Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard.

If you're talking about my personal experiences, don't worry about it. I've always found it odd that some people can carry hostility over events that took place before they were even born. I'm talking about a couple of odd individuals who have their own skewed visions of history. I doubt either of them ever bothered to pick up a book, let alone a dozen, and explore what really happened and why.

...it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.

Very true. I try to remind people that while, as John Adams said later, "The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people..."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...ms-to-h-niles/

In fact the shooting only started with that whole Lexington/Concord thing. Even that has its debating points, as the colonials perceived the move to be an infringement of their rights while the Governor saw himself as trying to curtail a dangerous threat. Did he see himself as a tyrannical dictator? I would say almost certainly not.

Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.

That is a great example of what can happen when hotheads collide. As usual the British had already apologized for the impressments, and always returned the American sailors when it was proven that they were indeed from our side of the pond. It was the Americans this time who made a mistake, and we're lucky we came out of it the way we did.

A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.

I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

I agree, and whilst I'm not a big fan of Rand Paul, I will wholeheartedly applaud his filibuster of the PATRIOT act renewal. Of course, the USA Freedom Act has since come in which could be seen as PATRIOT lite, but it was a good effort nevertheless. The problem with something like the PATRIOT act and the 'War on Terror' is that civilian surveillence can actually be used to prevent terrorism, but at what cost? Do we take the risk of another mass terrorist strike on the scale of 9/11 while keeping the government out of our private lives, or accept the intrusion for our safety?
It's not an easy question to answer, Ben Franklin did say that those who would sacrifice essential liberty for the sake of a little safety deserve neither, but who could have foreseen in his era the deaths of nearly 3000 civilians in one horrific day?

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

That touches on another massive question which is, like race relations, not solely an American problem, and that's the relationship between the public and the police, and the gradual erosion of trust between the two. I think as the public have become more aware of some of the abuses perpatrated by the police they are often focused on these issues rather than the good. Perhaps this is also a part of the race relations problem in that people get focused on the negative aspects of it more than the positive ones. Media plays a heavy part in this, but equally we cannot solely blame media for it only parrots to us what we want to see from it, otherwise it would not profit from its demographically targetted audience.
In that way you can also see why politicians lie, because who would vote in a politician that told hard hitting truths?

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.

Very true indeed, and I think that the internet is both a cure and a problem with this. The internet has opened our horizons to thousands of different opinions, but we as a species tend to flock towards those who share the same viewpoints, Roof most likely was partially radicalised by the internet, instead of opening his mind to the opposite viewpoint of his beliefs, he chose as many do, to embrace and cement what he already believed in and to dig deeper into that, to radicalise to the extent that he believed that he had a mission to save America from the blacks.
Of course, that is speculation at the moment, but I doubt he would be the first to walk that road, sadly.

[Harvs]

Ok, August, you need to pull your head in a bit mate, i have a rifle, i use that rifle to hunt for food either to fill my freezer or for dog food, the rifle i have is not a toy its a tool, i was taught from an early age to be aware of what lies behind your point of aim, to shoot straight and shoot to kill, my father was a great shot and a great teacher, i have served time in the Royal Australian Army, i have used all types of weapons, my favourite was the L1A1 SLR, a deadly accurate rifle with a 7.62 round that blows things apart, that rifle is banned now under our laws and thank Ghandi's sandals it is, as i have said there is NO reason on earth that you can give me to justify a civilian owning a military type auto or semi auto weapon, are you that bad of a shot that you have to take down your kill with 20 rapid fire rounds? or do you just like to go down to the range and show of to your mates or take off down the bush and take out a few trees just for the fun of it, as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

Originally Posted by Harvs

...as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

Beautiful.

[August]

Originally Posted by Harvs

Ok, August, you need to pull your head in a bit mate, i have a rifle, i use that rifle to hunt for food either to fill my freezer or for dog food, the rifle i have is not a toy its a tool, i was taught from an early age to be aware of what lies behind your point of aim, to shoot straight and shoot to kill, my father was a great shot and a great teacher, i have served time in the Royal Australian Army, i have used all types of weapons, my favourite was the L1A1 SLR, a deadly accurate rifle with a 7.62 round that blows things apart, that rifle is banned now under our laws and thank Ghandi's sandals it is, as i have said there is NO reason on earth that you can give me to justify a civilian owning a military type auto or semi auto weapon, are you that bad of a shot that you have to take down your kill with 20 rapid fire rounds? or do you just like to go down to the range and show of to your mates or take off down the bush and take out a few trees just for the fun of it, as i said, a rifle is a tool, but unfortunately so are many of the people that own them.

Pull my head in? In spite of your little digs about my marksmanship and my character, I don't have to justify my rights to you or anyone else, not that you'd listen anyways since you seem to have already made up your mind about it.

As for shooting trees maybe that's why you Australians can't be trusted by your masters to handle firearms. A competent marksman should always know where his bullets are going and a patch of forest is never a proper backstop. Such practices are likely to get someone injured or killed.

One dead, shooter sought at Delta State University

If the professor only would have had a gun...

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

One dead, shooter sought at Delta State University

If the professor only would have had a gun...

So?
Report: Woman dies after knife attack in Saco supermarket
http://bangordailynews.com/2015/08/1...o-supermarket/

Ah right...
For whatever reason, I forgot that posting in this thread is a bad idea.
Nevermind my post... and the dead professor, and the 20+ kids from Sandy Hook and all the others who have been killed by knife-lovers... oh wait...

[Armistead]

Last night went to the corner store late to get coffee. Came out, sat in car and saw a man take a pistol from his waistline, just sort of walking. Heard guys yell at him from a SUV parked to my left and he walked over showing it to them, then back to his car, shoved it down into his sagging pants, then back, walked near the store with it back in his hand, turned around and walked to his buds. I love the old man that works in there, thought they may gonna rob him. I have a AR in my extended cab, but didn't bring my phone. I did get it, stepped out when his back was turned and drew down on him. He was probably 20ish. I did say I was police for effect. He did turn when I yelled, but followed commands and I was being very very forceful. I was more worried about a car load of friends, but had cover. Anyway, police were called, turned out to be a damn pellet pistol, although very real like. However, the SUV had a few guns in it and I think most had warrants.

Not sure it was so smart of me or not. Anyway, a detective supposed to come talk to me today, hopefully I won't have to get further involved as I don't need my name out.