(02-15-2018 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  As someone who has never owned a gun and only shot a pistol, 22 rifle, and a 12 gauge what are the uses for an AR-15? Is it used for any type of hunting?

People do use it for hunting. Myself, I use my AR for home defense and my 9mm for when I am in my vehicle.

(02-15-2018 10:24 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

You strike me as one of those negative, "can't do it" people who always look for ways to NOT do anything."

"People who say it can't be done need to get out of the way of those doing it."

I, for one, would love to hear your solution to ensure complete school safety. Explain it, step by step, in detail.

We’ve heard the facile quips before, OD. Give us the entire plan in full. I am listening.

(02-15-2018 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  As someone who has never owned a gun and only shot a pistol, 22 rifle, and a 12 gauge what are the uses for an AR-15? Is it used for any type of hunting?

I've got friends that do. But if I dropped $2k on a rifle it's not going to collect dust and be a range only gun.

To the idiots, morons and dipshit ******* who want to add more laws, regulations and restrictions onto the vast majority of citizens, things that will have absolutely zero effect on murderers... **** off.

Punish the guilty, not EVERYONE ELSE.

Also... rights, motherfuckers!

(02-15-2018 09:34 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I've thought about a couple of things. Start making school merit based again. Put the pressures back on the kid to succeed. You don't know how many issues we deal with like this. Kids are dumb kids. They say stupid ****. If you suspended every kid who made a dumb threatening comment you would lose 25-30% of your kids. Not the whole year mind you but for awhile. I think the administration gets all caught up in metrics. If I suspend this kid i will never hit this 95% metric. All that BS. When I started teaching you had to pass 1 science class. 1! Now they have to pass 3 and I'm judged and the school is judged on how all of them do. The focus changes is what I am saying. It's all about getting every kid that you can over a not so high hurdle but it is a hurdle. If that class was merit based. You get into it if you reach a criteria the whole calculus changes. We don't even care if we suspend a kid. He didn't hold his end of the bargain. I don't have to get him to pass a test. HE NEEDS TO PASS MY EXAM not the states. We could weed out alot of problems this way.

I could talk for days about this but the fact of the matter is we have too many kids taking too many courses they are not equipped to handle and everybody gets in. Kids make threats daily and administrators don't want to do anything because it effects the district's report card.

Uhhhh, what?

This guy had already been restricted, then booted from this school. What is/was to keep him from attacking the Middle School or any other he could travel to?

He pretty clearly failed the “merit metric”, what would that have changed?

Dickheads a psychopath, let’s start by checking what meds he was on...

(02-15-2018 10:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  To the idiots, morons and dipshit ******* who want to add more laws, regulations and restrictions onto the vast majority of citizens, things that will have absolutely zero effect on murderers... **** off.

Punish the guilty, not EVERYONE ELSE.

Also... rights, motherfuckers!

Yep. Start here:

The very first place to start if people are serious about controlling guns is to eliminate those that are obtained illegally. In other words, eliminate all illegally held guns. Until it is proven that eliminating the illegal guns is possible, removing them from law abiding citizens does nothing but make all the law abiding people sitting ducks.

(02-15-2018 10:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Also... rights, motherfuckers!

Gun rights over lives...even the lives of kids. Absolutely sickening that this is the mindset of some in this country.

As far as solutions, until the people taking $ from the NRA are voted out and replaced with people who refuse to take their incentives, nothing will change, period. That has to be step 1.
Sadly, I don't expect that to happen, since it didn't happen after Sandy Hook...I hope it can, though.

(02-15-2018 10:33 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:24 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:14 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:04 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  I said in a [post on another thread I don't think repealing the 2nd amendment is necessary. That's a bridge to far at this point in our country's life.
What we need is to send a message. One that tells people using guns to kill humans is unacceptable in our country. No need to ban MOST gun ownership, sport and hunting rifles are not usually used to kill in mass shootings, mostly assault rifles.
We need to present a united front, libs and cons, to say we won't tolerate this anymore. A collective change in our society's attitudes will take many, many decades if not longer, but we've got to start somewhere. Banning g assault rifles seems like a good start and sends a clear message.

First off, do you even know what an assault rifle is?

Second, can you name the mass shootings where an assault rifle was used?

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

You strike me as one of those negative, "can't do it" people who always look for ways to NOT do anything."

"People who say it can't be done need to get out of the way of those doing it."

First there has to be a solution for one to be a part of it.

The oldest example of a code of law is the Code of Ur-Nammu from Mesopotamia somewhere around 2100BC. Guess what one of the laws was? "If a man commits murder that man must be killed". So a law that has existed since the earliest known example of a code of law hasn't been able to stop this but you naively think some new law will?

Wrong. First there has to be a willingness to find a solution. Which you don't seem to have.
You remind me of the guy looking for a job with a gun so he can kill it if he finds one.

(02-15-2018 09:41 AM)Crebman Wrote:  I'll start this by saying that I am a staunch proponent of the 2nd amendment - even though I do not own a gun currently by choice.

With that said, the very first place to start if people are serious about controlling guns is to eliminate those that are obtained illegally. In other words, eliminate all illegally held guns. Until it is proven that eliminating the illegal guns is possible, removing them from law abiding citizens does nothing but make all the law abiding people sitting ducks.

I'm guessing the above will prove no more successful than keeping illegal drugs out of people's hands, but any talk of gun control without eliminating those held illegally is little more than tyranny against the law abiding.

Far too many people, politicians included, wring their hands every time some tragedy like this happens, but almost never does any of those folks give a workable solution to eradicating guns held illegally. No, it is always ends up using the hand of government against those that are already obeying the current laws and aren't breaking the laws already on the books.

This.

Ban guns. Watch the borders flood with another illegal “crop”. Create another underground, black market economy.

For my neighbor, a serious world traveling big game guy, who owns 40+ firearms at no slight expense, how is he compensated for his loss?

How do you put a price tag on the Harpers Ferry musket my Grandfather passed down?

It’s not the guns, it’s the individuals. These aren’t private rogue armies, or scary militias, they’re mentally f#%^*ed up individuals. And there were PLENTY of warning signs on this one.

What did they ever figure out or decide with the Vegas shooter 6 months ago?

Oh, nothing? Hunh. How’s that?

(02-15-2018 11:03 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 10:49 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Also... rights, motherfuckers!

Gun rights over lives...even the lives of kids. Absolutely sickening that this is the mindset of some in this country.

As far as solutions, until the people taking $ from the NRA are voted out and replaced with people who refuse to take their incentives, nothing will change, period. That has to be step 1.
Sadly, I don't expect that to happen, since it didn't happen after Sandy Hook...I hope it can, though.

How many NRA members have committed a mass casualty shooting?

(02-15-2018 11:03 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  As far as solutions, until the people taking $ from the NRA are voted out and replaced with people who refuse to take their incentives, nothing will change, period. That has to be step 1.

What will this accomplish? And what is step 2?

(02-15-2018 08:24 AM)Old Blue Wrote:  The choice of whether we have significant gun control, with the frequency of these mass shottings, has been taken out of our control. Believe me, I do not come to this decision easily. I am the first in line when it comes to the rights of a free and law-abiding citizen to be able to own a gun. I totally buy into the argument that the gun is an inanimate object needing the human to operate. I totally agree with the premise that as a guard against tyranny, an armed population is the last line of defense. But the only argument concerning mass shootings, besides ignore them, that seems to make any sense at all, is more stringant gun control. So the conversation must now start. Not whether to have gun control, but rather, what is the fairest way to implement it.

There are more than 350 million guns in the US with more being sold each day...and that’s just the ones we know about. We have said it would be physically impossible for the government to deport 20 million illegal aliens—yet some are suggesting we could get rid of the existing 350 million guns. My guess is we would have more deaths from attempting to seize all guns in the US than we would from leaving the status quo.

The answer is more concealed carry permits and better security. You can’t put the gun genie back in the bottle. Too late for that, I would also make it illegal to show these mass murders on tv. Fame appears to be the primary motivation for doing them. Take that away and my guess is they decline significantly. At the very least don’t publicize the name of the shooter.

(02-15-2018 10:28 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  As someone who has never owned a gun and only shot a pistol, 22 rifle, and a 12 gauge what are the uses for an AR-15? Is it used for any type of hunting?

One good use for it would be when the Nazis or the KKK come to the door (or some future version of American Khmer Rouge). If Mexican cartel beheadings and kidnappings spread north it would be good for that. Also good for Korean store-owners to protect their property when people are burning down the neighborhood.

Its unlikely an EMP burst ot solar flare would take down the power grid, but in the rare case it did then one would be very useful.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

Ban guns!! Please stop being so disingenuous. We all know nobody's talking about that so why can't you move on from it? Do you work for the NRA? cause you sound more and more like one of their shills. Bogey man. Their coming to take my guns!! wahh wahh wahh

(02-15-2018 11:03 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  As far as solutions, until the people taking $ from the NRA are voted out and replaced with people who refuse to take their incentives, nothing will change, period. That has to be step 1.

What about those who are taking money from planned parenthood, the company that kills babies? Are those people who take PP money allowed to remain?

(02-15-2018 11:09 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Ban guns!! Please stop being so disingenuous. We all know nobody's talking about that so why can't you move on from it? Do you work for the NRA? cause you sound more and more like one of their shills. Bogey man. Their coming to take my guns!! wahh wahh wahh

So you have no solutions. OK. That's fair, it's a difficult thing to solve for.

(02-15-2018 11:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:03 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  As far as solutions, until the people taking $ from the NRA are voted out and replaced with people who refuse to take their incentives, nothing will change, period. That has to be step 1.

What will this accomplish? And what is step 2?

There is none so blind as he who will not see.

You have an objection for every proposal. Tells me your not being serious.

(02-15-2018 11:09 AM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Ban guns!! Please stop being so disingenuous. We all know nobody's talking about that so why can't you move on from it? Do you work for the NRA? cause you sound more and more like one of their shills. Bogey man. Their coming to take my guns!! wahh wahh wahh

So you want to ban guns?

How do you propose to do this? Do you just stop? Do you ban all guns? What about service revolvers for our LEOs? What about people who already have guns? What's your plan there?

We're having dialogue. LS didn't attack, he's trying to have a debate.

(02-15-2018 11:07 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 11:03 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  As far as solutions, until the people taking $ from the NRA are voted out and replaced with people who refuse to take their incentives, nothing will change, period. That has to be step 1.

What will this accomplish? And what is step 2?

Sigh...
For one, politicians voting on gun-related issues won't have the NRA tapping them on the shoulder gently pulling on their purse strings as they vote.

Two, I've offered multiple potential solutions that are far from a ban in multiple other threads - sadly there are a ton of mass shooting threads that have been created. I'm not saying my ideas are the answer, but getting the NRA's chokehold off of some of these politicians would go a long way to helping foster some actual discussion, IMO.