Guns, Guns Guns

Absolutely education is critical. I had my daughters through a class even if they don't like firearms. They need to know.

Michael Everett wrote:

smr wrote:Let's get to the root of the gun violence.

In no particular order:

1. Graphic violent movies
2. 1st pov shooter games
3. Domestic violence
4. Criminal history
5. Chemical abusers
6. Alcohol abusers
7. Mental illness

You forgot "Education or lack thereof".
If you don't teach a child to think before acting, they'll generally respond emotionally and be susceptible to rumor, random preachers and pseudo-logic that makes them feel special.

A good example is martial arts. You don't hear about a blackbelt going on a rampage as by the time they reach that level, they have learned to control themselves no matter the provocation.

As you teach the child, you provide the foundation and framework for the adult.

smr wrote:
Take the case of the rancher in Nevada, the BLM was seizing his cattle illegally and they threatened to shoot the local families that gathered together to stop the slaughter of the cattle. CNN said that the militia had snipers their to shoot the federal agents. Why is their no video evidence of snipers or militiamen shown? That's because their was none and if you need proof about what happened go look up the links within this gun topic because I posted it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhNFqaLioD4

Yeah, no video evidence these idiots were there... nope...





I'm sure this won't make a dent in the conspiracy theory mindset I'm seeing on display here though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD61YFxUga4

Are these private military contractors in this video? Be careful in believing that militiaman was not a military contractor. Notice the uniformity of the military gear. The government has been known to plant people within groups that they deem subversion. On the other hand, it could be equally the opposite. Remember they hired 200 outside contractors for this event! That was reported on mainstream media! Who is this person? An unidentified man that is carrying rifle that is loaded. Can we say lots of Jail time. I know it's a conspiracy theory? Please do some critical thinking before stooping to that response.

Important details with interview with the supposed militiaman:
1) subject was not identified
2) uniformity of equipment
3) subject was allowed to wear sun glasses in an interview
4) he was on top of the high ground with loaded weapon
(The BLM had secured the high ground!)
5) why was their no differences in equipment? Would not a militiaman have to provide their own gear. That means they would not have the same black t-shirts with no logos, sunglasses, backpack, pants, and boots.

I just viewed that video once and came up with these questions.


This evil man chose a gun free zone to attack innocent law abiding citizens and murder Christians. Take the evil man from the SC shooting, he chose the church because the church had no armed security to stop him rather than the local college!




How do people not understand this? You CANNOT create a situation in this nation where there will not be soft targets for terrorists or whackjobs to hit. You are not going to have hundreds of millions of people wandering around armed and ready to draw and begin firing at a moments notice. (And if you did, you'd just end up with a LOT more dead people as people constantly got spooked and opened up at the wrong times and in not terribly disciplined ways.)

The person doing the attacking will *always* have the advantage of selecting time and target and the element of surprise when they open up. You cannot fix this by just ranting about "more guns! more guns!"

You might want to focus instead on why it was so easy for these shooters to arm themselves in the first place. but then you'd have to subject the precious 2A and the impact it has on society to serious critical scrutiny and we can't have that can we?

The shooter told his cellmate why he chose the church because the school had armed security.

In response to the person claiming that they were people with concealed handgun people on campus is bogus. In most states, concealed handguns licensees are forbidden to carry them on school grounds!

was using the common definition: someone legally convicted of a crime. If convicted/determined guilty here, you are then a felon under the dictionary term, although given how many DUI or speed, that means most of NZ, and probaly also AUS, UK, and the US are also criminals, just not yet prosecuted for it.....


Not sure about the common law vs misdemeanours here, as depending how you're prosecuted for some things, it could be careless driving, reckless driving, speeding, driving likely to cause injury, failure to follow flow of traffic, or one of several other things, each with different punishments. so in some cases, depending on how fast you go, you can end up in prison for some months for speeding or for a DUI.

PeterZ wrote:So speeding is a common law felony downunder?

Not all individuals convicted of breaking the law are felons in the US. Usually the term criminal denotes having been convicted of a felony. So I was being very specific in the terms I was using. Speeders do not lose their right to bear arms. Those that speed egregiously enough to be charged with a felony show a remarkable lack of concern for theirs and others' safety. I am not that concerned in such cases.

Spacekiwi wrote:was using the common definition: someone legally convicted of a crime. If convicted/determined guilty here, you are then a felon under the dictionary term, although given how many DUI or speed, that means most of NZ, and probaly also AUS, UK, and the US are also criminals, just not yet prosecuted for it.....


Not sure about the common law vs misdemeanours here, as depending how you're prosecuted for some things, it could be careless driving, reckless driving, speeding, driving likely to cause injury, failure to follow flow of traffic, or one of several other things, each with different punishments. so in some cases, depending on how fast you go, you can end up in prison for some months for speeding or for a DUI.

PeterZ wrote:So speeding is a common law felony downunder?

So you can't buy a gun if you're allowed to buy marijuana but you can buy a gun if you're allowed to buy alcoholic?

When was the last time you heard of someone going on a stoned rage? What about an alcoholic rage?

That's pretty illogical if you ask me.

And before you make some remark about being from Oregon, I do not smoke or ingest marijuana and I have never chosen to do so.

PeterZ wrote:

Annachie wrote:I was going to say something a bit iffy but then I realized I was about to refer to something from about 50 pages ago so I xan understand if Spacekiwi forgot it.

Serious crimes. Domestic violance. Gun violance.

Although thinking about it, if you repeat dui that might be good grounds too.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Absolutely. Here in Colorado, if one has a medical marijuana card, one cannot purchase a fire arm. People who require mild hallucinogens to treat ailments are considered too impaired to own firearms.

Blame the gun grabbers for that one. I just stated the situation here.

Btw, please consider what I actually posted. If you require a medical marijuana card, you asserts that you need regular doses of marijuana. That suggests you are high regularly. I am not a fan of handling firearms under the influence of any mind altering drug to include alcohol. Even so banning the ability to purchase firearms just for smoking weed regularly assumes the individual cannot refrain from handling firearms when high. Sounds very much like the presumption of guilt to me.

Donnachaidh wrote:So you can't buy a gun if you're allowed to buy marijuana but you can buy a gun if you're allowed to buy alcoholic?

When was the last time you heard of someone going on a stoned rage? What about an alcoholic rage?

That's pretty illogical if you ask me.

And before you make some remark about being from Oregon, I do not smoke or ingest marijuana and I have never chosen to do so.

PeterZ wrote:
Absolutely. Here in Colorado, if one has a medical marijuana card, one cannot purchase a fire arm. People who require mild hallucinogens to treat ailments are considered too impaired to own firearms.

Ah. ok. You were referring to felonies v misdemeanors. I was using the dictionary meaning. my bad.

PeterZ wrote:Not all individuals convicted of breaking the law are felons in the US. Usually the term criminal denotes having been convicted of a felony. So I was being very specific in the terms I was using. Speeders do not lose their right to bear arms. Those that speed egregiously enough to be charged with a felony show a remarkable lack of concern for theirs and others' safety. I am not that concerned in such cases.

thinkstoomuch wrote:

Tenshinai wrote:


And this is exactly why guns should not be sold to anyone, always kept safely stored and NOT handed to children unless under constant oversight.

Which works wonderfully when the kid is attacked in my brother's 40 acres by a coyote.

Still not understanding the full implications of your philosophical positions, I see.

Wharever,
T2M

Oh i understand them perfectly, as fortunately i´m not a fanatical idiot.

smr wrote:Let's get to the root of the gun violence.

In no particular order:

1. Graphic violent movies
2. 1st pov shooter games
3. Domestic violence
4. Criminal history
5. Chemical abusers
6. Alcohol abusers
7. Mental illness

You do realise that 1 and 2 exists in nations with barely any shootings? And that nations where either or both are banned(more or less), do not have drastically less gun violence or violence.

And that all those DO exist everywhere.

If instead you look at limits on gun ownership, you find that the more restrictive, generally the place has less gun violence.
Correlation isn´t exact, but the trends are definitely following gun restriction levels to a drastically higher degree than they follow any point in your list.

PeterZ wrote:Blame the gun grabbers for that one. I just stated the situation here.

Btw, please consider what I actually posted. If you require a medical marijuana card, you asserts that you need regular doses of marijuana. That suggests you are high regularly. I am not a fan of handling firearms under the influence of any mind altering drug to include alcohol. Even so banning the ability to purchase firearms just for smoking weed regularly assumes the individual cannot refrain from handling firearms when high. Sounds very much like the presumption of guilt to me.

Medical usage of marijuana does not normally make a person "high". Or at least less so than it makes someone who´s drunk a couple of beers.
Medical dosage is often not very big.