After TV Slaying, Reporter's Dad Finds Voice on Gun Control

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

So yeah, different countries & population and certain cultural differences, no doubt. But are we really as fundamentally different as you assume? Personally, i doubt it...... Anyway.

Australia doesn't have a border to any other countries. That makes a big difference.

originally posted by: mrwupy
They are not looking to take your guns or even control your guns.

They're objective is to control your mind.

Get enough people hating fire arms and rallying against them and they won't have to take them, the people will give them up willingly.

The media is brainwashing people just as "fast and furious" as they can. (Pun intended)

Guns are terrible, guns are bad. Eventually they'll get enough on board that guns will go away.

It may take a generation but it will surely happen.

They have been doing that with drugs for how long now? Doubt it works to be honest.

Guns can be outlawed, but it won't stop the ones that want to use them for the wrong reasons to access them.

What's next? Anti-knife crowd? Anti-Axe crowd? Anti-hammer crowd? Anti-chainsaw crowd? Anti-fists crowd?

Maybe they should take cars away, because they kill a lot of people too right?

I think I could literally go on all day.

a reply to: harvestdog

It's absolutely agenda-driven. Listen to the rhetoric. "who needs a machine gun to go hunting?" Firstly, i'm pretty sure there's nobody going hunting with a machine gun. Secondly, it's a lot harder to actually GET a bona-fide machine gun, than this chuckle-head seems to think it is. And lastly, the 2nd Amendment has precisely dick to do with hunting.

I'm tired of people using ANY excuse they can find, to say "lets do away with guns" It's an emotional, knee-jerk reaction....these people aren't thinking AT ALL about the repercussions of what they advocate.

a reply to: NerdGoddess

Any deadly weapon is deadly by definition. Firearms are not the only deadly weapons. I can kill with a wooden bat, a rock, a brick, a steel knife, or even my heel. Ban any of those, and I will find another. The same applies to firearms. I could always buy one out of some criminals trunk. There would be no records that trace back to me. You and I see eye to eye on this Alee. I grieve for his loss, but his reflexes to push an agenda could put my family in harms way. Good post, thank you.

a reply to: Daedalus

Serious truth brother. Majority of citizens cannot afford to own a machine gun, so for the majority it is unattainable. When they are harping on that, it has dick all to do with anything at all.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

"Each time you think there's a tipping point, with Sandy Hook or Aurora, and nothing gets done,"

That's because no-one has yet come up with a workable solution to both allow gun ownership and restrict gun ownership.

and that's primarily because the US governments' modus operandi regarding private gun ownership is unacceptable to law-abiding US citizens who happen to be responsible gun owners.

Its like we all drive but haven't figured out how to prevent all accidents... I think it is called 330 million people and so how do we regulate anything down to the individual without putting extreme limitations on all?

In this case was the shooter in the system as a person with prior mental illness? Was he in any database that listed him as dangerous and should not have a gun? The unfortunate part is many show their first "off the rails" incident without having any prior recorded issues.

What i believe they ultimately want to take are our handguns. Our only holy self-protection tool. We who live in more urban areas, live in what is known as an urban jungle. It is a bunch of savage animals I must protect my wife and I from. I do not believe in gun locker's at home unless you use them while you are away.

Even then, I would not use one. Criminals will break into your house and steal your safe. The only reason I see having one, is if you have kids. If you cannot keep an eye on your kid, you probably shouldn't own a gun. That's responsibility. If I could not trust my child, then I would not own one. If my child is too young to trust, I would have them out of there reach. Ceiling high...

But, I believe handguns should be worn at all times if you own one. Unless in bed, but it should be in arms reach length. These are my opinions, but I would not appeal to the general public's sympathy to make them law. Fools that are used as tools, are that, fools and tools. Learn some basics and we may well listen. Mr. Parker does a disservice to his/their cause and the American people.

a reply to: harvestdog

So, instead of showing real concern that his daughter was killed by a homosexual male, claiming he was oppressed in some way, and terminally "oppressing" two people, this guy is asking for gun control?

It it wrong to want to smack someone that just lost a loved one?

a reply to: harvestdog

He was probably anti-gun to begin with, before his daughter was killed. He's not going to make any progress with gun control. Even if we banned the ownership of guns, people would still get their hands on them.

Criminals don't obey laws.

They break them.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

One gun per citizen DNA marked so that only its registered owner can fire it

no larger in calibre than is allowed by law , rifles and shotguns are only allowed on farms etc where higher calibres are required for hunting ?

just a thought

a reply to: harvestdog

Had to come...in fact i thought the old Gun Control angle would have been trotted out long before now.

This 'disgruntled employee' (nuts) walked right up to the objects of his angst and murdered them right there and then.

He was right there, in their faces. A machete, axe or just about ANY other lethal close range weapon would have killed them...anybody calling for axe control?

a reply to: MysterX

But he didn't use an ax or a machete. How come? James Holmes didn't either, nor did Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner. How come? The Columbine boys didn't either, nor did any of the guys who shot people in the various military facilities. How come?

For every one ax murder you can show me in America, I can show you 1000 gun shot murders - and that is a conservative estimate. How come?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: MysterX

But he didn't use an ax or a machete. How come? James Holmes didn't either, nor did Adam Lanza or Jared Loughner. How come? The Columbine boys didn't either, nor did any of the guys who shot people in the various military facilities. How come?

For every one ax murder you can show me in America, I can show you 1000 gun shot murders - and that is a conservative estimate. How come?

According to crime statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), knives are consistently used to kill people far more often than rifles are used. And the numbers aren’t even close: five times as many murders were committed with knives than were committed with rifles last year.

thefederalist.com...

Which makes the ban on rifles look a little over-egged wouldn't you say?

Handguns are the most favoured weapon of choice, by a long margin...but the gun control emphasis has always been on assault rifles, such as was reported to have been used in all of your above examples, Lanza, Holmes, Laughner, and the rest...the point being made here, is that if guns are not available, people will and readily do make use of other weapons to kill people. In other words, if someone really wants to kill another person, and is not afraid of the consequences of doing so...they will, by almost any means, gun, knife, axe or some other weapon. Dead is dead.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

What has the dudes sexuality got to do with anything?.
fact is that the usa does have a gun problem. The rest of the world can see it even if you all can not.
But keep on being afraid the guberment will take them.

originally posted by: harvestdog
a reply to: Daedalus

Serious truth brother. Majority of citizens cannot afford to own a machine gun, so for the majority it is unattainable. When they are harping on that, it has dick all to do with anything at all.

Problem is, at least some of the antis want to conflate the two things in order to convince the uninformed public that an AR-15 is a 'machine gun' and that 'machine guns need to be banned.' Its a classic tactic of the media and the politicians who are anti-2A, to lie through their teeth, because it works well on the uninformed. As it turns out, its actually much easier for them to do that, to successfully play on people's fears and emotions and convince them than 'machine guns' are inherently evil, than it is to have to offer up a logical, rational explanation as to what makes a semi-automatic AR-15 different from a semi-automatic Remington 750 or any other similar hunting rifle.

a reply to: kaylaluv

I don't know about 1000:1. Sure, firearms are the weapon of choice in homicides, but its roughly a 2:1 ratio between usage of 'firearms' as opposed to other methods, with roughly a total of 5,000 non-firearm related homicides in the US every year.

Source

originally posted by: boymonkey74

fact is that the usa does have a gun problem. The rest of the world can see it even if you all can not.
But keep on being afraid the guberment will take them.

That's rich coming from a country where the "guberment" did take them. You sit there in a country where only the criminals can easily obtain a firearm and accuse American gun owners of being paranoid and unrealistic about gun confiscation.

I'm glad that you guys in the UK are so happy with your gun policies but we don't want them. Period.

Your forefathers tried to force their anti-gun nonsense on our forefathers and it didn't turn out well for them. Some of you still haven't learned that we don't care what you think about our lifestyle.

a reply to: MysterX

Sure but how many people is an attacker going to get through with a knife?..real easy to just pull a trigger than have to actually work at it..I dont beleive for a heartbeat that anyone with a knife is going to kill more than a few people, there is a great defence..run.
I'm not for gun confiscation but don't try and put out it's the same as a knife or club.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: MysterX

Sure but how many people is an attacker going to get through with a knife?..real easy to just pull a trigger than have to actually work at it..I dont beleive for a heartbeat that anyone with a knife is going to kill more than a few people, there is a great defence..run.
I'm not for gun confiscation but don't try and put out it's the same as a knife or club.

The difference is that a knife is easily concealed and silent.

There is a YouTube video of a woman who is A) insane and B) totally out of her gourd on some sort of drug walking around stabbing random people. She isn't running around flailing her arms and slashing at people... she's just calmly walking down the sidewalk poking folks who pass by.

A knife attack in a crowd won't cause people to run like a gunshot. People won't realize what's going on until someone raises the alarm and, even then, all the attacker has to do is conceal the knife and walk away.

A calm, determined person with a knife could go into a crowded noisy area and do a hell of a lot of damage before anyone realized what was going on and people started running. I'm not saying knives are more effective than guns, but they are sure as hell capable of a mass attack if used properly. There are countless items that can be used as weapons.

a reply to: Answer

I can't disagree that many things can be used effectively, they just aren't as efficient. I just cant remember any mass public killings like Sandy Hook..etc, with a knife..I could be wrong. I did think of Richard Speck who killed 8 nursing students but it wasn't a melee type killing..he took control of the residence and killed them 1 at a time over a period of hours.
Efficient or not dead is dead I guess but how many people did the woman in the youtube vid kill?