Gun Owners are their own worst enemy

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.

Three dead.

In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.

Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.

Two dead.

In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.

Two dead.

In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.

One dead.

Now you have heard of it. Seems the only mass shootings that end only when the shooter has had enough are the ones in gun free zones... need me to post some of those numbers for you?

And let's not get started on the UK. They tried to ban kitchen knifes too!

One reason it is rarely heard of in mainstream media is because, as your examples show, there are numerous incidents in which firearms are used to end a situation without ever being fired. In many cases, no shots are fired. A story of 'bad guy pulls out gun, CCW holder pulls gun and says "stop or I shoot", bad guy puts his gun down, police show up and arrest suspect' is a boring story relative to others. Likewise, home defense situations of 'guy broke in home and granny holds guy at bay with shotgun' isn't all that interesting either.

[theautopilot]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

And let's not get started on the UK. They tried to ban kitchen knifes too!

No, they didn't. What happened a few years ago was some doctors said too many people were coming into A&E (ER) with stab wounds inflicted by kitchen knives. This was picked up by the media looking for a story to fill some columns and turned into a short lived debate that no one cared about, especially the government (although they were dragged into it by the media to an extent), which ended in just about everyone agreeing 'yeah, thats a stupid idea, moving on...'.

But hey, don't let silly things like what actually really happened get in the way when you can bend and exaggerate the facts to bolster your argument and point of view now

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by domrevans

No, they didn't. What happened a few years ago was some doctors said too many people were coming into A&E (ER) with stab wounds inflicted by kitchen knives. This was picked up by the media looking for a story to fill some columns and turned into a short lived debate that no one cared about, especially the government (although they were dragged into it by the media to an extent), which ended in just about everyone agreeing 'yeah, thats a stupid idea, moving on...'.

But hey, don't let silly things like what actually really happened get in the way when you can bend and exaggerate the facts to bolster your argument and point of view now

Have you looked at their proposals and bodies of litigation? As far as them saying "yeah, that's a stupid idea, moving on...", I guess they forgot to do that with things like plastic knives, multi-tools, and scissors that have resulted in criminal charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_l...United_Kingdom

[theautopilot]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Have you looked at their proposals and bodies of litigation? As far as them saying "yeah, that's a stupid idea, moving on...", I guess they forgot to do that with things like plastic knives, multi-tools, and scissors that have resulted in criminal charges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_l...United_Kingdom

I'm very aware of the UK law regarding knives. There are certain controls in place, such as carrying blades of certain types in public without a 'lawful excuse' (i.e. a chef on his way to work), but there is not, and never was, a plan to "ban kitchen knives". Multi tools etc are not banned, but you can't walk into bar with one if it has a certain blade size without a good reason.

[chrono1081]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

In 2002, an immigrant in Virginia started shooting his classmates at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy. Two of his classmates retrieved guns from their cars, forcing the killer to drop his weapon and allowing a third classmate to tackle him.

Three dead.

In Santee, Calif., in 2001, when a student began shooting his classmates, the school activated its "safe school plan" -- as the principal later told CNN -- by sending a "trained campus supervisor" to stop the killer.

Possibly not realizing that he was in a gun-free zone, the killer responded by shooting the trained campus supervisor three times. Fortunately, an armed off-duty San Diego policeman happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day. With a gun, he stopped the killer and held him at bay until more police could arrive.

Two dead.

In 1997, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Miss., had already shot several people at his high school and was headed for the junior high school when assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieved a .45 pistol from his car and pointed it at the gunman's head, ending the slaughter.

Two dead.

In 1998, a student attending a junior high school dance at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pa., started shooting, whereupon the restaurant owner pulled out his shotgun, chased the gunman from the restaurant and captured him for the police.

One dead.

Now you have heard of it. Seems the only mass shootings that end only when the shooter has had enough are the ones in gun free zones... need me to post some of those numbers for you?

And let's not get started on the UK. They tried to ban kitchen knifes too!

I know what you're saying but I don't agree with it. The last thing we need is a bunch of people with guns shooting at each other like the wild west.

Many concealed carry permit holders simply don't know how to treat a weapon properly. I had a coworker who's gun went off in a work meeting. WHY was a round chambered during a work meeting?

Look at the guy in the article I posted, he too had a round chambered in a theater. Luckily educated kids found it and did the right thing. I think that guy should lose his concealed carry permit.

You can pull up all kinds of things uneducated gun owners do hence why I disagree with concealed carry permits unless the person has special training to get the permit (you don't need it in PA obviously) and doesn't keep a round in the chamber (you can't even keep a round chambered on a military base).

I'm not against owning guns, I'm against stupid people owning guns.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by domrevans

I'm very aware of the UK law regarding knives. There are certain controls in place, such as carrying blades of certain types in public without a 'lawful excuse' (i.e. a chef on his way to work), but there is not, and never was, a plan to "ban kitchen knives". Multi tools etc are not banned, but you can't walk into bar with one if it has a certain blade size without a good reason.

Similarly true in some states in the U.S. In fact, knives are sometimes as, or more, restricted than guns. But, nobody cares because the laws are usually only enforced against teenage boys.

[PracticalMac]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Here is why:

3) Gun owners are unwilling to compromise. I and a few other recognize the need for background checks, no sales to people with a history of violence or diagnosed mental illness, and maybe even mandatory training and safety courses for first time gun buyers. However many more feel that the Second Amendment should have no limitations, this includes no background checks, guns for mentally ill people, etc...some compromise is needed.

Put #3 in another way, THEY ARE A$$ HOLES.

Not you, or many others, but the vocal few make everyone else look like the mental nut jobs who did the shooting.

Pardon for the crassness of my comment, just being straight up.

[Hawkeye16]

Originally Posted by chrono1081

You can pull up all kinds of things uneducated gun owners do hence why I disagree with concealed carry permits unless the person has special training to get the permit (you don't need it in PA obviously) and doesn't keep a round in the chamber (you can't even keep a round chambered on a military base).

I'm not against owning guns, I'm against stupid people owning guns.

At least we can agree on this. Here you do not even need to touch a gun before you get licensed to carry concealed or open. I think a hands on safety class should be required at minimum.

----------

Originally Posted by domrevans

No, they didn't. What happened a few years ago was some doctors said too many people were coming into A&E (ER) with stab wounds inflicted by kitchen knives. This was picked up by the media looking for a story to fill some columns and turned into a short lived debate that no one cared about, especially the government (although they were dragged into it by the media to an extent), which ended in just about everyone agreeing 'yeah, thats a stupid idea, moving on...'.

But hey, don't let silly things like what actually really happened get in the way when you can bend and exaggerate the facts to bolster your argument and point of view now

"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

Sure seems restrictive to me. And that last part is a ban on certain knives that are actually quite common around here. True that doctors wanted a more extensive ban but there are a ton of rules and "bans" on uses of knives as is.

[rdowns]

I'm glad this is one of those responsible gun owners who believes in training.

Pro-gun extremists have reached hysterics since reports that Vice President Joe Biden’s task force will consider executive orders to combat gun violence. The CEO of Tennessee-based Tactical Response, a firearms training company, delivered threats on YouTube that White House action would “spark a civil war.” CEO James Yeager said if gun violence prevention goes any further he would “start killing people”:

I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight. I’m not ****ing putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.

Link

See the since removed video here.

[theautopilot]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye16

At least we can agree on this. Here you do not even need to touch a gun before you get licensed to carry concealed or open. I think a hands on safety class should be required at minimum.

----------



"An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

"The manufacture, sale and importation of 17 bladed, pointed and other offensive weapons have been banned, in addition to flick knives and gravity knives."

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

Sure seems restrictive to me. And that last part is a ban on certain knives that are actually quite common around here. True that doctors wanted a more extensive ban but there are a ton of rules and "bans" on uses of knives as is.

I will say this for one last time; they never tried to ban kitchen knives.

[Anonymous Freak]

The number of guns (and per capita) in the US is at its highest rate in at least a century.

The percentage of households owning guns is at its lowest rate.

Heavily implying that we've switched from a majority of Americans owning one or two guns to have a minority of Americans owning MANY guns.

The "gun lobby" has shifted accordingly. The NRA used to be what its name implies: promotion of the responsible use of rifles - largely representing hunters. They were for many early "gun control" measures, because they were okay for hunters. More recently, they have shifted to represent the "gun enthusiast" or "gun collector".

Even within the "minority that own many guns", there are divisions. As the OP says, there are many who do it mostly for collectible nature. (I know a few of these.) But then there are the truly "militant" types. They represent a very small minority of gun owners, yet are by far the most vocal.

I am a firm supporter of the right to own weapons. For hunting, for sport shooting, for collecting, for self-defense. I think that banning things based on look is dumb, and magazine limits are pointless (there are millions of >10 round magazines out there, and like the last "ban", they can't ban already-made ones, so I'm sure manufacturers have cranked up their production lines to full steam. Plus, someone can, with just an hour or two's practice, swap a magazine in a few seconds. It has come to light that the Sandy Hook shooter often fired less than half a magazine's worth of ammunition before swapping, sometimes as few as 10.)

But... If done as part of truly comprehensive efforts to combat the actual causes of crime (poverty, inequity, gang culture - which are by far the biggest contributors,) by working to make a social safety net that truly protects all Americans, by stopping pointless prohibitions (as Washington and Colorado have done,) that promote organized crime more than individual responsibility; then we might make a serious dent.

Prohibition of alcohol didn't stop drinking - it increased organized (violent) crime.
Prohibition of drugs hasn't stopped drug use - it has increased organized (violent) crime.
Prohibition of abortion didn't stop abortions - it increased deaths from illicit abortions.
Increased gun control laws in Los Angeles, Washington DC, and Chicago hasn't stopped gun violence.

[rdowns]

We have enough gun threads so I'm going to leave this here.

If “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” as the NRA proclaimed in its post-Newtown press conference, why do so many gun shows prohibit attendees from carrying loaded firearms?

According to a ThinkProgress analysis, 51 gun shows in January ban attendees from bringing loaded guns onto the premises. In addition, ThinkProgress was unable to identify a single gun show this month that explicitly allowed people, even those with concealed-carry permits, to bring a loaded weapon with them.

For every event, their stated rationale for not permitting loaded weapons in the gun show was simple: safety. Crossroads Gun Show, a touring event across the western United States, explained on their website:

Q: Can I carry a loaded gun in the gun show? I have a Concealed Carry Permit.

A: We respectfully request that you do not bring any loaded firearm into the gun show. Safety is our Number One Priority, and a safe environment in the show can only be maintained if there are no loaded guns in the show.

At most shows, if an attendee brings a personal firearm, he or she must check it at the door and use a tie “so that they cannot be operated, be breached or loaded.”
Some events, like Bill Goodman’s Gun & Knife Shows across Ohio and Tennessee, even threaten prosecution for those who try to enter with a loaded weapon. “Patrons who bring loaded magazines or weapons into the show will be refused entry and may be subject to prosecution,” their website reads.

The widespread prohibition undermines the backbone of the NRA’s case against stronger gun safety laws. The powerful gun lobby argues that the best way to prevent more gun violence is for more people to have guns, supposedly deterring would-be criminals. The organization has succeeded in convincing every state but Illinois to enact laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons and conservative lawmakers are passing legislation to eliminate gun-free zones around schools and hospitals.

[MacNut]

lawmakers are passing legislation to eliminate gun-free zones around schools and hospitals.

Good idea, nothing better than shooting off a firearm in a building full of 100% oxygen.

If cell phones and smoking are not allowed why should a gun be.

[MacNut]

I will add to what Downs posted with this.

“Can we just break through the BS?” Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough said on Friday’s Morning Joe. “This is not—for the NRA—about Second Amendment rights.”
Scarborough slammed the NRA for fear-mongering for profits in the wake of the Newtown shooting, which has many calling for gun control.
“Justice Scalia clearly laid out in Heller what Second Amendements were and what they were not. The most Conservative justice on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, made it very clear: assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.”
Instead, Scarborough said, the NRA is protecting themselves and their wealthy gun manufacturers.

This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown? Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month, and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears, and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they’re coming to take your guns away? Hey, they can’t take your guns away, we’ve got something called the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States. Justice Scalia said in 2009 they can’t come and take your guns away, you can have a handgun to protect your family. But after that, they can regulate guns.

Supporting an NRA that fights for manufacturers instead of rights will be terrible for Republicans, Scarborough explained. “If we’re going to fight all these common sense gun measures, then we are a Republican party that’s headed for extinction,” he said.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/11/scarb...ond-amendment/

[rdowns]

Well said, Mr. Scarborough. Well said.

[rdowns]

And another one.

The chairman of Gun Appreciation Day may be taking “Django Unchained” a little too seriously.

Larry Ward on Friday told CNN that he created the first annual Gun Appreciation Day just days before President Barack Obama’s inauguration and the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday to “honor the legacy of Dr. King” and that slavery may never have happened in the United States if African-Americans had owned guns.


Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yiNR)

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by MacNut

I will add to what Downs posted with this.
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/11/scarb...ond-amendment/

"Justice Scalia, made it very clear: assault weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.”"[/QUOTE]


Hes right...select fire weapons (aka "assualt weapons") are already essentially illegal to own without jumping through many hoops.

Let me help you by posting this:

"The Heller Decision
What did the landmark Heller decision have to say about banning guns like the AR-15? Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court says that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” The Heller decision interpreted a 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, as standing for the principle that the Second Amendment has historically protected guns “in common use at the time,” rather than “dangerous and unusual weapons.” While some scholars have disagreed with the court’s reasoning, the court went on to suggest that bans on short shotguns, short rifles and machine guns are not unconstitutional because those guns are not among the type of “arms” protected by the Second Amendment right."

http://www.nrapublications.org/index...nt-no-respect/

What he is saying is that the 2A does not pertain to weapons that are uncommon, and are not used for lawful purposes...full auto weapons, grenade launchers, short barreled shotguns..

According to this decision, the second amendment DOES protect AR15s since they are used day in and day out for lawful purposes..hunting, sport shooting, etc..

but hey...dont let facts or liberal bias get in your way...

[skunk]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court says that the Second Amendment “does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Is fantasising about Rambo-style scenarios not lawful?

[Apple OC]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Gun Owners are their own worst enemy

Tell that to Donnie and Melinda Herman.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/hom...html?hpt=hp_c1

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by skunk

Is fantasising about Rambo-style scenarios not lawful?

only if done in your living room from the safety of your sofa cushion fort..

[Thomas Veil]

Talk about being your own worst enemy...

Gun-rights groups: Our 'backs are against the wall'

As lawmakers from Connecticut to California rush to propose new restrictions on firearms and ammunition, state-level gun-rights activists are playing defense for the first time in years, with some saying they face fights they may not win.

“Our backs are against the wall,” said Scott Wilson, president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, a pro-gun rights group. “We are in for the fight of our lives. I have never seen anything like it.”

In a blog post after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Conn., the CCDL admitted to its members that efforts to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines could succeed, despite their strident opposition.

The CCDL message said that "we simply do not know" whether they would be "successful in our efforts to protect us from bans on certain firearms or magazines."

What sorts of draconian measures are being proposed?

As the White House formulates a list of federal proposals to combat gun violence, with recommendations from Vice President Joe Biden’s task force expected by Tuesday, lawmakers at the state level are forging ahead to restrict the sale or possession of certain types of firearms and ammunition.

In New Jersey, 18 new bills have been submitted to the state legislature, including one that would require gun buyers to submit to a psychological evaluation, according to the Star-Ledger.

In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo called on legislators to pass the nation’s toughest ban on assault weapons and restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

In California, which already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat, said he intends to introduce a bill requiring gun owners to register annually, and another requiring all guns to be kept in lock boxes when not in use.

In Connecticut, Democratic Sen. Beth Bye wants to limit access to assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and require that firearms be registered by model and serial number, Reuters reported. Bye also wants to impose a 50 percent sales tax on ammunition and magazines.

In Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, received a standing ovation from some state legislators Thursday when he suggested requiring universal background checks on all gun sales.

Okay, let's start with these guys' statement that their "backs are against the wall."

Really? You mean, just like those kids who hid in the closet in that Sandy Hook classroom, cowering for their lives, about to get blown away? Your backs are against the wall like that?

'Cause if that's not what you meant, then you're writing grade-A Stephen Colbert-style material, there.

When you look at that pretty reasonable set of laws that states want to pass, you've really gotta wonder about the mental stability of these people who are having freak-outs.

“We are in for the fight of our lives. I have never seen anything like it.”

Do these guys have the faintest scintilla of an idea how this sounds to the rest of the country?

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by Thomas Veil

Talk about being your own worst enemy...

What sorts of draconian measures are being proposed?

Okay, let's start with these guys' statement that their "backs are against the wall."

Really? You mean, just like those kids who hid in the closet in that Sandy Hook classroom, cowering for their lives, about to get blown away? Your backs are against the wall like that?

'Cause if that's not what you meant, then you're writing grade-A Stephen Colbert-style material, there.

When you look at that pretty reasonable set of laws that states want to pass, you've really gotta wonder about the mental stability of these people who are having freak-outs.

Do these guys have the faintest scintilla of an idea how this sounds to the rest of the country?

No, they don't. Glocke seems to be one of them, judging from above posts. Sad, isn't it? These are all things that are sensible, IMO.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by leekohler

No, they don't. Glocke seems to be one of them, judging from above posts. Sad, isn't it? These are all things that are sensible, IMO.

Really? Point to one of my posts where I said background checks were not sensible.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by leekohler

No, they don't. Glocke seems to be one of them, judging from above posts. Sad, isn't it? These are all things that are sensible, IMO.

I think that, despite the hyperbole, glocke12 has a relatively moderate position.

[citizenzen]

Speaking of "own worst enemies"...

Dad poses as gunman to test school security, gets arrested

A Texas man is facing third-degree felony charges of making a terroristic threat after he allegedly told elementary school staffers he brought a gun to the building, NBCDFW.com reported.

Officials say Ronald Miller was unarmed Wednesday when he told a school greeter outside Celina Elementary School that he had a gun, according to NBCDFW.com. The town of Celina is just north of Dallas.

The greeter froze in panic when Miller said he was a gunman and his target was inside, Celina Independent School District Superintendent Donny O'Dell told NBCDFW.com. Miller was then able to walk into the school and entered the office.

"He told them that he is a shooter and 'you're dead, and you're dead,'" O'Dell told NBCDFW.com. Never showing a weapon, Miller then reportedly revealed his stunt was a test of school safety and he wanted to talk to the principal.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-arrested?lite

No dad. Just ... no.