A Gun Thread About Absolutely Nothing!

seb said:
You know what guns I am talking about. You have posted pictures of them. Just to make myself clear I am talking about the guns that you would find armies using in a war setting. The rifles, handguns and shotguns that I would allow would be those that are used to hunt lets say prior to WWII.
Click to expand...
Those (in bold) would be fully automatic guns. Those are already prohibited to the general public.
 
Foxrac said:
There is no such as "assault weapon" so you should use semi-automatic guns instead. The "assault weapon" could include a car and should be banned? It doesn't make logical to me.

I'm not saying that you want to take guns away from people, but I'm saying that you need to realize about politicians who voted ban on semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazine, could face the consequence to lose the vote, so do you want strict Christian republican to controlling your district? If no so you need to make fair comparison with gun supporters who are socially liberal. Do you want to take our LGBT rights away since you know that gun control laws could make citizens more angry?

Speaking about Second Amendment, US Supreme Court made a decision that self-defense at home is constitutionally protected, but they didn't mention about semi-automatic guns yet, so it may need to be addressed in next ruling, or leave the decision to lower court, also you need know that US Supreme Court is politically divided.
Click to expand...

Get off the NRA's jargon for there is no such thing as an assault weapon. The weapon used to kill that has a magazine that holds lets say more than six rounds in my book classifies as an assault weapon.

Since the U.S. Congress has an approval rating that is less than 10%, it would be no great loss if they were all replaced. The voting public in the U.S. as well as most countries is largely uninformed and lazy and won't go past the first or second name on the ballot, so we will continue to have what we have now: a Congress that doesn't care about it's citizens and only cares about raising enough money to get re elected. I have not voted for an incumbent in more than a decade. Since the status quo has only brought about mass murders that has continued to grow in numbers, Congress and the NRA has to share the blame and something has to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to have them.
 
Reba said:
Those (in bold) would be fully automatic guns. Those are already prohibited to the general public.
Click to expand...
And how hard is it to change a semi automatic into an automatic one? Do you really think making automatic weapons illegal will stop someone who is hell bent on killing as many people as he can as quickly as he can, from obtaining them or converting the ones he has, using them and then in the end committing suicide or dying in the process? I have also said that semi automatic weapons should be banned as well because you can put a high capacity magazine on it and as fast as you can pull the trigger, you can be mowing down your victims until it runs out of ammo and then it's a quick change and your back killing again.
 
Reba said:
Do you think that people would be comfortable with that?


Why is that?


I don't know--people are already uncomfortable with the militarizing of police forces.
Click to expand...

Yes, it should be after tragic event in Orlando, even some police officers with semi-automatic/automatic rifles are protecting gay clubs in some cities.

because gay and lesbian people have different culture and many of them aren't interested in guns, but it don't make them to favor gun control laws. They don't care, except for tighten the security at clubs and anywhere. I have difficult to find gay hunters or gay gun enthusiasts over the US, but there is exception, most gay people who serve or served in US military own guns and likely to be active CCW/OC.

It is actually many black people (BLM) aren't comfortable with militarized police officers, but gay and lesbian people don't care and they do have a lot of respect for local police officers.
 
Foxrac said:
It is called soft target - even if it weren't gun free zone, shooter will have to upped the training and make more aggressive to carry more causalities as possible - known as hard target. I found that Orlando shooting was planned, plotted and shooter scouted around to find security holes and weaker security guards so he didn't have to make extremely aggressive.

Like I said above, most gay and lesbian people are unlikely to be carry guns concealed or openly so how could you protect the gay club that is not gun free zone and no one carry guns at all?

Your logical only works if there is active CCW or OC in club, but I don't think it is easier to realistic about one guy with handgun could beat shooter with semi-automatic or automatic guns.

BTW, there is exception, I know that gay and lesbian people who actively serve or served at military, are likely to own guns, also possibly active CCW or OC.
Click to expand...


The 9/11 Hijackers also scouted airport security, and they took over the planes using box cutters.

Let me ask you this, if a person refuses to carry a weapon (any kind of weapon) for their own personal self defense, what makes them think someone else is going to risk their life to protect them, if they won't even do it for themselves?
 
seb said:
You know what guns I am talking about. You have posted pictures of them. Just to make myself clear I am talking about the guns that you would find armies using in a war setting. The rifles, handguns and shotguns that I would allow would be those that are used to hunt lets say prior to WWII.
Click to expand...

How old are you Seb?
 
seb said:
Get off the NRA's jargon for there is no such thing as an assault weapon. The weapon used to kill that has a magazine that holds lets say more than six rounds in my book classifies as an assault weapon.

Since the U.S. Congress has an approval rating that is less than 10%, it would be no great loss if they were all replaced. The voting public in the U.S. as well as most countries is largely uninformed and lazy and won't go past the first or second name on the ballot, so we will continue to have what we have now: a Congress that doesn't care about it's citizens and only cares about raising enough money to get re elected. I have not voted for an incumbent in more than a decade. Since the status quo has only brought about mass murders that has continued to grow in numbers, Congress and the NRA has to share the blame and something has to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of people who should not be allowed to have them.
Click to expand...

I'm not NRA wingnut and you need to understand about what weapon means so it can be car, baseball, wooden stick, baton and fist. The "assault weapon" is coined by Brady organization and it isn't account for most gun death - semi-automatic guns are smaller portion of gun death. I'm moderate with gun policies - I only support accountability, such as require background check on anything, including gifting and private sales. I know that ban on semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines are ineffective and unlikely to prevent the mass shooting, also it isn't my wish to restrict the citizen's rights to have firearm, also Second Amendment doesn't specify about guns, but it does cover anything from handguns to rifles.

Do you remember about the Congress failed to pass the federal reciprocity bill that NRA demanded? The congress can't pass pro-gun or anti-gun laws whatever they want and the Congress always have lowest approval rating since I was born in 1987. I'm not interested in gun control laws and I only care about gay rights, also disability rights and SS/Medicare, that all I care. I'm not going to let NRA or Brady to use nasty tactic to throw pro-gay democrats out over inaction with legislation on gun laws. I'm getting tired of hear over gun laws from y'all.

Some democrats lost the election in Colorado AFTER they passed gun control laws, especially ban on high capacity magazine so Oregon, Vermont and Washington said that's enough and they have to focus on important issues instead of guns. I know that Colorado is very gun friendly state so it looks like you don't care about my rights, such as LGBT.
 
Steinhauer said:
The 9/11 Hijackers also scouted airport security, and they took over the planes using box cutters.

Let me ask you this, if a person refuses to carry a weapon (any kind of weapon) for their own personal self defense, what makes them think someone else is going to risk their life to protect them, if they won't even do it for themselves?
Click to expand...

because some people don't feel like capable or suitable to handle the self-defense with guns, also like I told to Reba, most gay and lesbian people aren't interested in guns, exception of serve or served in military, also some of them don't want to deal with legal issues that related to guns and some of them have mental illnesses.

FYI, I'm not capable to defend myself with guns due to my mental condition (depression, anxiety and PTSD) so my psychiatrist told me to stay away from guns, also I'm very nervous about attempt to defend myself that could result in permanent damage or loss. My parents told me that they were stressed with guns when they used to carry before I was born so not anymore after I was born and they locked guns in safe box - out of my sight for rest of my childhood. I don't felt that gun will deter the mugging without stressful tactic, but it will be very different if I was woman - easily to be assaulted and raped.

I'm not planning to live or visit the bad neighborhood and I avoid those area like plague.

If gay clubs aren't gun free zone anymore and there are no active CCW/OC in clubs so who will going to protect? Armed security guards? I don't think there are best solution.
 
I understand what you are saying, and if you are uncomfortable with guns, that is a personal decision. At least you are able to determine, for yourself, what you are best suited for.


The answer to the question in your last sentence is "no one will". Personal safety is up to the individual. If an individual decides that their life is not worth protecting, then chances are, no one will think they are worth protecting either.

When the Jews were targeted for extermination in Germany, no one (with few exceptions) stepped in to protect them. That is why 6 million died. Today, Israel is heavily armed, and they allow open carry of full automatic weapons. Because they know that no one stepped in to help them when they were being persecuted, and they were nearly hunted into extinction. The sad, unfortunate, fact of life, is that your personal safety is in your own hands. It is nobody's responsibility to protect you, except you.

An armed security guard is not going to walk you to your car. They are not going to step over 50 bodies to make sure you are ok.
 
Steinhauer said:
I understand what you are saying, and if you are uncomfortable with guns, that is a personal decision. At least you are able to determine, for yourself, what you are best suited for.


The answer to the question in your last sentence is "no one will". Personal safety is up to the individual. If an individual decides that their life is not worth protecting, then chances are, no one will think they are worth protecting either.

When the Jews were targeted for extermination in Germany, no one (with few exceptions) stepped in to protect them. That is why 6 million died. Today, Israel is heavily armed, and they allow open carry of full automatic weapons. Because they know that no one stepped in to help them when they were being persecuted, and they were nearly hunted into extinction. The sad, unfortunate, fact of life, is that your personal safety is in your own hands. It is nobody's responsibility to protect you, except you.

An armed security guard is not going to walk you to your car. They are not going to step over 50 bodies to make sure you are ok.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be personal decision if you got reported on NICS after committed to psych ward and I know that police officers in Birmingham regularly report anyone to NICS after requested the help with suicidal and sent to psych ward, also my psychiatrist ordered me to stay away from guns, so is it my personal decision? I don't think so.

The security guards are supplement to protecting the clubs and all of patrons inside, also Disney has security guards to protect all guests inside the park, not outside of parks. I have been victim of mugging in 2011 and no guns will going help at all. If guns as self-defense isn't option so watch your surrounding, walking in well lit area and use blind cane (no one want to mugging me when I used blind cane in DC metro), even don't go outside alone at late night. Also, most people don't carry guns outside at all for some reasons.

I'm not asking the security guard to watch me for 24 hours and I don't expect them to help me, except for inside of places that patrolled by security guards. If I get killed by mass shooting so I'm just saying that's life and hopefully it isn't result in incapacitated disabled. I do have my common sense to protect myself.

I don't have car anymore and you should forgot that I can't drive anymore.
 
has the psychiatrist determined you are a danger to yourself or others? You do realize you can challenge them right?
 
whatdidyousay! said:
I wish I could answer this but I don't know why ? I only know something has to be gone to keep guns out of the wrong hands and taking them away from the good guys is not going work b/c the bad guys will find some way to get a gun illegally !
Click to expand...
They can take all guns away, but smart people with access to machine shops will make them, dumb people will fabricate them. ( they even make them in prisons out of pipes, pens....ect.
 
Foxrac said:
It wouldn't be personal decision if you got reported on NICS after committed to psych ward and I know that police officers in Birmingham regularly report anyone to NICS after requested the help with suicidal and sent to psych ward, also my psychiatrist ordered me to stay away from guns, so is it my personal decision? I don't think so.

The security guards are supplement to protecting the clubs and all of patrons inside, also Disney has security guards to protect all guests inside the park, not outside of parks. I have been victim of mugging in 2011 and no guns will going help at all. If guns as self-defense isn't option so watch your surrounding, walking in well lit area and use blind cane (no one want to mugging me when I used blind cane in DC metro), even don't go outside alone at late night. Also, most people don't carry guns outside at all for some reasons.

I'm not asking the security guard to watch me for 24 hours and I don't expect them to help me, except for inside of places that patrolled by security guards. If I get killed by mass shooting so I'm just saying that's life and hopefully it isn't result in incapacitated disabled. I do have my common sense to protect myself.

I don't have car anymore and you should forgot that I can't drive anymore.
Click to expand...
security gaurds only check IDs and throw out disorderlys, they are not a shield.
 
Foxrac said:
I'm not NRA wingnut and you need to understand about what weapon means so it can be car, baseball, wooden stick, baton and fist. The "assault weapon" is coined by Brady organization and it isn't account for most gun death - semi-automatic guns are smaller portion of gun death. I'm moderate with gun policies - I only support accountability, such as require background check on anything, including gifting and private sales. I know that ban on semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines are ineffective and unlikely to prevent the mass shooting, also it isn't my wish to restrict the citizen's rights to have firearm, also Second Amendment doesn't specify about guns, but it does cover anything from handguns to rifles.

Do you remember about the Congress failed to pass the federal reciprocity bill that NRA demanded? The congress can't pass pro-gun or anti-gun laws whatever they want and the Congress always have lowest approval rating since I was born in 1987. I'm not interested in gun control laws and I only care about gay rights, also disability rights and SS/Medicare, that all I care. I'm not going to let NRA or Brady to use nasty tactic to throw pro-gay democrats out over inaction with legislation on gun laws. I'm getting tired of hear over gun laws from y'all.

Some democrats lost the election in Colorado AFTER they passed gun control laws, especially ban on high capacity magazine so Oregon, Vermont and Washington said that's enough and they have to focus on important issues instead of guns. I know that Colorado is very gun friendly state so it looks like you don't care about my rights, such as LGBT.
Click to expand...

The guns that the Brady organization coined as an "assault weapon" are just that and have been the cornerstone weapon used in most of the major mass shootings in recent years: " High-capacity magazines — or assault weapons likely equipped with them — were used in at least 15 of the incidents (11%). These incidents resulted in an average of 13.3 total people shot — 155% more people shot than in other incidents (5.2) — and 7.5 deaths — 47% more deaths than in other incidents (5.1)." In the study I read it included 133 mass shootings and in regard to mental health it stated: Of 133 examined incidents, in only one was there evidence the shooter was prohibited by federal law from possessing guns due to severe mental illness. In 15 other incidents (11 percent), there was there was evidence that concerns about the mental health of the shooter had been brought to the attention of a medical practitioner, school official, or legal authority prior to the shooting. in regards to prohibited possessions: Certain categories of people, including felons, certain domestic abusers, and severely mentally ill people are prohibited by federal law from possessing guns. There was sufficient evidence to judge whether the shooter was a prohibited gun possessor in 116 of the 133 incidents (87%). Of those 116 incidents, 44 (38%) involved a prohibited possessor, and 73 (62%) did not.These figures don't include the shooting in Oregon or Orlando. To say that "I know that ban on semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines are ineffective and unlikely to prevent the mass shooting" is shortsighted: Australia banned "assault weapons and high capacity magazines and there have been no mass killings — defined by experts there as a gunman killing five or more people besides himself — since the nation significantly tightened its gun control laws almost 20 years ago. Australians can still own firearms just not the ones used in many mass shootings.

What exactly is a concealed carry law going to do and how is it going to actually protect people in a shooting? Is there evidence other than Anecdotal evidence where someone with a gun stopped a would be shooter from committing a crime. Since they supposedly stopped it from happening how do you know their intention was to shoot and not just invoke fear in the people by drawing the firearm. Also in those few cases where the shooter shot someone and then was stopped by someone with a concealed firearm how is it known he/she meant to continue shooting others, perhaps he/she only intended to shoot the person or people he/she shot.

Oregon and Colorado have had mass shootings, so I guess they got what they wanted with their inaction and since their lawmakers don't have the backbone to stand up to the gun lobby and say enough is enough than they need to be voted out and replaced by someone willing to protect their citizens. Since most states aren't willing to enact tough legislation on gun ownership it is going to fall at the feet of the federal government and then if gun owners are found to violate the laws than they are going to have to answer to federal courts and serve their time in federal prisons with mandatory sentences.

No, I have no problem protecting your rights, if your gay, fine, if your black, hispanic, indian, etc. I don't care. But all I hear from gun people is your not going to infringe on my rights and keep me from owning the weapons I want, but what about mine, why should my life be put in jeopardy because some gun owners can't protect their guns and keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them in the first place?
 
Steinhauer said:
has the psychiatrist determined you are a danger to yourself or others? You do realize you can challenge them right?
Click to expand...

No, if you have mental illnesses that involve suicidal thoughts or attempt so psychiatrist tell you to stay away from guns at all.

I used to have suicidal thoughts often so that why they told me to stay away from guns, period, also I ended up overnight at psych ward. If I have guns so I could misuse it to ruin my life.

Reba told me to stay away from guns too.
 
Last edited:
sonocativo said:
security gaurds only check IDs and throw out disorderlys, they are not a shield.
Click to expand...

Not in Orlando - they used metal detector and screen patrons out for any metal or guns, even they only carried handgun before they got blasted by shooter with semi-automatic guns.
 
Back
Top