quote:Originally posted by bangstick
Illustrating, yet again, it's not the firearm itself that is a danger, it's the person behind the firearm that poses the threat.
God bless the “ignore” function.
So how do you propose keeping weapons out of the hands of people like this nut case?
Ed, I don’t believe I saw any confirmation of this person being adjudicated mentally defective or to be suffering from a clinically diagnosed mental condition. Those stipulations would’ve prevented this man from legally purchasing firearms under current BATFE regulations.
While we all know no one being of sound mind would commit such an atrocity, his mental state was driven by pure evil and hate, not a clinically recognized mental disorder. We all have the potential for evil in us. It’s the decisions we make that either suppresses the evil or projects the evil. There is a lot of speculation coming out as to what may have been this man’s driving force but, unlike the MSM, I’m not going to play the speculation game while the investigation is still ongoing. I’m also not going to play the “knee jerk game” or the “politicize this atrocity game.”
Fact of the matter is sane people snap sometimes and there’s no “preemptive strike” to be executed that would or could foresee and/or prevent it. Our system and our people are not perfect. You can’t “govern” risk, chance or unforeseen circumstances out of life and living. This isn’t a “gun problem.” This a people problem. Obama’s old stomping grounds (Chicago) is a perfect example. The city with the most restrictive gun laws in the
There’s not a way to do it. If someone has a mental illness or a record that prevents them from legally purchasing a gun,if they have the money they could get it off the streets or have a person who is able to get it buy it for them.
Sorry this kinda went sideways about guns,I think we all need to send prayers for the people in Vegas and the whole country. Geronimo said it,that book that is in the room needs reading.
Good point. If someone wants something bad enough, and they have the money to get it, there’s pretty much nothing on this planet that can’t be had.
God bless the “ignore” function.
Aaaand that's why we'll have much stricter gun control in the near future. Complete unwillingness to address the reality of the situation is starting to wear thin on the public.
quote:Originally posted by bangstick
Illustrating, yet again, it's not the firearm itself that is a danger, it's the person behind the firearm that poses the threat.
God bless the “ignore” function.
So how do you propose keeping weapons out of the hands of people like this nut case?
Ed, I don’t believe I saw any confirmation of this person being adjudicated mentally defective or to be suffering from a clinically diagnosed mental condition. Those stipulations would’ve prevented this man from legally purchasing firearms under current BATFE regulations.
While we all know no one being of sound mind would commit such an atrocity, his mental state was driven by pure evil and hate, not a clinically recognized mental disorder. We all have the potential for evil in us. It’s the decisions we make that either suppresses the evil or projects the evil. There is a lot of speculation coming out as to what may have been this man’s driving force but, unlike the MSM, I’m not going to play the speculation game while the investigation is still ongoing. I’m also not going to play the “knee jerk game” or the “politicize this atrocity game.”
Fact of the matter is sane people snap sometimes and there’s no “preemptive strike” to be executed that would or could foresee and/or prevent it. Our system and our people are not perfect. You can’t “govern” risk, chance or unforeseen circumstances out of life and liv
I’d be willing to bet that most people on this thread (myself included, in my more foolish college years) have at some point drank more than they should, drove, and managed to get to their destination safely and without issue. Yet most would agree that DUI laws are necessary for the safety of people and the “greater good”, despite instances where that law (like all laws) will inevitably be broken.
The gun control debate always goes back to the constitution and the wisdom of our country’s “founding fathers”. Had they been able to conceive of a machine that could reach speeds of 100+ mph, coupled with the effects of alcohol, maybe there would be something in our constitution about drinking and driving. We understood that they, like all people, were limited by perspective, so we adapted where necessary and made a law to address an issue. Why is it so hard for people to adapt when it comes to guns? Is it literally only because it was in one of our country’s original legal documents? Had the creators of our country had the foresight to conceive of an event like Sunday night’s, don’t you think there may have been some type of asterisk on the second amendment? They knew they couldn’t predict everything, so they made sure future law makers had the ability to adapt when necessary.
I understand the argument that when you have someone as messed up as this shooter was, he’s going to find a way to kill, regardless of laws. What I don’t understand is being stuck in a mindset that suggests doing nothing at all if a problem cant be fully resolved all at once.
I’m a gun owner and not suggesting our country’s citizens should have to give up all their firearms. But I think we could and should adapt.
Also, everyone on the pro gun side of things, from MSM to people on this thread, love to point the finger about liberals “politicizing” these tragedies when they suggest stricter gun laws. Are you not doing the same thing the moment you say “it’s not the gun, it’s the people”? You are, just for the opposing side
Ed, I don’t even know why you raised the question because you’re not willing to openly and objectively discuss it. I, in now way, showed an “unwillingness to address the reality of the situation.” The reality of the situation, ANY situation is the FACT that is someone wants something, ANYTHING, bad enough and has the means to procure it, they can get it. They can’t keep plutonium out of the wrong hands so how in the hell are they going to keep guns out of the wrong hands?
The “adjudicated by a court” isn’t a “line.” It’s a FACT. No, this guys being “bat **** crazy” IS NOT a “fact.” It’s our opinion. The “fact” here is the man was full of hate and evil and anger. Most “bat **** crazy” people are more of a danger to themselves but angry, hateful and evil people are typically a threat and danger to others.
You’ll never get past your own agendas (and your political affiliations) enough to be able to objectively discuss this type of issue.
troutguy7613, Who said or suggested doing nothing? For me, pass every gun control law you want to, short of an all out ban, and I’ll still pass whatever check you lay out before me to be able to purchase a firearm. But you know, the people we don’t want running the streets with guns will still be able to get them too and for the same reasons and same manner they’re doing it today. Pass more laws and create more restrictions and you and I and every other law abiding citizen will be the only ones affected. You know why? Because, as I already stated, this isn’t a gun or gun restrictions/regulations issue. This is a people issue.
The law abiding citizens/gun owners are the only ones to continuously make concessions to address this issue and what do they get for this? They get “anti-gun” groups and politicians demanding they make more concessions to further address an issue that cannot be “fixed” with additional restrictions. The politicians like HRC know these restrictions will not make this “people issue” go away but their sheep don’t recognize that so in effort to appear a
quote:Originally posted by bangstick
Illustrating, yet again, it's not the firearm itself that is a danger, it's the person behind the firearm that poses the threat.
God bless the “ignore” function.
So how do you propose keeping weapons out of the hands of people like this nut case?
Hey ed are you a man that believes in God? If so join me now in a silent prayer for all the evil in the world and to please provide comfort and strength for the families involved in this vile act of evil. More gun laws are not the answer ed.
troutguy7613, Who said or suggested doing nothing? For me, pass every gun control law you want to, short of an all out ban, and I’ll still pass whatever check you lay out before me to be able tp purchase a firearm. But you know, the people we don’t want running the streets with guns will still be able to get them too and for the same reasons and same manner they’re doing it today. Pass more laws and create more restrictions and you and I and every other law abiding citizen will be the only ones affected. You know why? Because, as I already stated, this isn’t a gun or gun restrictions/regulations issue. This is a people issue.
God bless the “ignore” function.
I assume you didn’t know the shooter in Las Vegas, so how can you say how “bad” he wanted it? Maybe stricter laws, say with more stringent background checks, doesn’t stop that guy and we’re in the same situation, but what if it stops the pulse nightclub shooter? or sandy hook? or any number of other shooters who may not have wanted it “bad enough”, then would it be worth it? Maybe one messed up guy says “screw it, it aint worth my time”. Or maybe a stricter law leads to one red flag for one person and prevents that purchase. Then is it worth it to have to wait a little longer on your next gun purchase? Like you said, you’d pass any check, and I assume you have enough firearms to hold you over if you had to wait a few weeks instead of a day when you go to purchase your next firearm, so why not?
You seem open minded, but then commenting with the same old “it’s not a gun issue” contradicts that.
quote:Originally posted by bangstick
Illustrating, yet again, it's not the firearm itself that is a danger, it's the person behind the firearm that poses the threat.
God bless the “ignore” function.
So how do you propose keeping weapons out of the hands of people like this nut case?
Who proposed keeping guns out of public hands? If we follow what the dems want , we all will become targets. Tell me, what law would have prevented this tragedy?
quote:Originally posted by bangstick
Illustrating, yet again, it's not the firearm itself that is a danger, it's the person behind the firearm that poses the threat.
God bless the “ignore” function.
So how do you propose keeping weapons out of the hands of people like this nut case?
Hey ed are you a man that believes in God? If so join me now in a silent prayer for all the evil in the world and to please provide comfort and strength for the families involved in this vile act of evil. More gun laws are not the answer ed.
“Why Bruce?”
I think that ED like Robbie is un affiliated with a higher power,,,,, except maybe the Clintons.
Every year I exhibit at the NRA outdoor show and the Las Vegas Shot show and many other hunting & weapons shows You never saw so many weapons in one place as the Shot Show. Those of us that have concealed carry permits(like me) certainly carry. Everybody you see has a side arm on his belt. A LV police Captain told me that the week of the shot show is the safest time there. ALL crime goes down . With that many arms in town , all the bad guys go on vacation
Ed, I don’t even know why you raised the question because you’re not willing to openly and objectively discuss it. I, in now way, showed an “unwillingness to address the reality of the situation.” The reality of the situation, ANY situation is the FACT that is someone wants something, ANYTHING, bad enough and has the means to procure it, they can get it. They can’t keep plutonium out of the wrong hands so how in the hell are they going to keep guns out of the wrong hands?
The “adjudicated by a court” isn’t a “line.” It’s a FACT. No, this guys being “bat **** crazy” IS NOT a “fact.” It’s our opinion. The “fact” here is the man was full of hate and evil and anger. Most “bat **** crazy” people are more of a danger to themselves but angry, hateful and evil people are typically a threat and danger to others.
You really think the type of weaponry this guy possessed had no bearing on his ability to kill and injure that many people? The canned response by the NRA is “nope, couldn’t have done anything about it, maybe more guns” isn’t going to fly much longer. He had something to make the trigger go faster, some reports are it was a bump stock, which are legal.
So you don’t think a person has to be crazy to fire on that many people in a crowd for no reason whatsoever? I’m sorry, but is crazy one of those buzzword we’re supposed to avoid because it might give an edge to the anti gun people?
troutguy7613, Who said or suggested doing nothing? For me, pass every gun control law you want to, short of an all out ban, and I’ll still pass whatever check you lay out before me to be able tp purchase a firearm. But you know, the people we don’t want running the streets with guns will still be able to get them too and for the same reasons and same manner they’re doing it today. Pass more laws and create more restrictions and you and I and every other law abiding citizen will be the only ones affected. You know why? Because, as I already stated, this isn’t a gun or gun restrictions/regulations issue. This is a people issue.
God bless the “ignore” function.
I assume you didn’t know the shooter in Las Vegas, so how can you say how “bad” he wanted it? Maybe stricter laws, say with more stringent background checks, doesn’t stop that guy and we’re in the same situation, but what if it stops the pulse nightclub shooter? or sandy hook? or any number of other shooters who may not have wanted it “bad enough”, then would it be worth it? Maybe one messed up guy says “screw it, it aint worth my time”. Or maybe a stricter law leads to one red flag for one person and prevents that purchase. Then is it worth it to have to wait a little longer on your next gun purchase? Like you said, you’d pass any check, and I assume you have enough firearms to hold you over if you had to wait a few weeks instead of a day when you go to purchase your next firearm, so why not?
You seem open minded, but then commenting with the same old “it’s not a gun issue” contradicts that.
Ed, I don’t even know why you raised the question because you’re not willing to openly and objectively discuss it. I, in now way, showed an “unwillingness to address the reality of the situation.” The reality of the situation, ANY situation is the FACT that is someone wants something, ANYTHING, bad enough and has the means to procure it, they can get it. They can’t keep plutonium out of the wrong hands so how in the hell are they going to keep guns out of the wrong hands?
The “adjudicated by a court” isn’t a “line.” It’s a FACT. No, this guys being “bat **** crazy” IS NOT a “fact.” It’s our opinion. The “fact” here is the man was full of hate and evil and anger. Most “bat **** crazy” people are more of a danger to themselves but angry, hateful and evil people are typically a threat and danger to others.
You really think the type of weaponry this guy possessed had no bearing on his ability to kill and injure that many people? The canned response by the NRA is “nope, couldn’t have done anything about it, maybe more guns” isn’t going to fly much longer. He had something to make the trigger go faster, some reports are it was a bump stock, which are legal.
So you don’t think a person has to be crazy to fire on that many people in a crowd for no reason whatsoever? I’m sorry, but is crazy one of those buzzword we’re supposed to avoid because it might give an edge to the anti gun people?
I don’t recall exactly who but I’m fairly certain someone in this thread said the shooter could’ve used explosives and caused just as
troutguy7613, Who said or suggested doing nothing? For me, pass every gun control law you want to, short of an all out ban, and I’ll still pass whatever check you lay out before me to be able tp purchase a firearm. But you know, the people we don’t want running the streets with guns will still be able to get them too and for the same reasons and same manner they’re doing it today. Pass more laws and create more restrictions and you and I and every other law abiding citizen will be the only ones affected. You know why? Because, as I already stated, this isn’t a gun or gun restrictions/regulations issue. This is a people issue.
God bless the “ignore” function.
I assume you didn’t know the shooter in Las Vegas, so how can you say how “bad” he wanted it? Maybe stricter laws, say with more stringent background checks, doesn’t stop that guy and we’re in the same situation, but what if it stops the pulse nightclub shooter? or sandy hook? or any number of other shooters who may not have wanted it “bad enough”, then would it be worth it? Maybe one messed up guy says “screw it, it aint worth my time”. Or maybe a stricter law leads to one red flag for one person and prevents that purchase. Then is it worth it to have to wait a little longer on your next gun purchase? Like you said, you’d pass any check, and I assume you have enough firearms to hold you over if you had to wait a few weeks instead of a day when you go to purchase your next firearm, so why not?
You seem open minded, but then commenting with the same old “it’s not a gun issue” contradicts that.
Anyone with reasonable mechanical and machining skills can easily convert any semi auto rifle into a fully auto weapon. An ordinary deer rifle can be semi auto or bolt action. An AR 15 is a semi auto weapon with the same function as a deer rifle. I have a simple clamp on device with a small fishing reel handle that you can turn and each turn fired the gun 4 times .
You cant keep guns off the street. My first gun was a .22 made from a length of steel tubing, a wood handle , and a spring released by a trigger that fired the gun. The breach block was a 3/8 bolt with a slot in the head for the firing pin to fit through I could make another one in about an hour. Any caliber. The point being, that people that want guns will always have them. Or we will have a police state (but the guns will still be out there)