person operating it?

There was an attack in Europe a while back that killed a bunch of people and the attacker used a truck to plow through crowds. So should we ban trucks next?

On an unrelated topic, when did humanity make the shift of "I disagree with you, so now I hate you and you must die". I disagree with people all the time, but difference in thought is what makes us human. If we were all the same, it'd be boring as hell. Just food for thought. Don't hate your neighbor because you disagree, just understand that not everyone thinks like you or has the same opinion as you. AND THAT'S OK.

We have had attacks using vehicles and knives, terrorist related. The most recent was 3 guys with knives in a crowded night life area. They killed 8 people. Arm those guys with semi automatic weapons and the death toll gets much bigger.

Using knives was their choice, if those people wanted to use assault rifles, they could have.

Right.  The terrorists just decided they wanted to kill fewer people that day.

You might not be the dumbest person on the planet, but you'd better hope he doesn't die. 

Eoin

billt01 said:

Eoin said:

KKoterski said:

Not many people remember that not that long ago, firearm safety and marksmanship was taught in public schools. Likewise, firearms were even easier to purchase than they are today. I'm pretty sure Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle from a catalog.

Bottom line is that firearms have not changed. People have.

If I want to kill someone, how do I determine how it's done? If I have a firearm, knife, or a hammer, what do I choose? Well obviously the firearm is most effective and vastly easier to use. Now look at the UK, now your options are a knife and hammer. Well the knife is more likely to cause the damage I want, so the knife. No knife? Hammer. No hammer? Find something else.

If I want to kill someone, the tool is irrelevant. Outlaw everything and I'll use my hands. People did it for years before firearms and were perfectly capable of killing each other. 

A firearm is a machine, a tool. It only does what the operator makes it do. When there is a machine being used to kill people, do we blame an inanimate object, or the person operating it?

There was an attack in Europe a while back that killed a bunch of people and the attacker used a truck to plow through crowds. So should we ban trucks next?

On an unrelated topic, when did humanity make the shift of "I disagree with you, so now I hate you and you must die". I disagree with people all the time, but difference in thought is what makes us human. If we were all the same, it'd be boring as hell. Just food for thought. Don't hate your neighbor because you disagree, just understand that not everyone thinks like you or has the same opinion as you. AND THAT'S OK.

We have had attacks using vehicles and knives, terrorist related. The most recent was 3 guys with knives in a crowded night life area. They killed 8 people. Arm those guys with semi automatic weapons and the death toll gets much bigger.

Using knives was their choice, if those people wanted to use assault rifles, they could have.

Not correct, the average nut job terrorist can't get hold of assault rifles. It's too difficult, too expensive and attracts too much attention.