Today's Tragedy

Shortspark, thank you for your service. I certainly respect your opinioin, and your right to express it.

I had the M-16 in the Army. I would like to have an AR-15 now, not for hunting, just to have one that I knew how to maintain and to keep my shooting skills up. Yes, I can target shoot with the AR-15, given the proper place to do so. It would probably spend more time on a wall than in use, but I think I have a right to have one if I want.

I don't like the idea that politicians who know nothing about weapons can ban certain types because of the way they look. And I am certainly opposed to said politicians using such incidents to further their anti-gun agenda. It's not about guns, it's about control.

The problems with mass killings run much deeper than guns. When I was a kid, the gun cabinet in the hall was unlocked and stocked with guns ranging from a single-shot .22 to 12 gauge shotguns, even a 30/40 Krag. I never touched a gun in the cabinet without permission, because it was forbidden by my dad, period. I had a BB gun, and I was instructed that it was NOT a toy, and was to be used only for targets and pests.

There were guns in more homes in the 50s and 60s than there are now, not as many gun laws, and there was not more mass shootings then. The reason is RESPECT: for others, for self and family honor. Think the government can legislate that? No, that comes from the family unit and parents. I really think that's part of the reason there weren't more events such as the ones of late. Criminals and tyrants love an unarmed populace.

In the unlikely event that me, my family or property were threatened, would I use an AR-15 to defend myself? You darn right I would!

For the record, I am not a member of the NRA. I do support the second amendment, as well as the others, but without the second, the others would surely fall.
 
Shortspark said:
I was a Federal Law Enforcement officer for over 25 years and a firearms instructor for two squads a good part of that time. I am familiar and well versed with weapons of the assault variety and the rapid deployment of firepower, both with long weapons and handguns. I am here to tell you that from my experience, no civilian needs or should even want such weapons for recreation. There are a few, rare civilian jobs that may require this but those people are well trained. The rest should be in the hands of military and law enforcement personnel. I would create a list of these weapons and have them turned in. If someone says they just paid $800 for such a rifle I would simply say I am sorry, even to a law abiding citizen and even to a federal agent or police officer who has such a weapon for personal rather than official use. There would be huge penalties imposed for anyone not complying and mandated prison time for anyone committing a crime with such a weapon. Of course, this won't happen but that is what I would do if I were King. Incidentally, if anyone thinks that there is anything better than a 12 ga. shotgun for home defense purposes simply does not know a thing about weapons.
Click to expand...
Whoa, just my opinion, but the whole confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens with threats of imprisonment mentality scares me more than any firearm available today.
 
*Update

That crazy neighbor I was telling you all about earlier, he just caught me outside (and basicaly held me hostage) he was telling me his latest research tells him Obama is the anti-christ because his old zip code in Chicago was 60606

Sorry that I have a hard time wrapping my arms around the idea that adding more guns is the solution to our problem
 
Flash Gordon said:
*Update

That crazy neighbor I was telling you all about earlier, he just caught me outside (and basicaly held me hostage) he was telling me his latest research tells him Obama is the anti-christ because his old zip code in Chicago was 60606
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable to me.:rolleyes:
 
vet said:
...I don't like the idea that politicians who know nothing about weapons can ban certain types because of the way they look. And I am certainly opposed to said politicians using such incidents to further their anti-gun agenda. It's not about guns, it's about control.

The problems with mass killings run much deeper than guns. When I was a kid,...I never touched a gun in the cabinet without permission, because it was forbidden by my dad, period....

...The reason is RESPECT: for others, for self and family honor. Think the government can legislate that? No, that comes from the family unit and parents. I really think that's part of the reason there weren't more events such as the ones of late. Criminals and tyrants love an unarmed populace....
Click to expand...

First I would like to applaude the MODS for allowing a free and open discussion such as this to continue. I would hope that as mature minded, level headed adults, that we maintain a decorum in line with such discussions.

Vet, Totally agree! This discussion (the nationwide one, not the forum one) isn't about guns, it's about control. For the government however to decide that the way something 'looks' makes it more or less dangerous is surely bowing down to fear. To decide the EBG (EvilBlackGun) is the problem isn't working on a solution.

Dicks Sporting Goods announced yesterday that they are no longer selling guns that "fit the description". My daughter used to work there and was talking to a friend last night in the Lodge department. He said that they not only pulled ALL guns that are black, but even Airsoft, and BB guns. Toy GUNS that have a certain 'shape' are now banned. This is stupidity running wild my friend@

If killing people is the criteria then what about this:

Tobacco related deaths;
Look at death statistics for 2012 related to lung cancer alone.
New cases: 226,160
Deaths: 160,340

This doesn't include other forms of cancer linked to tobacco. Tobacco is responsible for 20% of all deaths. Over 443,000 EARLY deaths each year with 49,000 of those the result of secondhand smoke.

So we are fine with half a million Americans dying each year and not outlawing this deadly killer.

Is there a ban on all tobacco? Is there a licensing fee or any training for arming yourself with something so deadly? Are the "talking heads" on news stations calling for tobacco users to turn in all their lighters? Tobacco alone cost the US $193 Billion in 2010.

Even though the government stopped big tobacco from advertising in motor racing, they still spend $22 Million PER DAY in advertising (in 2010). That big spending, plus the taxes paid to the government, ALLOWS the talking heads to look the other way.

Perhaps gun companies open up huge advertising budgets and start paying the government. Whatcha' wanna' bet they suddenly turn and look the other way.....

Alcohol related deaths topped 75,000 in 2007 (from disease and traffic accidents combined)

Lets close all bottle shops, all winery's, all distilleries and declare it all illegal. Oh wait, we already tried that! (And more people died btw)

In Illinois they recently tried to tax all bullets 5¢. It didn't pass because the tax was more than the bullet cost on the most widely used round, .22cal. They did however get a $25 tax on the sale of each and every 'legal' firearm. Why? Because the amount of shootings in a state that BANS firearms for CCW (up until the Supreme Court ruling last week) has been out of control. They reckoned the average cost of a thug getting patched up in the ER at $55,000. So if they taxed the lawful gun owners they could raise $600,000 to help pay those bills. By their own stats, some 31% of guns used in crimes were illegal firearms. WOW!!! So even using flawed logic, we could say the 69% of law abiding citizens of the state of Illinois got stuck paying the ER bills for the 31% that are trying to kill one another in the streets. Problem with that logic is that it assumes ALL of the 31% sales were always illegal guns. Doesn't acount for stolen guns for instance.

Solution, ban all guns of course.


I like what you said about your dad, "period". Used to be we knew what the rules were, and if we tested that limit we were quickly called to task. (Who remembers what a "switch" is?) I can tell ya' I got my fair share of them! ;)

Now days it's "Oh let's put Johnny in a time out", or "Let's tell Johnny we are unhappy with his attitude". I say let's let Johnny understand there are two things in life that kids and animals understand. Both respond well to them. Both will mind you and love unconditionally if you use them regularly. What are those two things?

Pleasure & Pain!

Johnny is a good boy, he gets ice cream. = pleasure
Johnny shouts in the classroom and throws his food at Sally. Which leads to a spanking in the Principles office, (or the lack of ice cream for a month) for instance = pain

Which one does Johnny respond best to? Therefore he doesn't pull that crap next week!

We all live with 'pleasure' & 'pain' every single day of our lives.
It is painful to get up at 5:30 to get ready, fight traffic, and be at work downtown at 8:00.
It is pleasurable when pay-day comes however and we can spend more hard earned money here at AGO!
Ya' pays ya' money, and ya' picks ya' poison.

My Dad used to have to get the rocks out of the garden every single day when he came home from school.
Every morning as the sun came up, my PaPa would take that burlap bag of rocks and throw them back out in the garden. Why? Because he belived "An idle mind is the devils workshop".
I asked my Dad (before I had any children) "Dad did it ever dawn on him that he was picking up the same daM& rocks every morning???" His reply was "I already KNEW if I questioned my Dad, the rocks son, would be the LEAST of my worries!"
I thought about that all during my 20's. When I was 30, about 30 seconds after my daughter was born I slapped my forehead and said Doh!:doh:
Years of thinking "what was he thinking" and I suddenly GOT IT! ;)

Any-who.... Thanks to all for stimulating discussion on the matter. Points to be made by all sides and at the bottom of it all is one common thought. We need to do something!
 
Flash Gordon said:
*Update

That crazy neighbor I was telling you all about earlier, he just caught me outside (and basicaly held me hostage) he was telling me his latest research tells him Obama is the anti-christ because his old zip code in Chicago was 60606

Sorry that I have a hard time wrapping my arms around the idea that adding more guns is the solution to our problem
Click to expand...

Yeah and tell the "preppers" that we are all still alive and the world didn't end on 12-12-12. ;)

Don't think it's an 'add' thing as much as it's not a 'subtract' thing, that's all. Had there been a SRO on campus, "adding" his gun to the fight he would have most assuredly stopped a majority of this horror in the first place.

If your neighbor doesn't come to his senses you might have to do some 'adding' of your own. ;)
 
vet said:
Shortspark, thank you for your service. I certainly respect your opinioin, and your right to express it.

I had the M-16 in the Army. I would like to have an AR-15 now, not for hunting, just to have one that I knew how to maintain and to keep my shooting skills up. Yes, I can target shoot with the AR-15, given the proper place to do so. It would probably spend more time on a wall than in use, but I think I have a right to have one if I want.

I don't like the idea that politicians who know nothing about weapons can ban certain types because of the way they look. And I am certainly opposed to said politicians using such incidents to further their anti-gun agenda. It's not about guns, it's about control.

The problems with mass killings run much deeper than guns. When I was a kid, the gun cabinet in the hall was unlocked and stocked with guns ranging from a single-shot .22 to 12 gauge shotguns, even a 30/40 Krag. I never touched a gun in the cabinet without permission, because it was forbidden by my dad, period. I had a BB gun, and I was instructed that it was NOT a toy, and was to be used only for targets and pests.

There were guns in more homes in the 50s and 60s than there are now, not as many gun laws, and there was not more mass shootings then. The reason is RESPECT: for others, for self and family honor. Think the government can legislate that? No, that comes from the family unit and parents. I really think that's part of the reason there weren't more events such as the ones of late. Criminals and tyrants love an unarmed populace.

In the unlikely event that me, my family or property were threatened, would I use an AR-15 to defend myself? You darn right I would!

For the record, I am not a member of the NRA. I do support the second amendment, as well as the others, but without the second, the others would surely fall.
Click to expand...

So very well said! :props:

I would love to have an AR15 for the very same reasons.

Many liked the M14 over the M16 but I just enjoyed the feel of the M16, its accuracy, and durability. Early on the M16 got some bad publicity and I think this was more to do with the type of powder than anything else.

Do you folks feel comfortable knowing the government is protecting you? :dig:
 
BobbyG said:
...
Do you folks feel comfortable knowing the government is protecting you?
Click to expand...

And under the title "you're not gonna' believe this". My wife was talking with a local LEO (son of a woman that used to work for my wife) and he asked her if she had heard about the guy that got shot in the movie theater? Thinking back to the one with the nutbag that killed all those people she was like "oh yes that was horrible". He then said "No, this was at the opening night of The Hobbit". Seems another nutbag came into a crowded theater, pulled a gun and said he was going to kill everyone, when a LEO that happened to be there (off duty as you or I would be) promptly pulled out his weapon and dropped the crazy mutha' where he stood! Had he 'lived by the rules' he wouldn't have had a weapon, a weapon that saved more lives.

As Arsenio Hall used to say, "Things that make you go, Hmmmmm...."

Along that thought.....
Kennesaw_Ga_Guns_Save_Lives_.png


And no, I don't live in Kennesaw. :rolleyes:
 
If memory serves, there have been a couple of instances in this state (CA) when legislators/local officials have attempted to go through airport screening with a weapon (handgun) in a carry-on, and when stopped and searched, stated that they had forgotten the weapon was in the bag and had forgotten to take it out and leave it at home.

I don't recall whether they were arrested or not; I don't think they were.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top