Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » Horrified!
1-50 of 81 Posts Page 1 2 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

12-14-12  12:37pm - 640 days Original Post - #1
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Horrified!

As a parent and grandparent I am grief stricken over the death of so many children, as well as adults, in an elementary school in Connecticut. When will America come to its senses and exercise more control over weapons that have only one purpose (forget about target practice) and that is to kill people.

The argument is forever being made that it is not guns that kill people, that it is people that kill people. But ten mass shootings in the U.S. in one year should make every American, no matter how conservative, sit up and say something has to be done no matter what the political cost!

I know that mass murder can happen in other countries as well but the horrifying scale of it in the U.S. should not be acceptable to such an otherwise civilized country.

Sorry for bringing controversy into this forum but today iI am not only grieving, I am enraged that this could happen to little, trusting kids .. and influence negatively the lives of the surviving kids as well.

I still bear the scars of WWII. I know what violence can do to a child's psyche. Please, start talking about stricter controls of your murderous weapons my American friends and forget about your 2nd Amendment rights for a change for the sake of the greater good.

12-14-12  03:37pm - 640 days #2
Claypaws (44)
Active Webmaster


Posts: 144
Registered: May 16, '12
Location: UK
Of course it is terrible that such things happen.

But we should take it in context. Private cars kill far more children than gun crime does - many hundreds of times more.

If we really want to save our children, we should be far more punitive to drivers who kill them, confiscating vehicles, imprisoning the drivers and banning them for life from owning or driving another motor vehicle.

It is also probably easier to enforce traffic laws than to prevent lunatic use of weapons.

There have been similar calls for tougher action against knife crime in the UK, which is also eclipsed by the mayhem inflicted by car drivers.

And I believe that more deaths actually occur from the legitimate use of prescription drugs.

One reason that gun attacks attract so much attention is that they are comparatively rare. Road deaths occur every day and hence are not newsworthy.

You know the old adage about "Dog bites man" and "Man bites dog".

12-14-12  06:14pm - 639 days #3
Drooler (218)
Active User



Posts: 1,683
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by Claypaws:


And I believe that more deaths actually occur from the legitimate use of prescription drugs.


When you hear the warnings they give on the TV ads for prescription drugs, for "fatal events" (their tidy new euphemism for "deaths") caused by their use, it's not hard to believe.

It's been hard to believe the obvious subtext of those messages: "Not only are you, the viewer, stupid, but you're actually THIS STUPID." But I'm starting to get used to it.

Getting back to our regularly scheduled program ... it's hard to know at this point, so soon after the enormous tragedy, whether gun control would have mattered in a case like this or not ... not that I wouldn't mind more gun control. We should at least get the military-grade weapons out of civilian society. They don't belong there. A: Do you use a computer every day?
B: Yes.
A: And how long have you been using a computer every day?
B: About 24 years.
A: You must be pretty bitter.
Edited on Dec 14, 2012, 06:19pm

12-14-12  06:32pm - 639 days #4
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Guys lets not derail this thread with talk of death by other means. I'm sorry but someone just killed 20 very young children and 6 adults in a school. Start another thread where we can talk about your subject. This should be limited to this still hard to believe tragedy.

Afteall, none of the parents of these victims woke up this morning thinking that this was the last day they would see their little angels. They probably had a hard time getting them out of bed, a hard time getting them to wash and an even harder time to get them to eat some breakfast but that didn't stop these parents from kissing their kids goodbye and wishing that they have a great day at school. Now there is nothing but grief and pain. The kind of pain that time dulls but is never able to really stop.

My prayers are with all of the families and friends. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-15-12  12:01am - 639 days #5
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,347
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
Still shook to the core, In the wake of this horrific event on our soil ...... I'm compelled to say that today is not one I can proclaim to be a proud American.

Piss-poor Parental discipline and guidance, stemming in part from spiraling birth-rates, apathy, laziness, run-away idle time and, sadly, compounded by hand-bounded laws, has sank the level of growing kid's behavior to such an all-time-low in this country that these kind of tragedies will just keep coming 'round the corner.

Another fly in the ointment is the explosive attention it draws to the perpetrators of these acts ..... negative that it is, it's one of the potent G-spots for potential teens who might harbor this kind of latent thrill.

Notice these things tend to follow one anothrr.

12-15-12  04:30am - 639 days #6
Capn (28)
Active User



Posts: 1,697
Registered: Sep 05, '09
Location: Near the Beer!
I'm afraid this is one of the biggest negatives about American culture.

It is something that can never be totally eradicated, as events in Europe & elsewhere sometimes show.

I think it would require a step change in arms regulation to make any significant difference to the likelihood of events like these occuring.

Whether their politicians would have the commitment to push it through is an open question.

Deepest sympathies to those blighted by this atrocity.

Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award
Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award
( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/
Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder!

12-15-12  06:31am - 639 days #7
Denner (233)
Active User



Posts: 1,200
Registered: Mar 03, '07
Location: Denmark
Yes, horrified - and the entire western world are exactly that!!
Will this do anything about all those guns in the US homes - or the NRA - probably not, alas. Or the so called right to buy automatic riffles?
The thoughts are with the families and others involved is this terrible disaster. "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle"

12-15-12  08:51am - 639 days #8
Drooler (218)
Active User



Posts: 1,683
Registered: Mar 11, '07
Location: USA
Originally Posted by pat362:


^Guys lets not derail this thread with talk of death by other means. I'm sorry but someone just killed 20 very young children and 6 adults in a school. Start another thread where we can talk about your subject. This should be limited to this still hard to believe tragedy.

Afteall, none of the parents of these victims woke up this morning thinking that this was the last day they would see their little angels. They probably had a hard time getting them out of bed, a hard time getting them to wash and an even harder time to get them to eat some breakfast but that didn't stop these parents from kissing their kids goodbye and wishing that they have a great day at school. Now there is nothing but grief and pain. The kind of pain that time dulls but is never able to really stop.

My prayers are with all of the families and friends.


I'm sure if you pray hard enough, it will make a difference.

Thanks for seizing the moral high ground. Isn't it nice that the deaths of 26 innocent people have given you the occasion to do that? A: Do you use a computer every day?
B: Yes.
A: And how long have you been using a computer every day?
B: About 24 years.
A: You must be pretty bitter.

12-15-12  01:07pm - 639 days #9
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Of course children die daily in traffic accidents, from medications, from AIDS, from wars, from brutality and neglect but let's not haul out statistics in a case like this.

This is one time to let your desensitized, self-protective guard down a bit and think of forty parents who sent their children off to school in the morning and will never see them again. This is an enormous tragedy and not just a "man bit dog" story. Anyone I know who is a parent is almost in a state of shock over this mass killing because, for once, we feel someone's pain. Except the parents and grandparents and siblings feel it a million times more.

12-15-12  02:02pm - 639 days #10
t9chome (0)
Active User

Posts: 78
Registered: Oct 30, '10
Location: usa
I'm grieving as well. Cried all night watching TV and hearing the stories of the brave teachers and police saving many of those children. Like everyone, my secondary thoughts were that something needs to be done to stop the madness.

But...I also wonder how many of those kids' lives could have been saved if the majority of those teachers and administrators were allowed to carry and knew how to use their gun with a CHL in their wallet?

12-15-12  06:42pm - 638 days #11
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^That's likely going to be the answer given by the NRA and anyone else who's pro gun and it's really hard to argue on the surface but having a gun and shooting targets on your leisurely time is a very different thing then shooting a living, breathing human being. Movies and TV shows make is seem easy but the ability to shoot another person is not something we are born with. You can be trained like police officers and soldiers but even they may hesitate before pulling the trigger. When you add the fact that the person you are trying to shoot is also armed and has shown a desire to shoot and kill anyone in his path and that must make the task so much harder.

More guns is not a solution because if that was the case then you would have seen a decline since Columbine. See the below link to give you an idea of similar tragedies since 99 and the other link is for information on the number of fireaamrs in America as of last year.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12...columbine/?mobile=nc

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/b...n-america/index.html Long live the Brown Coats.

12-15-12  10:18pm - 638 days #12
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by t9chome:


But...I also wonder how many of those kids' lives could have been saved if the majority of those teachers and administrators were allowed to carry and knew how to use their gun with a CHL in their wallet?


I don't.

Sorry, but despite the coverage of these types of events they are really not that common, just sensationalized to the nth degree. There are countless "If only..." statements by the gun lovers and gun haters after them, most of them nonsensical and impractical. Is it too much to ask to live in a country where teachers aren't expected to be packing heat every time they go to work, ready to dispense justice at the drop of a hat? "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-16-12  09:57am - 638 days #13
t9chome (0)
Active User

Posts: 78
Registered: Oct 30, '10
Location: usa
Some of them will, some of them won't. It's all in the element of surprise. If the next time a shooter goes into a school, theater, mall or church and is met with a hail of gunfire and is shot dead on the spot, what will the next shooter be thinking? They may be deranged, but they aren't stupid.

12-16-12  11:17am - 638 days #14
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by t9chome:


If the next time a shooter goes into a school, theater, mall or church and is met with a hail of gunfire and is shot dead on the spot, what will the next shooter be thinking? They may be deranged, but they aren't stupid.


Then they will be thinking to wear body armor, not rejoin society as a peaceful, productive citizen. These mass murders usually involve a lot planning, as well as a complete disregard for their own lives (many end in suicide, not Charles Bronson fantasies) and the lives of anyone who in gets in their way.

To me it's last minute, lose-all-hope thinking. Rather than try to prevent such acts we just arm ourselves to the teeth--or more so, since the U.S. already has as a massive private arsenal--and wait to play hero. Reminds me after 9/11 how among the more outlandish "solutions" was that pilots should be armed, never mind the dangers of firing a gun in a pressurized cabin.

I understand if you're armed it makes you have some sort of security, but it doesn't necessarily make the unarmed feel that way. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-16-12  03:16pm - 638 days #15
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,347
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
It's a sad commentary and expensive state to be pushed into, but, following a practice being used to protect infinitely less precious among us than our children, namely implementing an armed guard and silent alarm systems at each of our schools, for starters might be the alternative to consider as a deterrent.

12-16-12  04:17pm - 638 days #16
Capn (28)
Active User



Posts: 1,697
Registered: Sep 05, '09
Location: Near the Beer!
Originally Posted by graymane:


It's a sad commentary and expensive state to be pushed into, but, following a practice being used to protect infinitely less precious among us than our children, namely implementing an armed guard and silent alarm systems at each of our schools, for starters might be the alternative to consider as a deterrent.


A much more effective option, I would have thought.

The greater the surprise effect, the less 'collateral damage.'

Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award
Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award
( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/
Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder!

12-16-12  07:53pm - 637 days #17
anyonebutme (14)
Active User



Posts: 285
Registered: Aug 23, '09
Originally Posted by pat362:


^Guys lets not derail this thread with talk of death by other means. I'm sorry but someone just killed 20 very young children and 6 adults in a school. Start another thread where we can talk about your subject. This should be limited to this still hard to believe tragedy.


The thread was already derailed in the first post when it immediately turned into an anti-gun legislation pitch.

12-16-12  09:18pm - 637 days #18
badandy400 (103)
Active User



Posts: 840
Registered: Mar 02, '08
Location: ohio
Originally Posted by messmer:


Please, start talking about stricter controls of your murderous weapons my American friends and forget about your 2nd Amendment rights for a change for the sake of the greater good.


Please review our Bill of Rights. It was constructed by extremely intelligent men with a lot of foresight. The amendments are in a very specific order based on importance and the amendments also ordered so that one is meant to protect the one above it.

The system works very well, but as with any system there are a few people out of millions that can not be trusted with it. The latest event were by that of a vermin who was willing to kill his own mother. Laws and reform do not protect against a POS that would do that. My guns have never been pointed at a person and they never will be, barring an extreme self defense situation. The woman who legally purchased the guns in this event did so under the strictest laws in the country and used them only for target shooting. The shooter would not have been able to legally purchase the guns he used.

As people allow their rights to be eroded there is nothing that can stop them all from being taken. The second amendment is there to protect our most important rights.

Events like this infuriate those of us who own guns for the right reasons. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~

PU Interview

12-16-12  10:23pm - 637 days #19
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by t9chome:


Some of them will, some of them won't. It's all in the element of surprise. If the next time a shooter goes into a school, theater, mall or church and is met with a hail of gunfire and is shot dead on the spot, what will the next shooter be thinking? They may be deranged, but they aren't stupid.


The Colorado shooter was wearing full body armor, including a bullet-proof helmet. If everyone was packing, that's what would change. Even if someone else had a gun, they wouldn't have stopped him, and there's a good chance they might have hit someone else in some sort of crossfire.

12-16-12  10:44pm - 637 days #20
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by badandy400:


As people allow their rights to be eroded there is nothing that can stop them all from being taken. The second amendment is there to protect our most important rights.


Is it? I'd give more credit to the unarmed actions than the armed ones (by both private and public) to protecting our most important rights. It's what separates the majority of us from the less civilized in the country and around the world. Hell, the Supreme Court, for all their faults and biases, conducts business without the use of firearms (at least as far as I know; they're obsessed with keeping cameras out of their courtroom), and is that not in defense of the Constitution?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for private gun ownership. They can be a lot of fun, while also giving you a sense of individual power--which is arguably one of the fundamentals to being "free." A power that many countries, who I would argue are freer and more progressive than the U.S. in other areas, have decided "Eh, no, fuck you." This certainly isn't a step toward a gas chamber (the stupidest anti-gun control argument I hear repeated), but it's not a step towards empowering and liberating the individual either.

I just believe that despite that power and responsibility there's a lot more to the continuation of my free will and personal liberty than what my friends, family, or neighbors have stored in the gun locker. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-16-12  11:03pm - 637 days #21
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by hodayathink:


The Colorado shooter was wearing full body armor, including a bullet-proof helmet. If everyone was packing, that's what would change. Even if someone else had a gun, they wouldn't have stopped him, and there's a good chance they might have hit someone else in some sort of crossfire.


Actually the suspected shooter in that attack was wearing a ballistic helmet and leggings (probably a sort of riot gear, I don't know if they were really a kind designed to stop bullets), but only a load bearing vest to hold ammunition, not a ballistic vest, plate carrier, or even a flak jacket. Granted, you would need a fairly powerful handgun to shoot through certain helmets but a vest to hold ammo can't even protect you from a sunburn.

Regardless, I have my doubts about being able to positively ID a shooter in a dark movie theater, especially if he's wearing all black or looks more like a SWAT member than not, or I'm simply reeling from a gunshot would myself. Your best bet would be if it was one of those more elaborate multi-tiered theaters where the entrances are in the middle of the seats so you could be on higher ground or simply have slightly better cover (though fire codes might mandate doors at the top that someone could slip in through).

I still say these are freak incidents with exaggerated media coverage relative to the danger of ever being caught in one. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-17-12  01:12am - 637 days #22
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,347
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
Originally Posted by badandy400:


Please review our Bill of Rights. It was constructed by extremely intelligent men with a lot of foresight. The amendments are in a very specific order based on importance and the amendments also ordered so that one is meant to protect the one above it.

The system works very well, but as with any system there are a few people out of millions that can not be trusted with it. The latest event were by that of a vermin who was willing to kill his own mother. Laws and reform do not protect against a POS that would do that. My guns have never been pointed at a person and they never will be, barring an extreme self defense situation. The woman who legally purchased the guns in this event did so under the strictest laws in the country and used them only for target shooting. The shooter would not have been able to legally purchase the guns he used.

Hard-earnedAs people allow their rights to be eroded there is nothing that can stop them all from being taken. The second amendment is there to protect our most important rights.

Events like this infuriate those of us who own guns for the right reasons.


Very well written, badandy ......you have laid down an excellent point, as well as a fair assessment of our Bill of Rights content having to do with the recent tragic gunning down of so many innocent women and children.

I don't own a gun, I hate the harm they bring, and I share in the wishes of those who favor any kind of action that'll KEEP them out of the hands of maniacs of the ilk who created this recent massacre in Connecticut.
But that's only wishful thinking, and patently impossible.
Dispite laws forbiding the ownership of firearms, the wrong people who want them will always find a way to possess a gun; and the innocent, law-abiding who lawfully adhere to those laws are open season for those of a criminal mind who don't.

Years ago, I thwarted a possible forceful entry late one night by convincing a couple strangers turning the knob of my front door that I was holding a shotgun loaded with buckshot, and I warned the first leg that gained entrance would have the body its attached to blown into bits and pieces. They believed me and hauled ass.
But I lied.
I shudder to think of the consequences had they been armed and chanced forcing their way in.
I called the police when this was going down,
but by the time that elapsed before they arrived .... well, had the latter occurred, you might not be reading this post.

12-17-12  01:16am - 637 days #23
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


Actually the suspected shooter in that attack was wearing a ballistic helmet and leggings (probably a sort of riot gear, I don't know if they were really a kind designed to stop bullets), but only a load bearing vest to hold ammunition, not a ballistic vest, plate carrier, or even a flak jacket. Granted, you would need a fairly powerful handgun to shoot through certain helmets but a vest to hold ammo can't even protect you from a sunburn.

Regardless, I have my doubts about being able to positively ID a shooter in a dark movie theater, especially if he's wearing all black or looks more like a SWAT member than not, or I'm simply reeling from a gunshot would myself. Your best bet would be if it was one of those more elaborate multi-tiered theaters where the entrances are in the middle of the seats so you could be on higher ground or simply have slightly better cover (though fire codes might mandate doors at the top that someone could slip in through).

I still say these are freak incidents with exaggerated media coverage relative to the danger of ever being caught in one.


Thanks for the corrections. I remember reading the initial stories saying that he was in full bullet-proof armor, but I guess those were wrong (just like many of the initial reports for this story).

Regardless, full body armor can be obtained (over the internet even), so I would imagine that if we had the theoretical of more people owning guns making it more likely that you encounter a gun owner on your rampage, the logical step for the shooter would just be to wear (more) bullet-proof armor when they go to carry out the attack.

And I would argue that the media attention is what it is not because anyone is likely to find themselves in this type of situation, but because these situations seem like they should be preventable, but no one seems to be taking any steps to prevent them (for example, are high schools really any safer now than they were in 1999 before Columbine?) Edited on Dec 17, 2012, 01:21am

12-17-12  07:05am - 637 days #24
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 976
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Well at a minimum the ownership of guns should at least have the same requirements as getting a drivers license to drive a car and the same liability requirements from insurance. Securing your weapons is a responsibility and if your guns get stolen and used in a crime then it's your fault for not securing them. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

12-17-12  08:30am - 637 days #25
Denner (233)
Active User



Posts: 1,200
Registered: Mar 03, '07
Location: Denmark
Guns, guns, guns.....it's a hard one. And I dislike them, entirely.
But again, I can understand why ordinary people want them to defend their home...with the growing number of violent thieves - and even violent attacks in private homes. Then again - my fear is: if you miss the violent intruder with a gun in cases like these, you'll probably get shot yourself - guess you'll stand a better chance not having a gun. (What's the world coming to??)
Still: much better and stricter gun-control concerning people choosing to own a gun - in your own house.
In this small country it's extremely difficult to get a gun-permit - and if you have on illegally in your bedroom drawer and it is stolen - and traced back to you: severe penalty - prison.
Still the criminals have them all over "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle"

12-17-12  10:32am - 637 days #26
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/...ld-guns.html?cmp=rss

Neil Macdonald: Death and delusion in a nation of assault rifles

Yet another "national discussion" about guns is under way here, and it's so anti-rational, so politically cowardly, so �unbearably stupid that you have to wonder how a nation that has enlightened the world in so many other ways could wallow in this kind of delusion.
Twenty children are dead, and journalists and politicians have assumed those breathy, semi-hushed tones that have become so much the norm in covering tragedies.
Everywhere, there is talk about "the grieving process," with pious asides thrown in about the need to "go home and hug your children," or pray.
As if that is going to accomplish anything.
The American audience is a giant emotional sponge looking for distraction from its collective gun craziness, and the media obliges, broadcasting endless montages of victims, with sombre, hymnal piano music playing underneath.
After the state medical examiner had finished talking about multiple bullet wounds in each young victim, all inflicted by the same Bushmaster rifle, one reporter asked the man to talk about how much he'd cried � "personally" � while performing the autopsies.
To repeat: the 20-year-old shooter used a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle, a commercial model of the military M-16, and the reporter wanted to talk about crying.
The weapon is designed for war, firing ultra-destructive bullets that travel at 3,000 feet per second. It is designed to destroy human life as efficiently as possible, causing maximum internal damage.
As a colleague of mine so bitterly remarked, just perfect for a kindergarten operation.
The shooter's mother, apparently the first victim in this rampage, is being described in media reports here as "an avid sporting enthusiast" who "enjoyed the independence" of shooting.
She reportedly trained her disturbed son (whom she had once yanked out of the system and home-schooled) at the firing range.
When he left home for the elementary school on Friday, he chose the Bushmaster and a few semi-automatic pistols, leaving behind his mother's slower, conventional rifles, along with her dead body.
Terrifying logic
Now, as the so-called national conversation proceeds, politicians and pundits talk sternly about the importance of remembering that gun ownership is a constitutional right, practised responsibly by millions of Americans.
Who should carry weapons?
In this country, people actually speak about "enjoying" shooting something like a Bushmaster, as if that were some sort of normal activity.
Jason Chaffetz, a Republican congressman from Utah, proclaimed on Sunday that the real problem underlying these kinds of incidents is the mental health issue: "I am a concealed carry permit holder. I own a Glock 23, I've got a shotgun, I'm not the person you need to worry about."
Well, sorry, senator, but you are certainly one of them, at least in my (admittedly Canadian) book.
If I understand properly, you live in an urban area, and carry around a .40-calibre pistol with up to 17 bullets in the magazine, capable of firing up to five a second, just like one of the pistols the Connecticut shooter toted.
In other words, you pack the means to kill more than a dozen people in moments if you choose, and we just have to trust you to be sensible and hold your temper.
Chaffetz's position is, basically, the core of the pro-gun message in this country: The destructive power of the weapon is not the issue. It is all about personal responsibility. And personal freedom.
The logic is terrifying. You could extend it to hand grenades or flame-throwers. Some people here do. (Though grenades are actually illegal here).
Flame-throwers don�t incinerate people, people incinerate people, to paraphrase a favorite gun-lobby aphorism.
The 'child-killing lobby'
For the moment, politically powerful pro-gun groups � "the child-killing lobby," as the New Yorker's Adam Gopnik, another Canadian, called them Friday � and most of their lawmaker allies are silent, save for the occasional declaration that this is a time to mourn, or to denounce "the gun control vultures already circling the corpses."
The National Rifle Association's website contains not a single word about the Connecticut massacre.
But just watch. Soon enough will come the talk about how the Newtown school shooting just underlines the need for even more ordinary Americans to arm themselves in self-defence.
And the weird, horrible reality here is that there is some truth to that. The NRA has helped ensure it.
There are currently about 300 million guns in this country, and gun laws are looser every year. The high courts have slapped down states that have tried to restrict gun use.
It is now quite normal to see people carrying pistols on their hips in shops and restaurants. Plenty more carry concealed weapons.
And many of these are criminals. Police are overwhelmed.
At the same time, it's a safe bet that if Sarah Dawn McKinley, of Blanchard, Okla., didn't have a gun last January, she'd be a statistic, too.
Alone with her toddler as intruders tried to break in, she called 911. The operator told her to do what she had to do.
She killed one intruder with her late-husband's shotgun long before police arrived. He was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife.
The new normal
There are, of course, other good reasons to own guns, especially in isolated rural areas. There always have been.
I remember a large dog, obviously rabid with foam on its muzzle, staggering toward our farmhouse in Ontario when I was a child.
My dad shooed my brothers and me inside, fetched his bolt-action rifle from the bedroom, slipped in a single round, and shot the beast dead. (He was a pretty good shot).
Another time, he walked out with that rifle in the middle of the night and faced down a car full of menacing, drunken, hoodlums in our lane.
Years later, a neighbour on a nearby farm was murdered by the "Ottawa Valley killer," while watching TV. The nearest police station was an hour's drive from our rural gravel road.
But my father never owned a Bushmaster. Or an Uzi. Or a sniper rifle. Or a flame-thrower.
What's taken hold here in America is lunacy. There have been 16 mass shootings in the U.S. just this year alone, leaving 88 people dead. It's the new normal.
Some of the killers wore body armour and fired weapons that scare Marines.
President Barack Obama has tearfully called for "meaningful action" on guns, just as he did after another mass shooting during his last term, and followed up by doing, well, nothing.
Perhaps he will try something this time, now that his last election is behind him and the history books beckon.
But what, exactly? His first election sent gun lovers racing to stock up on ammo and new weapons, for fear Obama would take their guns away. He had to assure them he wouldn�t.
Now, one of Obama's congressional allies, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, is mulling the notion of restricting weapon clips to 10 bullets. "We need a new paradigm," declared Schumer.
How about this instead: Start by taking weapons of war away from people who aren't soldiers or police.

12-17-12  11:52am - 637 days #27
Ed2009 (7)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 493
Registered: Sep 12, '09
Location: Wales, UK
I still think they should make it illegal to name the perpetrators of mass murders/shootings. It seems many of them think it is the only way to make people take notice of them, to remember them in some way. If they knew beforehand that no-one would circulate images of their face, no-one would publish their name, then maybe some of them wouldn't do it and lives would be saved.

Obviously it wouldn't work in all cases, but at the moment it seems that walking into a shopping centre or school and gunning down dozens of people is an easy route to global fame. I know a lot of people will probably disagree with this view, but I'm sure that in many cases it's an attention thing. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity.

12-17-12  01:40pm - 637 days #28
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


I still think they should make it illegal to name the perpetrators of mass murders/shootings. It seems many of them think it is the only way to make people take notice of them, to remember them in some way. If they knew beforehand that no-one would circulate images of their face, no-one would publish their name, then maybe some of them wouldn't do it and lives would be saved.

Obviously it wouldn't work in all cases, but at the moment it seems that walking into a shopping centre or school and gunning down dozens of people is an easy route to global fame. I know a lot of people will probably disagree with this view, but I'm sure that in many cases it's an attention thing.


My wife and I hold the same view as you when it comes to some folks craving 5 minutes in the spot light ... take notice, I am ... however in the case of a man who commits suicide right after his horrifying deed that theory goes out the window. At least for us. So we are left with the inexplicable.

12-17-12  04:10pm - 637 days #29
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,347
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
If we're to come anywhere near successfully enforcing laws to forbid firearm ownership, then first and foremost we must give our lawmen the ultimate power to have a free hand to do whatever necessary to advance in reaching that end.
As it stands, normally before police can rightly carry out a search of a suspected home possessing contraband, they have to have a court order giving permission.
If the process is too slow, or any other reason evidence is removed prior to a search, or never existed, then the so-called victims of this violation of privacy is given all the legal ammo they need to respond with punitive action. That kind of thing (however) likely won't jell or come to fruition, but the unwanted repercussion to the department and the city ends up being a big, painful black eye. Damn, man ... is this lunacy or what?

Do you Notice China don't have the kind of crimes we in the US are having. Why? Because those guilty of such are caught and punished in a manner that leaves them wishing -- no, begging -- they had never broke the law in the first place.

As much as I detested Saddam Hussein and his choice of punishment to those who stepped out of line, the fact laws were rarely ever broken in Iraq speaks volumes for being tough on offenders.

I know all these examples I mentioned are over the top, and one certainly may recoil from the very thought of even considering those actions being viable.
But babe, we just can't continue to bury our heads in the sand when it comes to better protecting our own ...namely loosening the bounds of those with power exerting authority and making those ignoring our laws, and especially those who would harm our innocents, suffer consequences to fit the crime.

I'm reminded of a popular line in a movie:
"I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore"

12-17-12  04:46pm - 637 days #30
exotics4me (463)
Active User



Posts: 425
Registered: Jan 12, '07
Location: USA
This story stirred different emotions in me. I only watched the first newscast about it, haven't watched any since. I feel awful for the families who lost a little one, maybe even worse for the surviving little ones who had to watch it happening. I don't want anything I say after this taking away from that.

I was most shocked by the media talking about these killings being a newer trend. Maybe the mass variety, but I've said it before on here, less than 50% of the kids I went to kindergarten with lived to see graduation. The gang heavy cities like LA, South Florida cities, Houston, maybe even Memphis, Chicago, the poorer boroughs of New York City, Philadelphia, parts of New Jersey, kids have been dying for decades and no one cared. There are probably other cities I could have named off, but we would be here for a few weeks if I did them all. It was too easy to look over those deaths as environmental, but very few of those kids were in the gangs themselves. They were innocent kids playing on playgrounds, caught by stray gunfire.

This is America's creation. The division between middle class and above to the lower middle class and poverty shows. Over the last decade or so, somehow, the poverty and lower middle class lifestyles (not chosen by them) have become glorified. There used to be a saying about, "They will start caring when ghetto mentality reaches the suburbs". Whoever said that must have been a prophet. If someone wants to fix the problem they will start with the parents, not gun control and I don't own a gun. Parents no longer teach their children to respect others, they never let them fail at anything, it wouldn't surprise me at all if the Connecticut shooter was mad at his mom for maybe telling him to get out and get a job and jealous of the attention she gave kids she taught. Nearly every parent I know is more worried about how their peers in parenting will look at them or judge them than teaching their children to grow into young respectful men and women.

I have a friend who has an 8 year old son. She was telling me about him not wanting to let her cut his hair, he wanted a $20 haircut instead. I told her to tell him if he was my son, I would just shave his hair short. His reply through her to me, "Uh...Denied" and the mom laughed about it. In what country or world does an 8 year old have the authority to talk to an adult like that? If I had said that to an older person as an 8 year old, my dad would have slapped me silly. Not that I agree with that method, but there is a middle ground between the extremes. That's where we're failing as a country and this is allowing the right/wrong line and ficton/non-fiction line to be blurred. “You cannot blame porn. When I was young, I used to masturbate to Gilligan's Island.” - Ron Jeremy

12-17-12  04:47pm - 637 days #31
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


I still think they should make it illegal to name the perpetrators of mass murders/shootings. It seems many of them think it is the only way to make people take notice of them, to remember them in some way. If they knew beforehand that no-one would circulate images of their face, no-one would publish their name, then maybe some of them wouldn't do it and lives would be saved.

Obviously it wouldn't work in all cases, but at the moment it seems that walking into a shopping centre or school and gunning down dozens of people is an easy route to global fame. I know a lot of people will probably disagree with this view, but I'm sure that in many cases it's an attention thing.


In today's world of social media, that would never, ever, ever, ever work. The name would get out there (even if it wasn't "the media" putting it out there). And it would spread faster than anyone could stop it. Basically, it would be The Streisand Effect. And what would even be the theoretical punishment for releasing the name?

12-17-12  07:03pm - 636 days #32
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by anyonebutme:


The thread was already derailed in the first post when it immediately turned into an anti-gun legislation pitch.


I wouldn't call it being derailed as much as a question of someone inserting his own view in regards to firearms. Can you balme him? There's an inherant danger to a gun loving culture. Like it or not. The US loves it's guns. They have shows like History's Top Guns and Discoverie's Sons of Guns where the people involve on those shows showcase on a weekly basis a wide variety of powerfull handguns, shgotguns, rifles and the popular semi-automatic or the full automatic assault riffle.

I'm Canadian so my views are bound to be very different if only because Canadians for the most part do not own guns and have no desire to do so. The only exceptions are in regards to rifles and again these are usually for farmers and hunters. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-18-12  04:50am - 636 days #33
Ed2009 (7)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 493
Registered: Sep 12, '09
Location: Wales, UK
Originally Posted by hodayathink:


In today's world of social media, that would never, ever, ever, ever work. The name would get out there (even if it wasn't "the media" putting it out there). And it would spread faster than anyone could stop it. Basically, it would be The Streisand Effect. And what would even be the theoretical punishment for releasing the name?

That's the wrong way to approach it. If the Police, very early on, released the details of someone made up (they could have several characters prepared in advance for such eventualities), it would throw everyone off at the start. That combined with rules for the press to not publicise the real name would mostly cover/confuse the issue. I'm confident that a combination of anti-information and press control they could manage that. Especially when the result could save lives in future. They seem to manage to keep enough other secrets.

It probably isn't the best way to tackle the problem, but I can't think of another one that is viable. Even removing all the guns isn't going to work as the loonies will just use explosives, bolts, arrows, knives etc. I don't think guns for civilians are a good idea, but I think the mass shootings thing is more of a cultural problem than a weapons problem. After all why do you get SO many more mass shootings in the US than in the whole of Europe. Going on population size, Europe should have more. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. Edited on Dec 18, 2012, 04:54am

12-18-12  08:27am - 636 days #34
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


That's the wrong way to approach it. If the Police, very early on, released the details of someone made up (they could have several characters prepared in advance for such eventualities), it would throw everyone off at the start. That combined with rules for the press to not publicise the real name would mostly cover/confuse the issue. I'm confident that a combination of anti-information and press control they could manage that. Especially when the result could save lives in future. They seem to manage to keep enough other secrets.



First of all, that would only work if the shooter died at the end of the incident (and, while most do, it's not a guarantee that they will). Because if they didn't, they'd have to be charged in a court of law, and that would have to use their real name. And even if they used sealed indictments and the like, those things end up leaking (and being reported on) all the time, even though it's a federal crime to do leak them.

Second, even if the shooter did die, at some point they'd have to notify the family of the deceased killer about the incident, so they'd have to have some record of their real name, so it could get out that way. Also, what would you do with the families of the victims? Would you give them the fake name that you gave to the press so they never actually know who killed their loved ones? Would you have them sign some sort of confidentiality agreement and then charge them with a crime if they told someone who killed their loved one? There's just too many people that are going to need to know this information for it to be kept a secret for very long.

12-18-12  09:56am - 636 days #35
Ed2009 (7)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 493
Registered: Sep 12, '09
Location: Wales, UK
Originally Posted by hodayathink:


First of all, that would only work if the shooter died at the end of the incident (and, while most do, it's not a guarantee that they will). Because if they didn't, they'd have to be charged in a court of law, and that would have to use their real name. And even if they used sealed indictments and the like, those things end up leaking (and being reported on) all the time, even though it's a federal crime to do leak them.

Second, even if the shooter did die, at some point they'd have to notify the family of the deceased killer about the incident, so they'd have to have some record of their real name, so it could get out that way. Also, what would you do with the families of the victims? Would you give them the fake name that you gave to the press so they never actually know who killed their loved ones? Would you have them sign some sort of confidentiality agreement and then charge them with a crime if they told someone who killed their loved one? There's just too many people that are going to need to know this information for it to be kept a secret for very long.

Your first point is totally valid, but I was under the impression that these people usually die (either by being shot or killing themselves). That's certainly how it appears to me, but I don't have any statistics to back it up.

The whole thing would only work with the support of the community in which it happened. I would hope that the incentive to comply for that would be great enough, but realise that it would need a lot of management and legislation to help it.

Basically what it would need most is a culture change so that the press/media don't leap all over it and provide immense popularity to someone who chooses to be a monster.

While doing such atrocities leads to global fame, people will find an way of achieving it. As I said in my previous post, it's probably not the best way to tackle the issue, but if you don't want to outlaw all weapons and fill the atmosphere with pacifying gas, I really don't know what else might work.

I don't think gun ownership itself is the problem. Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. Edited on Dec 18, 2012, 10:00am

12-18-12  10:06am - 636 days #36
hodayathink (18)
Active User

Posts: 312
Registered: Mar 27, '09
Location: Illinois
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


Your first point is totally valid, but I was under the impression that these people usually die (either by being shot or killing themselves). That's certainly how it appears to me, but I don't have any statistics to back it up.



Usually, yes, but not always. I mentioned the Colorado movie theater shooter earlier, he lived through his incident.

Originally Posted by Ed2009:


While doing such atrocities leads to global fame, people will find an way of achieving it. As I said in my previous post, it's probably not the best way to tackle the issue, but if you don't want to outlaw all weapons and fill the atmosphere with pacifying gas, I really don't know what else might work.

I don't think gun ownership itself is the problem.


You are right in saying that gun ownership isn't the problem. If you're looking for a long term, this will never happen again type of solution, the real answer is fix how we deal with dangerous mental health issues (i.e. not just drug them and give them a court-ordered shrink to see once a week and send them home). But the gun conversation is much easier to have (and legislate), so it's the one that we usually have. Edited on Dec 18, 2012, 10:15am

12-18-12  11:18am - 636 days #37
Ed2009 (7)
Active Webmaster




Posts: 493
Registered: Sep 12, '09
Location: Wales, UK
Thanks, everyone.

I've been mildly involved in this debate in a few online places and PU is the only one where I haven't been faced with a stream of anti-european (or Anti-UK) abuse and hatred.

Makes a refreshing change to be able to debate something without descending to offensive language and attacks.

Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity.

12-18-12  04:24pm - 636 days #38
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,543
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
6th-grader brings gun to school to protect against ‘Connecticut-style’ attack

By Liz Goodwin, Yahoo! News

National Affairs Reporter



2 hrs 20 mins ago



A sixth-grader at West Kearns Elementary School near Salt Lake City, Utah, brought a gun to school on Monday, saying he wanted to protect himself and his friends after Friday's shooting in Newtown, Conn.

He "continues to assert that he brought the weapon to protect himself and his friends from a 'Connecticut-style [shooting],'" Granite School District spokesman Ben Horsley said.

Two of the 11-year-old's classmates told their teacher on Monday afternoon that the student had a gun. The teacher immediately "apprehended" the student and contacted the authorities, Horsley said. The boy is being charged with one count of possession of a firearm on school property and three counts of aggravated assault, for allegedly threatening some of his classmates.

He will be charged in the juvenile system and eventually will be transferred to another school.

12-20-12  04:43pm - 634 days #39
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


It probably isn't the best way to tackle the problem, but I can't think of another one that is viable. Even removing all the guns isn't going to work as the loonies will just use explosives, bolts, arrows, knives etc. I don't think guns for civilians are a good idea, but I think the mass shootings thing is more of a cultural problem than a weapons problem. After all why do you get SO many more mass shootings in the US than in the whole of Europe. Going on population size, Europe should have more.


Population size doesn't matter because the U.S. has such a massive privately-owned and largely legal arsenal. Gun ownership is also much higher per capita.

And I would agree that it is a cultural problem, but not how the self-proclaimed culture warriors say it is. Since the shooting a whole slew of reactionary opinions have come out in favor of not just a change in 2nd Amendment laws, but 1st Amendment ones as well. Video games, films, music, and that beloved phobia of the religious right, secularism in schools--it's all gotta go! Otherwise it'll be more gay marriage, wars on Christmas, and ultimately dead children.

I'm not joking either, as these have been touted as what to really blame because it's somehow unconstitutional to even acknowledge the amount of firepower that America's citizens own. And it is this culture, the culture of gun love, that I see as the problem.

And it isn't the gun ownership I'm talking about, it's the worship of the firearm as some sort of magical anti-tyrannical panacea. That the only thing between freedom and chaos is a pistol concealed under your jacket. Or that it's only a matter of time before you'll be hauled off to a gulag once they outlaw 30 round magazines. Or that schools will truly be safe when the principal can store a carbine in her office, or hell that some teachers be required to carry a concealed weapon.

The guns certainly don't help the problem. It's ignorant to gloss over the number of suicides, accidents, and violent crimes committed with legal firearms to say it's just a people problem. But combine this with our unique, paranoid, and at times just weird love of said guns and I think you have a recipe for more of these mass shootings. I still stand by my claim that shootings of this scale are anomalies, but that doesn't make them less horrifying. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-20-12  04:46pm - 634 days #40
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


Thanks, everyone.

I've been mildly involved in this debate in a few online places and PU is the only one where I haven't been faced with a stream of anti-european (or Anti-UK) abuse and hatred.

Makes a refreshing change to be able to debate something without descending to offensive language and attacks.




Glad to hear we're not too hostile, but there are a lot of Europeans here, not to mention all the porn that comes from Europe.

Still it's bizarre to think that after one of these tragedies we Americans will eventually get around to blaming Europeans somehow. Sorry. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-20-12  04:53pm - 634 days #41
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,943
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Ed2009:


That's the wrong way to approach it. If the Police, very early on, released the details of someone made up (they could have several characters prepared in advance for such eventualities), it would throw everyone off at the start. That combined with rules for the press to not publicise the real name would mostly cover/confuse the issue. I'm confident that a combination of anti-information and press control they could manage that. Especially when the result could save lives in future. They seem to manage to keep enough other secrets.


I at least hope they attempt to get the name correct before they publicize it ad nauseam, and then adding their typically breathless and shallow cable channel news profile: male, lonely, violent video games and music and movies, trench coat, etc. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-20-12  07:27pm - 633 days #42
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,040
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
The human mind is far more complex then we give it credit for, I own guns, allot of them. Most on here would not have a clue about my hobby as hopefully I do not come across as some crazy gun toted yahoo redneck LOL.

The point may sound funny but it is not.

I was telling this story to my son when he asked me today about the shooting and do just crazy people do that?
And as I paused and said no, his eyes lit up as now I just confirmed you do not have to be a loon to shoot up a school.

The reality is most every human has a built in trigger that could make them snap. I often refer to what I call the
Game Theory and was what I wrote a paper on about the human mind and its reactions.
Ok to the point, Imagine being in a Basket ball game eating hotdogs sipping a pop and cheering for your team. People around you are cheering in a packed crowd of 5000 people everyone has fun and the home team wins. They go out an in the streets begin to smash cars, destroy store fronts and loot them. People are attacked and women molested by the same people whom were just sitting possibly next to you ?

I wish I could say this was just one rare game, fact is it occurs world wide from professional to high-school games with an occasional death with scary frequency.

This misses the news most times, and even though at a school or college they are ignored. I call it the Game Theory were perfectly normal people become animals and act in away they never would have in a control situation.
There is more, but to close this out the basic premises is
Mentally ill people do not kill and normally cognitive ranged people do not kill. However the news will clearly show all kinds of people taking a life.

12-21-12  10:26am - 633 days #43
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
^ Why do you possess so many guns, CT? And wouldn't your theory practically force you to get rid of all of them just in case someone pulls your trigger one of these days?

12-22-12  07:24am - 632 days #44
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 976
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Heated topic no doubt.

Gun control. What does it mean? Many things to many people. There are laws currently on the books that boost the control of guns that are ignored or watered down. It's a states and local government issue. There are some federal ones too. Do we need more or just enforce the ones on the books?

If your idea is to get rid of guns altogether then you don't understand why the United States has it's 2nd Amendment. It's really a history lesson unto itself. It's one of the major reason's why there is even a United States of America at all.

While this is cliche, "Guns don't kill people. People do.", it also happens to be true. (Except for the gun going off in Plaxico Burress pants pocket.) So if we relegate the discussion on how do you regulate people with guns, this will be the only discussion with any validity in the United States.

My ideas are four fold:

#1: INFORCE the current laws - 7 day cool down period as an example.

#2: Help people understand guns. A mandatory course such as is required to have a carry permit, that is seriously taught by qualified instructors. (this point about instructors because too often these people just put together classes so they can make $1500 a weekend and not really about the teaching).

#3: Liability Insurance for gun ownership where if your weapon is lost or stolen and used in a crime or killing it's your fault since you didn't have the weapon secured. (Having a gun secured can be strapped to your waist in a holster but if you're assaulted and the gun is taken from you it's not secured. Your Are Responsible) This is why the kid at Sandy Hook was able to lay his hands on the guns and kill his mom first. They were there for the taking.

#4: Ban gun swap shows.

And finally, the bone that really pisses me off - What can be said for a lobby that spends 3 million dollars to lobby its opinion. It is not about the right to own a gun but a tradition of allowing a morally corrupt organization like the NRA to spread its influence on politics. Thinly disguised as some constitutional right organization, it supports the agenda of greedy weapons manufacturers, while enlisting the support of gullible and reactionary hunters and gun enthusiasts to help lobby their point. All gun manufacturers care about is more money, and certainly it has boosted the sale of firearms in aftermath of Sandy Hook.

I support the 2nd Amendment - I don't own a gun nor ever have since I was 11 when my dad gave me a 410 shotgun to hunt with (and taught me nothing about shooting) and that sport was gone at 12 when we moved to the city. I think the United States has serious social and mental issues that help push people over the brink. Of the annual death by gun, 2/3 of them involve suicide.

If one is interested in a comprehensive and reasonable discourse by a very knowledgeable member of the NRA regarding gun control (he's a advocate) you should check out http://8minutesoffame.com/america-freedom-vs-freedom/. At the top of the page he mentions the 2nd Amendment and at the bottom of the discourse (it's VERY long and detailed discourse) you will find a must read for anyone in understanding the 2nd Amendment and why the right to bear arms is paramount.

Should you not be from the USA, you are asked to refrain from joining the discussion part of the thread since the host of 8 mins of fame considers your opinion and thoughts irrelevant to the conversation.

PS: Tommy Jordan, the host of the above website got his 8 minutes of fame by posting this video gone viral (36M views): http://youtu.be/kl1ujzRidmU If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

12-22-12  10:49am - 632 days #45
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
A CNN comment without comment:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/20/opinion/wa...;iid=article_sidebar

12-22-12  11:10am - 632 days #46
pat362 (367)
Active User



Posts: 2,939
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Thank You for your story CT and thanks for your example. Now let me insert my little twist to your theory. What if those people who were sitting near you not so long ago are armed with handguns or assault riffles instead of maybe a stick, rock or just their hands. What was essentially a bunch of people destroying some property and maybe the odd death is now a bloodbath with dozens of dead and wounded and who knows how much damage to property.

My theroy is that a deranged person intent on killing will more than likely attempt the deed but trying to kill another person using your bare hands, a knife or a blunt object is significantly harder than just shooting them because you have to be beside that person and they are going to fight you but shooting someone can be done from a fair distance and with many of todays weapons than you can actually kill an entire room full of people before any of them get close to you.

It's simple. Guns don't kill people. People kill People but people with guns kill more often with those guns and the number of people they can kill is much greater than if they didn't have those guns.

I don't know who asked that question but maybe you know the answer. Why does anyone need an AR-15 assault riffle? Long live the Brown Coats.

12-22-12  11:26am - 632 days #47
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 976
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Originally Posted by pat362:


I don't know who asked that question but maybe you know the answer. Why does anyone need an AR-15 assault riffle?


You know the link I posted above - go read the part where Tommy explains what an AR-15 really is. You might be surprised. Then again maybe not but just check it out including the ammunition size it takes.

Also, there is a big difference between trying to commit mass murder and just shooting someone over a disagreement. Just cause you have a gun and use it (even if it's a crime you're committing) doesn't mean you want to commit mass killings.

Plus some of the onus needs to be shared by the mass media for sensationalizing it to the point where the public is ready to puke.

But all of those contributing to the problem except the perpetrators and victims and those of us who are unwilling witnesses are in it for the money. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

12-22-12  02:32pm - 632 days #48
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,040
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by messmer:


^ Why do you possess so many guns, CT? And wouldn't your theory practically force you to get rid of all of them just in case someone pulls your trigger one of these days?


Hi Messmer, very legitimate question since you asked.
First why I do not own guns.
I do not own them , because I think the government will take over, nor do I think riots will leave me unarmed to protect my family.
I do not keep them with any intent to cause harm to another.
In fact I would rather leave a situation and use my cell phone then be forced to use it.

I do have guns however for two reasons to maybe share some about myself
( not to much lol )

1.
I became accustomed with firearms the since the first day I attended police training. I have since then really enjoyed the mechanics and what makes them tick. In all these years I have never once had to fire a shot at anyone for any reason. But I keep them because I like the mechanics involved and have been around them since I was young I carry them when I move large amounts of money which happens time to time I have a concealed gun license and no one knows I have it, and use it when safety may be needed. But as I said if I can leave the situation I would rather that, using a gun to fight off the bad guys is a TV movie thing and never ends well in real life.

2. When I real young I used to target shoot with slingshots and bbguns I became very very good and progressed to shotgun targets and other firearms.
It is quite fun to try and hit the center target 100 yards away with a very small projectile, kinda like playing darts but harder ( I like darts too )

Now I am an professionally trained person, I have had both criminal and physiological checks and evaluations done, so I may differ slightly from many guns owners as I am trained and approved by the State Police here, and I have gone through testing. And is why I see guns as a last resort not a first one.

Hope that helped Messmer ?

PS I do not hunt, because my guns use is not to kill........anything.

PSS, sorry one more thing I also do not own an assault weapon mainly because I see those as a gun good for one thing that it does well and that is kill therefore I do not need one.
Some of my friends do not agree with me on that, but I do not need one
and will not get one. Edited on Dec 22, 2012, 02:36pm

12-22-12  02:45pm - 632 days #49
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,040
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by pat362:


I don't know who asked that question but maybe you know the answer. Why does anyone need an AR-15 assault riffle?



I have been a gun owner as in owned not just shot them, let see, 30+ years ( 50 NOW) . I fired an assault weapon once for training never have again.

LOL Pat thats just it, I think I am a responsible gun owner, and I see no need at all for an assault weapon.
And as I mentioned in my post, guns should be a last resort not a first resort and is why I have carried and had guns for years with no issues. Most people do not know I carry or even own guns.

I support what may be called the Liberal point of view on assault weapons, they were banned in 1994 and I saw no reason to lift it. It is the gun type of choice for these crimes and I hate them because they make responsible gun owners like me look like gun toten yahoos.

Having a clip with 30 or even 20 rounds of 223 Nato rounds serves no point. I wish I had the answer of why, sure people can claim a right to have them, but I recently asked a group I know in a gun forum, WHY DO YOU NEED AND ASSAULT WEAPON ? and you know pat not one gun owner gave me a good reason. It all had to do with gun rights no one said they are great for target shooting or something. And left me still saying WHY DO YOU NEED THEM?

Hope this helped, but as a gun owner I am even puzzled why ! Edited on Dec 22, 2012, 02:48pm

12-22-12  04:10pm - 632 days #50
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


Hi Messmer, very legitimate question since you asked.
First why I do not own guns.
I do not own them , because I think the government will take over, nor do I think riots will leave me unarmed to protect my family.
I do not keep them with any intent to cause harm to another.
In fact I would rather leave a situation and use my cell phone then be forced to use it.

I do have guns however for two reasons to maybe share some about myself
( not to much lol )

1.
I became accustomed with firearms the since the first day I attended police training. I have since then really enjoyed the mechanics and what makes them tick. In all these years I have never once had to fire a shot at anyone for any reason. But I keep them because I like the mechanics involved and have been around them since I was young I carry them when I move large amounts of money which happens time to time I have a concealed gun license and no one knows I have it, and use it when safety may be needed. But as I said if I can leave the situation I would rather that, using a gun to fight off the bad guys is a TV movie thing and never ends well in real life.

2. When I real young I used to target shoot with slingshots and bbguns I became very very good and progressed to shotgun targets and other firearms.
It is quite fun to try and hit the center target 100 yards away with a very small projectile, kinda like playing darts but harder ( I like darts too )

Now I am an professionally trained person, I have had both criminal and physiological checks and evaluations done, so I may differ slightly from many guns owners as I am trained and approved by the State Police here, and I have gone through testing. And is why I see guns as a last resort not a first one.

Hope that helped Messmer ?

PS I do not hunt, because my guns use is not to kill........anything.

PSS, sorry one more thing I also do not own an assault weapon mainly because I see those as a gun good for one thing that it does well and that is kill therefore I do not need one.
Some of my friends do not agree with me on that, but I do not need one
and will not get one.


Thanks, CT. A very reasonable answer and I left your answer intact for that reason. Now if only every gun owner were like you!

1-50 of 81 Posts Page 1 2 Next Page >
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.07 seconds.