What do you think will work?
Universal background checks, Standard capacity magazine ban, assault weapons ban?
AR 15 and 10 type rifles
- Thread starter Europe
- Start date
Universal background checks, Standard capacity magazine ban, assault weapons ban?
3855WIN
Well-known member
We used to be able to have a gun in our trucks at school so that we could slip in an afternoon hunt. No problem. Most of us feared our Fathers above all else.
Now we don’t allow young men to have a gun in their truck. Schools and shopping centers are being shot up. I highly doubt these killers have the same fear of their Fathers that we had. They have no fear or respect for anything.
Now we don’t allow young men to have a gun in their truck. Schools and shopping centers are being shot up. I highly doubt these killers have the same fear of their Fathers that we had. They have no fear or respect for anything.
Which guns and accessories are you ok with giving up? Would you be ok with giving up the ones that cause the most deaths or only the ones that get the most media?
As far as you taking on and defeating the US Military with your hunting rifles. You are correct, you could not win. But having armed citizens keeps a the possibility of a tyrannical government from doing things too crazy and getting too off track. A relatively small number of heavily armed folks can cause a lot of trouble and casualties. See Vietnam and Afghanistan for example. Of course our military could blow those countries off the map. But they couldn't outright defeat those very determined albeit outnumbered and outgunned fighters. Do you think our government wants to get into something like that with its own citizens? I see gun ownership (including high capacity AR's) as a small part of our government's checks and balances.
None of them. mtmuley
jake23
Active member
This x100. We need to realize that we are responsible for our own safety. The government can’t be responsible for your safety, and quite frankly most of us wouldn’t want that.
I don’t walk through bear country without the ability to protect myself. Why would I go to Chicago without the ability to protect myself? Or anywhere else for that matter? I don’t...... Shyte happens that you can’t plan for. It’s called life.
This isn’t some epidemic that is out of control. Maybe some of “us” need to step back and get some perspective before trying to solve a problem that is statistically insignificant.
I don’t mean to offend anyone. And people are surely entitled to their opinion. Most wound even disagree with me and think that is crazy. So be it. Just my opinion.
Some of them dont even know their fathers and that might be part of the problem. No one to guide them teach them support them love them. But I am aware that this is just one piece of the problem and has nothing to do with ( insert description you prefer ) rifles, or even bombs, knives, etc , but it is people who use the (insert the description you prefer ) rifles, bombs, knives, etc. Maybe the problem that needs fixed is the breakdown in the family, community, church, sports, etc , which has already been mentioned in this thread
Last edited:
What is an "assault rifle"? I need to know which ones are classified as such, and which ones aren't. It's a description coined by the fricken media to describe any weapon used in what they deem a "mass" shooting. Gun people don't use the term "assault rifle". Done before I get in trouble. mtmuley
So, what about the numerous murders every day/week in places like Chicago,Baltimore Philadelphia etc. those lives are just as valuable as any? What are we doing about them? NOTHING!
They don’t fit the popular narrative.
Also, gun control has failed them.
So how do you propose 1st graders protect themselves from an armed gunman in their school? It’s our duty to protect them and we are doing absolutely nothing.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am not sure that's what the quoted post was meant to convey - it was sarcastic. Doesn't negate your following position, but not really a 100x.
jake23
Active member
We protect property, assets, people, anything of value everyday. Protecting things of value is nothing new. Yet we provide no protection for our children while they are at school?
I would suggest that protecting children at all would be a good start. Right now there is virtually zero protection for kids at school. Laws aren’t a protection. It’s illegal to rob a bank, but people still do. Hence the need for guards. It illegal to kill political figures, yet people still do. Hence the need for secret security.
So I would say that any security would be better than none. My kids are the most important thing in my life. They deserve the best security that can be afforded in my opinion.
jake23
Active member
Yeah I forgot to state that I was taking his quote out of context at the beginning of my post. But I do agree with what he said. Just not his ideals. That’s ok though.
MJE2083
Well-known member
On face value, I don't particularly have a problem with universal background checks, however I fail to see how that would do much to stop this trend of mass shootings. I can think of only a a handful of these incidents(that I have read about) where the guns weren't purchased legally. The two recent shootings were with legally purchased guns correct? I'm not sure how universal background checks could be done successfully without mass registration of all guns, which I do not think is feasible and I would not support.
BrentD
Well-known member
I hesitate to stick my toe in this water because it seems infinitely deep and no one has figured out how to swim yet. Me included. Personally, I don't think most of the proposed regulations will have much effect - at least not for a very long time. But I agree they are coming. If not sooner then later, and not a lot later.
Personally, I find the "slippery slope" argument against them to be very weak. Everything has slippery slope potential. Sometimes we slide down the slope, sometimes we don't. Maybe someone should do a study on why that is.
But more to the point, no one on either side of this argument really wants to do anything more than prevent people who want to do these acts from doing them. When we find someone with a hammer beating on someone else, we don't just take away the hammer. We try to understand why this happened at all and what provoked this with an eye towards ensuring that it does not happen again. I see no one interested in answering those questions, much less changing things so that the need to answer them should never arise in the first place.
Is there any real interest or effort being made in finding out what provokes these people to act out like this? I don't think so. Would other societies have as many of these events as we do if they had the gun laws we do? Personally, I doubt it. But answering those questions might solve the problem (relatively speaking) without and much more effectively than gun bans, magazine limits, waiting periods, background checks, red flags, etc etc etc.
This is just my two cents but I think we, as a society, are focusing almost totally on closing the barn door after the horse is already in the next county, and I for one and not comfortable with simply allowing wanna-be mass murders walk around wanting to kill but only prevented from doing so to the extent that guns are hard/impossible to come by. That doesn't cut it for me.
YMMV.
Personally, I find the "slippery slope" argument against them to be very weak. Everything has slippery slope potential. Sometimes we slide down the slope, sometimes we don't. Maybe someone should do a study on why that is.
But more to the point, no one on either side of this argument really wants to do anything more than prevent people who want to do these acts from doing them. When we find someone with a hammer beating on someone else, we don't just take away the hammer. We try to understand why this happened at all and what provoked this with an eye towards ensuring that it does not happen again. I see no one interested in answering those questions, much less changing things so that the need to answer them should never arise in the first place.
Is there any real interest or effort being made in finding out what provokes these people to act out like this? I don't think so. Would other societies have as many of these events as we do if they had the gun laws we do? Personally, I doubt it. But answering those questions might solve the problem (relatively speaking) without and much more effectively than gun bans, magazine limits, waiting periods, background checks, red flags, etc etc etc.
This is just my two cents but I think we, as a society, are focusing almost totally on closing the barn door after the horse is already in the next county, and I for one and not comfortable with simply allowing wanna-be mass murders walk around wanting to kill but only prevented from doing so to the extent that guns are hard/impossible to come by. That doesn't cut it for me.
YMMV.
Fullquiver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 450
I have seen the very depravity of men, the very worst, I have stood at the head of mass graves and watched as they were excavated.. I have seen what mass murder looks like and have no illusions as to what causes such things.. I have learned a couple of things along the way.. Those without weapons still die at the hands of those who do. Also societies commit truly mass murders at levels that the numbers talked about here would pale in comparison..
We are not immune from this happening here and with the dehumanization and demonization of people with opposing views along with the rampant devaluation of life actually we are ripe for it.. All of which are forerunners to this type of murder. Gun violence will never catch up with this level of systematic killing and almost always it is perpetrated on a population unable to defend itself..
Joseph Stalin is quoted as having said that the death of an individual is a tragedy the death of a million is a statistic.. So to those who are willing to disarm yourselves and others remember Srebrenica and Kigali..
We are not immune from this happening here and with the dehumanization and demonization of people with opposing views along with the rampant devaluation of life actually we are ripe for it.. All of which are forerunners to this type of murder. Gun violence will never catch up with this level of systematic killing and almost always it is perpetrated on a population unable to defend itself..
Joseph Stalin is quoted as having said that the death of an individual is a tragedy the death of a million is a statistic.. So to those who are willing to disarm yourselves and others remember Srebrenica and Kigali..
We have a winner! UBC are total feel good laws. UBC wouldn’t have stopped El Paso, Ohio, Las Vegas, pluse night club, Virginia tech, Sandy Hook, Columbine, or your average weekend in Chicago.
But it is doing something, right?
Addicting
Well-known member
Actually, in my area there isn’t a public school I know of without at least one School Safety Officer. There are several schools that allow concealed carry for the teachers. They also practice school shooter scenarios. Inside the classrooms are door stops to prevent access.
I’m sorry you feel we aren’t doing anything, in reality we are doing a lot more then when I went to school in the 80 and 90s.
Last edited:
jake23
Active member
Where I am at we only have school resource officers at the high schools. They are on duty police that rotate through that position. Elementary schools get no such detail. Not sure why? The question I would ask is one cop enough to protect my kids while at school? I guess that would depend on the area that I live in.
Answering this question of “mass shootings” with laws will do nothing.
If you want your kids to be secure at school, then have security. If you want to be secure when you are at Walmart, then you need to take appropriate actions to do that. Whether it is carrying a pistol on you or avoiding it on Black Friday. We are all adults and responsible to make that choice on our own whatever it may be.
TheGrayRider
Well-known member
Constitution of United States of America - 2nd Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
jake23
Active member
If you don’t protect this^ you will get thisConstitution of United States of America - 2nd Amendment
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
