What you gun nuts look like to us nor...
beer maker

Loxahatchee, FL

#61 Jan 25, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that responsible, tax-paying, lawful gun owners are not the problem. I am one. That's what makes this such a difficult problem to even begin to resolve.
If we had never had the Second Amendment and guns had always been totally banned, as they are in some countries, we would not have the problem of a few crazies getting their hands on guns and massacring innocent people, too often children, in public places. We would have (almost) no gun related crimes. However, we do have the freedom to own and use guns and none of us wants to give up that freedom.
The problem is, how do we stop the crazies from getting the guns and massacring our children? I don't have a good answer.
If guns had been banned from day one, during WWII the Japanese would have invaded us. But because they knew that the average person was likely to own a gun they did not.

“Post 6, 2017 thru 2020 ”

Since: Oct 10

St. Marys, GA

#62 Jan 25, 2013
Have you noticed that ALL attacks by deranged strangers on other strangers were in places where the victims were prohibited from carrying firearms?

What conclusion might a sane person - perhaps even a Liberal - draw from that?
Anon

Herndon, PA

#63 Jan 25, 2013
Moreno Jay wrote:
Have you noticed that ALL attacks by deranged strangers on other strangers were in places where the victims were prohibited from carrying firearms?
What conclusion might a sane person - perhaps even a Liberal - draw from that?
A sane, logical person can draw no conclusion from this. First, it is based on a false premise; not ALL attacks have taken place in a location where carrying firearms was prohibited. Second, we do not have enough facts to draw any conclusion. Third, your faulty conclusion was arrived at by assuming the conclusion and then attempting to describe the facts to support it.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#64 Jan 25, 2013
beer maker wrote:
<quoted text>
If guns had been banned from day one, during WWII the Japanese would have invaded us. But because they knew that the average person was likely to own a gun they did not.
And I, for one, are glad that we are armed and ready should anyone think to invade us.

“Post 6, 2017 thru 2020 ”

Since: Oct 10

St. Marys, GA

#65 Jan 25, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
A sane, logical person can draw no conclusion from this. First, it is based on a false premise; not ALL attacks have taken place in a location where carrying firearms was prohibited. Second, we do not have enough facts to draw any conclusion. Third, your faulty conclusion was arrived at by assuming the conclusion and then attempting to describe the facts to support it.
Okay, nit picking Lib a-hole, all attacks with multiple gunshots fired into strangers by a stranger. Name one that has happened in the last ten years that made the national news that did not happen in a setting where the law required the victims to be unarmed.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#66 Jan 25, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand that responsible, tax-paying, lawful gun owners are not the problem.

The problem is, how do we stop the crazies from getting the guns and massacring our children? I don't have a good answer.
There is no 'one good answer'. I do know that any gun ban isn't the answer. None of the proposed legislation and the E.O.'s will do a SINGLE thing to stop another mass murderer either.

Those politicians inside the beltway (and at many state levels as well) are pushing this for the sake of control, NOT 'saving the children. Going after gun owners and their firearms is NOT poractive aginst the criminal elements (mentally deranged, gang-bangers, punk/thugs, etc.) that ARE the problem.
Jimmy

Herndon, PA

#67 Jan 25, 2013
Moreno Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, nit picking Lib a-hole, all attacks with multiple gunshots fired into strangers by a stranger. Name one that has happened in the last ten years that made the national news that did not happen in a setting where the law required the victims to be unarmed.
Jay, you self sanctified pecker head, it would have fulfilled your dream if every one of those twenty children murdered in Newtown, CT had been armed. Just imagine the bullets flying as each of them drew their concealed weapons and wiped out their assailant---and each other. You may be happy in your fantasy, but stay the hell out of our real world.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#68 Jan 25, 2013
Moreno Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, nit picking Lib a-hole, all attacks with multiple gunshots fired into strangers by a stranger. Name one that has happened in the last ten years that made the national news that did not happen in a setting where the law required the victims to be unarmed.
If there is an argument there, it is meaningless. So long as attacks are on schools and the victims are 6 year old children, the victims are going to be unarmed.
Anon

Herndon, PA

#69 Jan 25, 2013
Gumbeaux Roux wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no 'one good answer'. I do know that any gun ban isn't the answer. None of the proposed legislation and the E.O.'s will do a SINGLE thing to stop another mass murderer either.
Those politicians inside the beltway (and at many state levels as well) are pushing this for the sake of control, NOT 'saving the children. Going after gun owners and their firearms is NOT poractive aginst the criminal elements (mentally deranged, gang-bangers, punk/thugs, etc.) that ARE the problem.
I agree. No gun law is going to stop this from happening again.

Personally, I don't believe that most politicians are pushing this for "control." I think they are reacting to the public outcry and trying to do "something." They just don't know what to do.

The problem about being proactive against criminals is that the perpetrators of these mass killings are almost always not criminals until they commit the one act of violence. Many of them kill themselves or are killed by police. It seems that, when they commit the massacre, they have no concern for the consequences to themselves. We can't prosecute every mentally deranged person we think might commit such a crime---we can't even locate them.
Alinskiite Pulussy

Kingsland, GA

#70 Jan 25, 2013
We must use this opportunity of emotional confusion to unarm the population now so they will not be a threat to the government when we tell them they have no more rights.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Long live Marx.
beer maker

United States

#71 Jan 26, 2013
What could have happened if a teacher had a gun? That maybe what Jay is getting at. You almost never hear of someone defending themselves in the national main stream news.
Paco

Saint Marys, GA

#72 Jan 26, 2013
beer maker wrote:
What could have happened if a teacher had a gun? That maybe what Jay is getting at. You almost never hear of someone defending themselves in the national main stream news.
What if I took a dump?
Anon

Herndon, PA

#73 Jan 26, 2013
beer maker wrote:
What could have happened if a teacher had a gun? That maybe what Jay is getting at. You almost never hear of someone defending themselves in the national main stream news.
We will, of course, never know what might have happened. There are several possibilities. The teacher might have recognized the shooter as a deadly threat, immediately analyzed the situation, drawn her or his weapon from wherever it was hidden and dispatched the intruder with one or two well placed shots. A great performance we might hope for from a well trained police SWAT team officer; a miracle if done by teacher. A more likely scenario is that the teacher, even armed, would have neither the skill or the opportunity to respond. In a worst case scenario, the teacher would have time to access his or her weapon but would panic and kill or injure students.

The reason that we almost never hear of someone successfully defending themselves is because it almost never happens.

“Post 6, 2017 thru 2020 ”

Since: Oct 10

St. Marys, GA

#74 Jan 26, 2013
Paco wrote:
<quoted text>What if I took a dump?
Your head would cave in?

“Post 6, 2017 thru 2020 ”

Since: Oct 10

St. Marys, GA

#75 Jan 26, 2013
Paco

Saint Marys, GA

#76 Jan 26, 2013
Moreno Jay wrote:
<quoted text>
Your head would cave in?
so you see one has nothing to do with the other.
Anon

Apo, AE

#77 Jan 26, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
We will, of course, never know what might have happened. There are several possibilities. The teacher might have recognized the shooter as a deadly threat, immediately analyzed the situation, drawn her or his weapon from wherever it was hidden and dispatched the intruder with one or two well placed shots. A great performance we might hope for from a well trained police SWAT team officer; a miracle if done by teacher. A more likely scenario is that the teacher, even armed, would have neither the skill or the opportunity to respond. In a worst case scenario, the teacher would have time to access his or her weapon but would panic and kill or injure students.
The reason that we almost never hear of someone successfully defending themselves is because it almost never happens.
Quick google search and you will find it does happen often.


https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/ccm-departme...
http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/oregon-mall-...
http://blurbrain.com/two-armed-good-samaritan...

There are many more!
Anon

Apo, AE

#79 Jan 26, 2013
That one happened in Jacksonville!

“Commander & Chef”

Since: Sep 11

Saint Marys, GA

#80 Jan 26, 2013
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason that we almost never hear of someone successfully defending themselves is because it almost never happens.
No, the reason you don't hear about it is that it is not reported with the same enthusiasm as gun crimes. The reason is that it does not fit the "guns are bad" template of the liberal media.

Consider:
* Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]

* Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders.[13][14][15] Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.[16]

* Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,[17] U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.[18]

* A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[19]

* A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.[20]

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:[21]
34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"
40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"
69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"[22]

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime
You may follow the links for the original stats

“Post 6, 2017 thru 2020 ”

Since: Oct 10

St. Marys, GA

#81 Jan 26, 2013
I do. Armed teachers. It's quite simple, really.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

St. Marys Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Poll Nostradamus 18 min Poll Taker 0
Who owns the Board of Realtors ? in any place i... 21 min OK Carrol 6
Silly Little People Support Bigger Government 37 min Really 1
Another proclamation from Alex Kearns 1 hr Jorge 30
Solar Modules Cause More Greenhouse Gas Emissio... 1 hr LonePalm 2
The Incestuous City of St. Marys / Kiwanis rela... 1 hr Bob 569
Who signs off on TAD ? 2 hr Jorge 31
More from around the web

Personal Finance

St. Marys Mortgages