07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 100101102103104 ...
tools
  1. The Hustleman's Avatar
    There's always been school shootings. The media has been making these school shooters more and more famous since Columbine. Each one is trying to get a higher kill count, trying to get their message out there, and the media keeps giving them what they want. They keep making these sickos famous and it encourages others to do the same. If I kill enough people, I'll be national news, my message will be broadcast nationwide and my name will be a household name.
    You want to stop mass killings, stop making these guys famous, stop putting their name, face, and home videos on every television across the nation.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    I've been saying this on Facebook for ages!

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    05-30-2013 03:08 PM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    That's a flawed statement. Gun control fails because people can just bring things in right over the city limits. It's not like these cities have walls around them or are on an island surrounded by sharks. No one stops you and checks for weapons at the city limits. There are no border checkpoints into a city. Gun control works better in places like the U.K. or especially Australia, simply because it is applied to the entire country and they are more isolated geographically. If for example, only Sydney or only London had gun control, but the rest of their countries did not, you would see the same kind of failures.Yeah you can bring in things by boat, but it's not as easy as a car or truck. Everyone has to be on the same page. It has to be country wide or it doesn't work. All we are doing now is shuffling the guns around which doesn't really help anyone...except the criminals.
    That and it might be a little disingenuous to compare the crime rates of some of the largest cities with enormous poverty issues, etc. to like say the town I'm in, where less than 5 people are murdered per year. Population density and impoverished or undereducated population density might have something to do with crime rates. Of course Los Angeles has more crime per capita than Gnome, Alaska, but Gnome probably has more guns per capita. Therefore, the correlation is likely stronger in population:crime, poverty:crime and ignorance:crime than it is in guns:crime.
    GadgetGator likes this.
    05-30-2013 03:30 PM
  3. jova33's Avatar
    Well look at Houston and Chicago. Both similar population, both similar employment rates, both have ethnic and economic diversity. Guns are almost illegal in Chicago, legal in Houston. Houston has a substantially lower crime rate than Chicago.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    05-30-2013 03:55 PM
  4. Aquila's Avatar
    Well look at Houston and Chicago. Both similar population, both similar employment rates, both have ethnic and economic diversity. Guns are almost illegal in Chicago, legal in Houston. Houston has a substantially lower crime rate than Chicago.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    So I'm looking at the 10 most dangerous cities according to this article and neither Chicago or Houston are on it. They rank them:

    1 Flint, MI
    2 Detroit, MI
    3 St Louis, MO
    4 Oakland, CA
    5 Memphis, TN
    6 Little Rock, AR
    7 Birmingham, AL
    8 Atlanta, GA
    9 Baltimore, MD
    10 Stockton, CA

    They seem to equate cutting police services as being the strongest correlation to rising crime rates, however looking at the data provided, they also generally have low median incomes and very high unemployment rates. They did not specify about the gun laws in any of these cities/states.

    The Most Dangerous Cities in America - 24/7 Wall St.
    05-30-2013 04:09 PM
  5. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Well, with that statement, you sure aren't making the case that AR-15's shouldn't be treated the same way.



    First off, I am confused as to why you think whatever you own now under the second amendment is a defense at all. Your home and family? Sure. Against the government with all the weapons, people and technology at it's disposal? Not so much. Maybe you can explain that one to me.

    Secondly, you think technology shouldn't change things. Really? Are you sure? Cause I could envision a time where we have some sort of laser weapons that could rapidly kill even more people from even further distances away. You wouldn't even see it coming. And there would be no defense other then luck and not being in the wrong place at the wrong time. To me that seems like something we would want to place more restrictions on.



    Of couse. I agree with that. But just because a Senator thinks something doesn't mean it will come to be. There are a lot of wacky things that come out of right leaning Senators that are pushed back on.
    I practiced with my ar-15 a lot, during the month of May I probably went through 2k+ rounds myself. This is not including my wife and kids ar-15 ammo usage. If you've never handled and fired a fully automatic weapon its not something that can be easily understood. James Holmes fired 33 bullets killing 12 people including a very good friend of mine and wounding 58 others. Now with those numbers you must accept that some bullets and fragments hit multiple people. Yet from the reports he had a 100 round magazine. An ar-15 is prone to jam due to the heat created when trying to rapid fire it the best way to hit a lot of targets with an ar-15 is slow and steady, aim for each target pull the trigger when its in your sights and not before. A fully automatic Uzi will pull up and to the right when fired in full automatic mode. Which leads to extreme inaccuracies. Most people also assume that all victims were shot with the ar-15 which is certainly not the case a lot of them had pellets pulled out that came from the shotgun which would simply wound rather than kill at loner distances. I suspect that during his initial attack he started with the ar and then when that gun jammed he switched to the shotgun.

    The Second Amendment (as ratified) is as follows: "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."

    As passed by Congress and preserved in the national archives: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    In order to understand what the founding fathers intended, you have to examine not only the language used but also the punctuation.

    At the time the Constitution was written, the US had no standing army, therefore the citizens were the Militia. Weapons were ball muskets and the citizens provided their own weapons.

    This right to bear arms has been described and accepted as an auxiliary right, supporting the NATURAL rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

    So by owning firearms, and ensuring that my family is well trained in their use we are actually performing our duty as citizens.

    There have been several cases before the supreme court, while I am not going to go into each one or provide links since I am looking this information up on my phone and typing it on my N10. The information is readily available.

    DC Vs. Heller: They ruled that the second amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in the militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally legal purposes, such as defense within the home." This case also clarified that the right is not unlimited, it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever and for whatever purpose. They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession are consistent with the second amendment.

    For me and a lot of other firearm enthusiasts this is where the restrictions on fully automatic machine guns come into play, since this upholds the National Firearms Act of 1934

    MacDonald Vs. Chicago: The supreme court ruled that the second amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

    As I have stated before my somewhat small (to me) gun collection could not and would not stand a chance if the government turned tyrannical, however when you add mine to the millions of others out there we just might have a chance. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it really won't be important until they try to take it away". Look at history, the very first thing tyrannical governments do is start by taking away your right to defend yourself, then they go after your right to free speech and so forth, and eventually they get those rights removed because you allowed them to take away the right to defend yourself. Also if they manage to outlaw ar's any resistance force will be even less equipped against them than we would be now.
    -----

    As for technology, one of the main/big arguments by the gun control lobby is that there is no way our founding fathers could have foreseen the technology that would have allowed such weapons to exist, if that is what they truly believe then how can you apply the first amendment to email, phone calls, text messages in other words anything other than a printing press because that's all they had at the time. You would not be protected from illegal search and seizure if you were in your car. As for laser's I think you're reaching a bit there.

    If anyone truly thinks our rights have not been under attack for a very long long time, I urge you to talk to your parents or grandparents about the way things were when they were younger.
    jdbii likes this.
    05-30-2013 04:48 PM
  6. Serial Fordicator's Avatar
    Fyi, in some states you can't deer hunt with a 223 because its not lethal enough. Yes, I know it can kill, but there are a lot more deadlier things... Like cars, hammers, bats, etc.

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    05-30-2013 05:49 PM
  7. jova33's Avatar
    http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nei...p100dangerous/
    Wow, Texas didn't even make the list.
    But I'm sure there's more to it than gun laws. You'd have to look up violent crimes/population/employment/gun laws to make a valid comparison. But Chicago and DC are both known for violent crimes and their murder rates while they have some of the strictest gun laws.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    The Hustleman and Aquila like this.
    05-30-2013 06:13 PM
  8. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    There are many different style of .223 weapons. They make a conversion kit that replaces certain parts just to change the appearance. Same rifle yet most people arguing against the ar15 wouldn't know the two are the same put side by side. There are .22 caliber weapons made in the ar15 style now. I have a .22 in the ar15 style and a regular .223 hunting rifle. Theres a friend of mine who advocates for gun control majorly. When he was over at my house a couple weeks ago he was giving me a hard time about the .22 caliber. He was fixed on the look of the weapon and not what the weapon really was. Get rid of those too? This is one of those issues that once they get one they will keep after the rest.


    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Android Central Forums
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    05-30-2013 08:02 PM
  9. Live2ride883's Avatar
    He was fixed on the look of the weapon and not what the weapon really was. Get rid of those too? This is one of those issues that once they get one they will keep after the rest.
    Just because it looks like an m16 doesn't mean it functions like one.

    That's why we fight to keep every one we can, it's just a matter of time.
    05-30-2013 09:22 PM
  10. GadgetGator's Avatar
    There's always been school shootings. The media has been making these school shooters more and more famous since Columbine. Each one is trying to get a higher kill count, trying to get their message out there, and the media keeps giving them what they want. They keep making these sickos famous and it encourages others to do the same. If I kill enough people, I'll be national news, my message will be broadcast nationwide and my name will be a household name.
    You want to stop mass killings, stop making these guys famous, stop putting their name, face, and home videos on every television across the nation.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    I've been saying this on Facebook for ages!

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    Then you are both wrong. There haven't "always" been school shootings.
    05-30-2013 10:51 PM
  11. GadgetGator's Avatar
    As I have stated before my somewhat small (to me) gun collection could not and would not stand a chance if the government turned tyrannical, however when you add mine to the millions of others out there we just might have a chance. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it really won't be important until they try to take it away". Look at history, the very first thing tyrannical governments do is start by taking away your right to defend yourself, then they go after your right to free speech and so forth, and eventually they get those rights removed because you allowed them to take away the right to defend yourself. Also if they manage to outlaw ar's any resistance force will be even less equipped against them than we would be now.
    No, you wouldn't have a chance. If the Government was limited to the same weapons you had, then maybe. But that's not reality. The Government has resources in the air, even in SPACE that you do not have. And some weapons we probably don't even know about. It's not even close to being a fair fight. It's not 1776 anymore.
    -----

    As for technology, one of the main/big arguments by the gun control lobby is that there is no way our founding fathers could have foreseen the technology that would have allowed such weapons to exist, if that is what they truly believe then how can you apply the first amendment to email, phone calls, text messages in other words anything other than a printing press because that's all they had at the time. You would not be protected from illegal search and seizure if you were in your car. As for laser's I think you're reaching a bit there.
    Why is that? I didn't say it would be tomorrow. But do you really think weapons technology has come to an end and that guns are the most advanced small arms we will ever have? People once thought we wouldn't be able to fly and reach the moon either at one point. It's not a stretch that more deadly forms of weapons will be invented. History has proved it's only a matter of time.
    05-30-2013 11:18 PM
  12. jova33's Avatar
    Ok......... you're right. Guns haven't always been around and within the last 200 years they have been common. In our lifetime they have always been an issue, but the mass media chooses to focus more and more on them the last twenty years.

    http://news.discovery.com/history/ma...ory-121220.htm

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    05-30-2013 11:50 PM
  13. Live2ride883's Avatar
    No, you wouldn't have a chance. If the Government was limited to the same weapons you had, then maybe. But that's not reality. The Government has resources in the air, even in SPACE that you do not have. And some weapons we probably don't even know about. It's not even close to being a fair fight. It's not 1776 anymore.
    -----



    Why is that? I didn't say it would be tomorrow. But do you really think weapons technology has come to an end and that guns are the most advanced small arms we will ever have? People once thought we wouldn't be able to fly and reach the moon either at one point. It's not a stretch that more deadly forms of weapons will be invented. History has proved it's only a matter of time.
    Still, I would much prefer to go down fighting for what I believe in. A small washer on the flight deck can stop flight operations on an aircraft carrier, a little bit of sand in the carrier bearings along the main shaft can slow the ship to almost a third of it's normal speed. There are ways a single person can do more damage if he is intelligent, patient and takes advantage of his resources and opportunities.

    People also never thought we could defeat the British, I am not saying hand held blazers will never come. It's also pretty obvious that I don't think weapons technology has come to an end. What I am saying is that for the purpose of this conversation about GUN control, not lazer control you're reaching a bit. We wouldn't have to defeat an entire army, honestly I would have to question how many active duty American service men and women would fire upon American citizens.
    05-31-2013 12:31 AM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/nei...p100dangerous/
    Wow, Texas didn't even make the list.
    But I'm sure there's more to it than gun laws. You'd have to look up violent crimes/population/employment/gun laws to make a valid comparison. But Chicago and DC are both known for violent crimes and their murder rates while they have some of the strictest gun laws.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Chicago hasn't earned it's reputation! It's 79th... council bluffs, IA is 69th. That town has 70k people You're right, but there are many factors which don't seem to be presented together. Chicago didn't make the top 50 and DC barely did. I think this might be a case of someone seeing two unrelated points and assuming a trend and then assuming a correlation, rather than an evidence based observation. Texarkana beat Chicago and DC and it only has like 35k people.
    05-31-2013 12:55 AM
  15. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Ok......... you're right. Guns haven't always been around and within the last 200 years they have been common. In our lifetime they have always been an issue, but the mass media chooses to focus more and more on them the last twenty years.

    Mass Shootings Have Long History : Discovery News

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    Two thoughts cme to mind....how many more people would have been killed had those past shooters all had access to the weapons we have today? And why are these mass killers always men? I thought maybe I would find at least one woman in that historical list, but nope, not unless one of those Indians were. Maybe we should be treating men for some kind of testosterone poisoning. But on a serious note, I think if we studied that difference more, we might be able to someday find better solutions then passing out guns like candy to everyone and hoping for the best.
    05-31-2013 12:58 AM
  16. jova33's Avatar
    It's always men because women drove them to do it lol

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    05-31-2013 12:59 AM
  17. Aquila's Avatar
    Ignorance leads to Fear. Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to Suffering! Suffering leads to Vengeance! Vengeance leads to Obsession! Obsession leads to Delusion! Delusion leads to Ignorance!

    Break the cycle! Learn and care!
    05-31-2013 01:03 AM
  18. jova33's Avatar
    Men are hardwired for violence. Thousands of years of war are engrained into our DNA. I think some of these people just don't have a proper outlet for these traits carried over through the generations and they just snap. I think most people just deal with it.
    Some men get a hobby, focus their energy into that, find their center. Some men go to war.

    I'd like to think we can be peaceful. I'd like to think humanity can live in harmony. The problem is, it simply isn't in our nature. There will always be people out there that want what you have, and some will try to take it from you by force. Whether it be your possessions, your family, or your life. As long as there's people out there like that, I have a right and a duty to protect the things I hold dear. Limiting the tools I have to do that with will not make me safer.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    05-31-2013 01:17 AM
  19. bclinger#IM's Avatar
    She is a loser.

    Sent from my Sprint Note 2 via Tapatalk.
    The Hustleman likes this.
    05-31-2013 01:25 AM
  20. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Still, I would much prefer to go down fighting for what I believe in. A small washer on the flight deck can stop flight operations on an aircraft carrier, a little bit of sand in the carrier bearings along the main shaft can slow the ship to almost a third of it's normal speed. There are ways a single person can do more damage if he is intelligent, patient and takes advantage of his resources and opportunities.

    People also never thought we could defeat the British, I am not saying hand held blazers will never come. It's also pretty obvious that I don't think weapons technology has come to an end. What I am saying is that for the purpose of this conversation about GUN control, not lazer control you're reaching a bit. We wouldn't have to defeat an entire army, honestly I would have to question how many active duty American service men and women would fire upon American citizens.
    But that's my whole point...it's not GUNS that are protecting you from tyranny, it's our structure of government and the feelings we all have towards one another. Just like the military isn't going to fire on citizens, citizens, despite all the gun bravado talk, aren't going to be firing on the military either.

    And I wasn't reaching....I was responding to your claim that no matter what technology comes down the pike you don't think anything should change. You make this claim without even considering or knowing what things may be invented in the future. That seems very short sighted and foolish to me. Laws should be able to address available technology as it evolves. Not be held hostage to standards long since past. Even our founders did not want our laws to become stagnant and not address current needs. Yet that is what our system has become. Frozen in place as rigormortis has set in.
    05-31-2013 01:26 AM
  21. Aquila's Avatar
    Even our founders did not want our laws to become stagnant and not address current needs.
    They were hoping we'd constantly revise it and said so repeatedly. It's not a holy book... we can cross out what isn't working and add what we think might work. That's the point of it. It's the spirit of the document that matters... otherwise we'd still have slaves, women wouldn't be voting, there would be no Army, we wouldn't directly elect Senators (they'd be appointed by the state legislatures)... you get the point.
    jdbii and msndrstood like this.
    05-31-2013 01:29 AM
  22. GadgetGator's Avatar
    Men are hardwired for violence. Thousands of years of war are engrained into our DNA. I think some of these people just don't have a proper outlet for these traits carried over through the generations and they just snap. I think most people just deal with it.
    Some men get a hobby, focus their energy into that, find their center. Some men go to war.

    I'd like to think we can be peaceful. I'd like to think humanity can live in harmony. The problem is, it simply isn't in our nature. There will always be people out there that want what you have, and some will try to take it from you by force. Whether it be your possessions, your family, or your life. As long as there's people out there like that, I have a right and a duty to protect the things I hold dear. Limiting the tools I have to do that with will not make me safer.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
    One would hope that we have progressed beyond the days of cavemen, but apparently not. A sad sad commentary on our species.
    05-31-2013 01:46 AM
  23. gollum18's Avatar
    One would hope that we have progressed beyond the days of cavemen, but apparently not. A sad sad commentary on our species.
    You must reside under and embrace the very thin veil of security society has set for us.

    Every word he has said is true. Like it or not, if you analyze our past and go back 3000 years you see what he means. We fight each other over money, land, power, race, and religion. Is it really necessary? It is also my hope for humanity that one day we can live in peace. But as long as society tells us "what is" and "what is not" okay to do there will always be people that want to break those norms and rules.

    Give a man a gun, he robs a bank. Give a man a bank, he robs the world.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    05-31-2013 02:15 PM
  24. Fairclough's Avatar
    If anyone truly thinks our rights have not been under attack for a very long long time, I urge you to talk to your parents or grandparents about the way things were when they were younger.
    I checked with my Grandma, she seemed pretty happy with the "rights" she lost... infact she was one of the willing ones to hand in her rifles and shotguns. Just saying. Sometimes these "attacks" are for the best, lets not be short sighted here.
    TomsAndroid likes this.
    06-01-2013 06:56 AM
  25. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I checked with my Grandma, she seemed pretty happy with the "rights" she lost... infact she was one of the willing ones to hand in her rifles and shotguns. Just saying. Sometimes these "attacks" are for the best, lets not be short sighted here.
    That's nice, and unfortunately I am not very familier with Australia's history. As far as the wars that were fought for independence from a tyrannical government. Nor any civil wars, or how many Australian men and women that gave their lives in WWI, WWII in the defense of freedom in other countries.

    I saw a quote online the other day, and I apologize that I cannot give credit to the author. But it said "if you do not fight for what you have, do not complain when you loose it."

    I have several friends that seem afraid of guns or embarrassed by them (I know its shocking but I actually do things that are not centered around firearms), but I think those are based on a lack of knowledge, and understanding. I have offered to teach them something's and if they accept, they usually purchase a gun by the time its over, they may not get into it like I am but there's this point when after showing them how to load, unload a magazine, and how to strip a pistol or rifle that we go out to the firing range at the farm and after they empty a couple of magazine's it kinda like wow, now I get it. But it doesn't always happen.

    I get so tired of seeing firearm enthusiasts being perceived and portrayed in the media as people to be shunned, and I am not saying you are doing that. What people don't get is most of us are normal everyday people, we have families that we love and work hard to provide for, we go to church on Sundays, and thank God at some point for the blessings in our lives everyday.

    I am going to ask for clarification on the last line of your post. As I read it I find it offensive, your saying that these attacks in some way are for the best. I assume you're referring to Aurora in which I lost one of my best friends, and Newtown, where so many truly innocent children were slaughtered.
    The Hustleman and metz65 like this.
    06-01-2013 08:35 AM
4,617 ... 100101102103104 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD