Blame the shooter, not the gun

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by clayb2004

 

Yes, you should.

LOL, whatever, bud.

It's been beaten in the ground time and time again, but Washington D.C. and Chicago have both basically outlawed guns, and both have the highest violent crime rates in the country. Vermont is a state that allows concealed weapons without permit by anyone who can legally purchase a firearm. Yet, instead of a bunch of murders, they have the LOWEST crime rate in America. I understand the left will never swing right and vice versa, but facts are facts. More, responsible gun owners = Unhappy, unproductive bad guys. You can't ban roads and cars because some idiot drives 150mph and takes out a school bus.

reply to post by Phenomium


I'd just like to add a small bit to your post about protection from government.

An armed populace can never be overtly enslaved. They are only susceptible to covert slavery.

I dont know about anyone else but I personally would much rather be covertly enslaved than overtly.

Originally posted by conspiracyrus
reply to post by Phenomium

 

I'd just like to add a small bit to your post about protection from government.

An armed populace can never be overtly enslaved. They are only susceptible to covert slavery.

I dont know about anyone else but I personally would much rather be covertly enslaved than overtly.

edit on 23-7-2012 by conspiracyrus because: (no reason given)

This is the "lesser of the two arguments" situation and I would choose the same as you, having no other options. However, we as a people born into this world with inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator, were born into this world naked, without money or worldly goods just as the ones who are now enslaving us.

I feel that no one should have to succumb to slavery of any kind.
We may be born into more wealth than another but as they say in chess......."When the game is over the king and the pawn are both put away in the same box".

(Hey, look at me....I'm behaving!)

reply to post by TerribleTeam2

So from what I can gather from the information gleaned from these boards, and from the vast majority of Americans I have met in the real world, outside Internet Land, is that they, yourself included, would only give up their firearms if it came to the end of the world, or if force was used to remove said firearms

Many would, in fact, fight. My weapons are mine. They are my property and in a serious situation my lifeline. I am trained and proficient in their use, I am within the law, and do not hurt people with my AR-15, my pistol or my shotgun.

I also own several knives, a taser that my wife keeps with her as a back up weapon should the need arise, a collapsible baton, and the hand to hand training to use each. I'm a soldier in the US Army. And if it came to forcibly removing weapons from the American public you would see me and many of my fellow soldiers on the other side of those who would do the taking.

Not sure if you know any Australians outside these boards here, but let me give you some information about us - we have a VERY sarcastic sense of humour. If you honestly thought that was an attack on you, or your character, then you need to take a step back and look at what I said from a different angle, or at least realise that some of the things I have said have been in a sarcastic attempt at humour. May have worked, may not have. Not everyone has the same sense of humour, and finds the same things funny.

Fair enough. No harm done.

In all seriousness though, answer me this - At the end of the day, is it ABSOLUTELY necessary for a Civilian to own an Automatic/Semi-Automatic Assault Rifle, regardless of the calibre of the rifle? As many people have said on here, even a .357 Magnum will make someone have a bad day, even with body armour on.

Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the people.

My answer is YES. It is necessary. As long as the soldier has an M16, the LEAST a gun owner should be able to own and use is a semiautomatic AR-15. Which, by the way, is not like an M16 or a military grade M4. The caliber of the M16/AR platform is 5.56mm It is an elongated .22 cal with more powder behind it. That's it. I don't believe caliber or capacity or barrel length should matter when crafting policy. I have made my policy changes to the NICS system very clear in many threads in relation to gun control. There are problems. But what type of weapon and availability is not one of them.

There are 330 million people in America. 270 million guns owned by 120 million of us. By all accounts it should be a war zone out there but it is NOT. Statistically these events, including gang violence, crimes of passion, and other such violent crimes are not common in our society. Criminals are the aberrant minority who use guns. The vast majority of people in this country use guns in self defense and not always have to pull the trigger. They also use them for recreation and subsistence. I use my AR15 to hunt coyote as they are a dangerous pest in the US. I use my bigger stuff to hunt deer and bear when in season. I use my pistol, my shotgun and my AR 15 as a means of self defense.

And think of this, too. To all the people saying "well even if one person in the cinema was armed, they would have been able to stop the gunman from shooting/killing so many people" - how many people, outside of the Military/Police Forces, have the ability, the critical thinking, and the plain old rational thinking, to take down an armed gunman in a crowded cinema, ESPECIALLY if the reports are true that he threw smoke and stun/concussion grenades into the room? Not very many at all.

You can't really know can you? Many gun owners in this country are trained to use their weapons. But think of this, many police forces in this country are WORSE at the use of weapons than most civilians who carry. Civilians typically shoot more, train more, and educate themselves more about weapons than most police. The military is a different story. Our whole job is weapons and tactics.

The point I'm trying to make (just so it's clear to everyone), is that if there was someone other than the Gunman in the Cinema that was armed, there is a fairly good chance that things could have gotten uglier VERY quickly if a firefight broke out, especially in a crowded cinema with smoke going everywhere, making visibility less than ideal.

There have been more than a few cases where armed citizens have prevented massacres with their private firearms. Places like churches, parks, restaurants, theaters. It's not unheard of, necessarily, it's just under reported because it doesn't fit the media model, nor does it fit the hot button political ideology that permeates the media at large.

reply to post by projectvxn


Bravo! My sentiments exactly. One thing you said is something that I have often wondered about in the past. You mentioned that you are a soldier, and that you believe other soldiers, like yourself, would be on the side of civilians should our government attempt to disarm the populace. I'm sure you are speaking of a situation where the government forcibly tries to remove our firearms. Regardless, I have wondered about this. Would our soldiers merely follow orders in this situation? I'd like to think that our military isn't made up of mindless followers. I'd also like to believe that our military is still here to protect the common citizen, even against our own government...your thoughts or opinions on this???

I am considering creating a thread on this topic. I would appreciate your opinions on this matter.

reply to post by lambs to lions


Most soldiers are also private firearms owners.

I have yet to meet a soldier who isn't.

Are they to go after themselves?

I've had this conversation with many of my fellow soldiers including some in command. This whole notion that the US Army or the Marine Corps would take weapons away from the population is simply unpalatable to most of us who put on a uniform every morning and go to work under our Oath.

reply to post by Taupin Desciple


Taken by itself, I hope you realize just how silly that statement is.

You're right, The shooter didnt pull the trigger, It was the Guns fault that the gun Killed people. That is like saying that if someone runs over somebody driving a car, That it was the car's fault.

Your logic doesn't work.

reply to post by projectvxn


Right on, thanks for the input. I thought this is probably the case, it is nice to hear.

reply to post by projectvxn


I'm also a member of the Military and share your thoughts exactly. Our oath is to first support and defend the constitution before all other sentences. The 2nd amendment just happens to be one of my favorite parts of that constitution. Any order to violate it, in any way, would be unlawful in my opinion.

I love how the intelligents argument for gun control just go ignored.
It a shame none of the people in the cinema that night have a gun. They are legal after all.

The oldest counterpoint for the oldest argument on the planet.

"if there were no guns, people wouldn't be able to shoot them".

Many criminals who use guns would quiver at the thought of hand to hand combat as a method of killing people.

If it wasn't for the gun, this guy would have been overpowered by other movie goers as he went for the first person in the crowd.

Now try and tell me that guns don't kill.

reply to post by projectvxn


And that's why I said Civilian in my question to you. I have no problems whatsoever with those who are in service owning Assault weapons, because of the simple reason that you have the proper training to use them, and handle them as part of you job description. How many Civilians can honestly say the same? I'm making a guess of not many at all.

I guess we are to disagree with each other though. From my point of view, if someone can't take down an armed intruder/robber/rapist/whatever with a pistol, then I really wouldn't want that person to be able to access weapons that have a higher round capacity, that is able to fire on full-auto.

And the reason I stated before of how the argument of "We need it to defend ourselves from the Government and it's tyranny" has become sort of a defeated point, when on the same day, US citizens on here are writing about how their rights and freedoms are being stripped from them. Kind of defeats the argument doesn't it? When does the tipping point happen, where US Citizens rise up, armed, to take those freedoms back? Not being a US citizen, I don't really follow how the US Constitution goes, but isn't that the whole reason the 2nd Amendment was written, so that US Citizens could rise up against the Government when it begins stripping freedoms from its citizens, and have weapons to use and defend themselves?

Originally posted by clayb2004
reply to post by projectvxn

 

I'm also a member of the Military and share your thoughts exactly. Our oath is to first support and defend the constitution before all other sentences. The 2nd amendment just happens to be one of my favorite parts of that constitution. Any order to violate it, in any way, would be unlawful in my opinion.

Very fair point. No arguments here. I just have 1 question for you. In all honesty, as an educated guess, since I understand it would be hard for you to state the number as fact, but how many of your fellow serviceman would stand up to an Officer, or Senior NCO, and disobey an order to strip US Citizens of their legal firearms if the order was given?

reply to post by babybunnies


Not a single person has said that guns don't kill.

He might not have turned to explosives, and he might not of illegally gained possession of a firearm. However, the fact remains that a killer killed those people. If we were to ban guns, criminals would still have them. Seriously, did prohibition keep people from drinking??? Never has a ban on anything worked. Take drugs and prostitution as an example. Last time I checked those are still big business. Those were twelve lives that were taken, and not to trivialize them at all, but pharmaceutical companies kill thousands every year, and they throw caution to the wind because the benefit of sales overpowers the loss of monies due to lawsuits. There are so many things that people do that kill so many more people. In the end, it is the people and their capacity for evil that kill people.

reply to post by TerribleTeam2

And that's why I said Civilian in my question to you. I have no problems whatsoever with those who are in service owning Assault weapons, because of the simple reason that you have the proper training to use them, and handle them as part of you job description.

It is because I have weapons that the general population should also have them. Most soldiers I know think like me. Why? Because we are aware that there are many idiots in the Armed Forces that would follow illegal orders.

How many Civilians can honestly say the same? I'm making a guess of not many at all.

Guessing is not an acceptable method of data collection. We have a culture around weapons here and anyone who wishes to own guns of any type can and usually do pay for the training. Tactical/Practical handgun and tactical rifle courses are taught even by police departments across the country and are used by millions of civilians every year.

I guess we are to disagree with each other though. From my point of view, if someone can't take down an armed intruder/robber/rapist/whatever with a pistol, then I really wouldn't want that person to be able to access weapons that have a higher round capacity, that is able to fire on full-auto.

Civilian tactical rifles are not full auto weapons.

When does the tipping point happen, where US Citizens rise up, armed, to take those freedoms back? Not being a US citizen, I don't really follow how the US Constitution goes, but isn't that the whole reason the 2nd Amendment was written, so that US Citizens could rise up against the Government when it begins stripping freedoms from its citizens, and have weapons to use and defend themselves?

And as I said before, any revolution must start the right way and end the right way, and that is SO historically impossible that only a few violent revolutions have been successful. The vast majority have devolved into chaos or unimaginable tyranny worse than what was present before. Just because the 2nd Amendment is there for that purpose doesn't mean we should go off guns blazing at the first sign of trouble. Responsibility is the watchword of the legitimately armed.

reply to post by TerribleTeam2


That's if that senior NCO or Officer doesn't agree with you. Which would be hard to find in today's Army I assure you.

There are all kinds of disagreements with NCOs and Officers. It's not all cut and dry.

Originally posted by Themanwithnoname
reply to post by lambs to lions

 

Maybe it'll take some of your family being shot and
killed like this for you to think differently.

On the same note. Maybe you would wish someone like 71 year old Sam was around to protect your family.

www.thegatewaypundit.com...

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by TerribleTeam2

 

That's if that senior NCO or Officer doesn't agree with you. Which would be hard to find in today's Army I assure you.

There are all kinds of disagreements with NCOs and Officers. It's not all cut and dry.

Absolutely, honestly in the Air Force, you are even MORE likely to have people question orders. It's just a culture difference between the branches. I know for a fact that at 13 of the people in my work-center of 18 actively shoot either as a hobby or hunting and would NEVER give up their privately owned weapons, as this has been discussed over morning coffee many a time. Most of the others simply own one firearm for self defense or just have no interest in firearms at all.

reply to post by projectvxn


I understand completely that there are always disagreements between the troops and Officers/Senior NCO's, but the question is still valid, and still stands - How many of your fellow servicemen and women would directly disobey or countermand an order to strip US Citizens of their weapons, in your opinion and from what you know of your fellow servicemembers?

reply to post by TerribleTeam2


In my estimation?

All who take their oath seriously, have families, and own their own weapons. Including officers and NCOs.