Gun control

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, isn't that convenient.

-You probably watch Fox News so it's not hard for you to remember which station you were watching. For me I go between ABC, CBS and NBC news, it all depends on the stories they are covering on any given night. I never watch Fox because with them only having a 35% accuracy and truthfulness rating, I want real news, not made up news.


It may come as a shock to you but not all LEO are skilled sharpshooters. Not even close. Most police jurisdictions provide only minimal training and practice. Minimal (budget restraints). An NRA instructor is much better trained than your average street cop. Yes, I have discussed this with various LEO.

Shoot 'em up movies? Not interested.


Most people who act heroically don't consider themselves heroic. People of humble nature especially.

dictionary.com:

hero

1. a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of character

2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has special achievements, abilities, or personal qualities and is regarded as a role model or ideal


Not everyone who acts heroically gets killed. Getting killed is not a heroic action; being willing to take that risk is what's heroic.

Again I ask: what is your motivation for dissing Willeford? How does that help your case for gun control?

- You brought it up, not me!

Now who's speculating?

-So you admit you were speculating.

Congress can't change evil hearts.
They can't change evil hearts, but they can change the laws regarding gun ownership and what it takes to buy a deadly weapon!
 
Assault Rifle education. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle. It stands for ArmaLite rifle.
 
17 pages in, OP has not remarked or posted since. @seb You got anything to do with that?

I am not sure if you read my post in the first page of this thread. OP is famous for creating controversy topics and never makes remarks. Take look at OP's previous posts. Just google his name. He is a writer and ran for city council position and lost.
 
- okay, if you say so. I have no motivation in this matter.
No motivation? Yet, you keep doing it.

-And what proof or evidence do you have that shows the shooter was going to continue his rampage? Maybe he was just after his wife's grandmother? Nobody knows if in fact he was after his former in laws. He may of been after the pastor of the church who had asked him not to come back. Maybe he was going to go off and kill himself. Nobody knows what was going to happen next and anything we can come up with is all just speculation and we will never know.
He sent threatening messages specifically to the former in-laws.

He had attended the church in the past and knew the family's church attending habits. He would know where to look for them in the church.

Of course, no one knows his end game plans but we can't assume he was done either. Would you want to take that chance? Would you just want him to drive off?
 
you don't get it, that's exactly what I said. You observe, that's youre first line of defense. You observe, you identify the threat, then you either avoid the threat by removing yourself from the threat which is #1, engage the threat if theres no other options and once you engage the threat you only have 2 options from there... to disarm or eliminate the threat.... But in doing so it better be within the books as self defense otherwise you are the new criminal. Yeah, everyone will have their opinions and try to be macho, superhero, but in the end your actions are all that matters to the laws and the final outcome is....
Jail
Morgue
or going home to your family.

You are the one who doesn't get it. If you keep the crazy's from getting the guns in the first place, you don't have to worry about having a John Wayne or Bruce Willis in the crowd to take out the bad guys.
 
You are the one who doesn't get it. If you keep the crazy's from getting the guns in the first place, you don't have to worry about having a John Wayne or Bruce Willis in the crowd to take out the bad guys.
You have no idea when someone is going to snap. If someone is intended on inflicting carnage they will do so with or without a gun. We have seen this over and over. Don't forget it was a good guy with a gun that stopped that maniac from killing more people. It's too bad that nobody in that church was packing or he would not have killed as many as he did. Very sad.
 
17 pages in, OP has not remarked or posted since. @seb You got anything to do with that?
Sorry, I had to go back to see what he said, He said all that really needs to be said.
 
Sorry, I had to go back to see what he said, He said all that really needs to be said.
What he said was asinine. For all you people that keep whining about the second amendment get off your ass and try to change it. The same path to change that created the second amendment is still there.
 
-We've already gone down this road before, don't you remember my post where I listed the people who were caught spying for other countries who also had top secret security clearance?
Yet you expect perfection from more in-depth background checks on gun purchases?

-So exactly what kind of background check did they do to you for you to get this top secret clearance?
At the time, it was the Department of Investigative Services. The local NIS for each area did the interviews of neighbors. They mostly check criminal history records, character and association with subversive groups.

For submarine sailors, they have to undergo psychological testing (that you seem to promote for gun owners). Even with that, some "nuts" squeak thru the system. No one can predict every possibility of someone going lethally crazy.

Would you be open to having people having to go through the same thing or something similar inorder to buy firearms? If not, why not?
No. Because it's not foolproof and it would be very time consuming and expensive.
 
You have no idea when someone is going to snap. If someone is intended on inflicting carnage they will do so with or without a gun. We have seen this over and over. Don't forget it was a good guy with a gun that stopped that maniac from killing more people. It's too bad that nobody in that church was packing or he would not have killed as many as he did. Very sad.
True you never know when someone will snap, but you don't need to help them kill their victims by having ineffectual checks in place that makes it easy for them to acquire the weapons they need. It's too bad that nobody in the gun industry and many who own guns won't go for any restrictions placed on their rights to buy firearms to protect the public from these people who clearly shouldn't be allowed to own deadly weapons. Without changes to the background checks that put common sense rules into their purchase such as: not letting crazy people buy them that has gotten us into this predicament.
 
True you never know when someone will snap, but you don't need to help them kill their victims by having ineffectual checks in place that makes it easy for them to acquire the weapons they need. It's too bad that nobody in the gun industry and many who own guns won't go for any restrictions placed on their rights to buy firearms to protect the public from these people who clearly shouldn't be allowed to own deadly weapons. Without changes to the background checks that put common sense rules into their purchase such as: not letting crazy people buy them that has gotten us into this predicament.
You obviously have never obtained a FOID, CCL or purchased a firearm in the state of Illinois. I will agree that there should be national standards however background checks are mandatory in all states. Protect the public? Do you watch the news? Do you think people intended on inflicting violence need a gun?
 
They can't change evil hearts, but they can change the laws regarding gun ownership and what it takes to buy a deadly weapon!
You are right. You can't change evil hearts which is the root cause of violence. A deadly weapon can be anything. It doesn't have to be a gun.
 
Assault Rifle education. AR does not stand for Assault Rifle. It stands for ArmaLite rifle.


How about an AKM rifle? I used to have one. 'Course, that was a long time ago.
 
-You probably watch Fox News so it's not hard for you to remember which station you were watching. For me I go between ABC, CBS and NBC news, it all depends on the stories they are covering on any given night. I never watch Fox because with them only having a 35% accuracy and truthfulness rating, I want real news, not made up news.
Again, you have no clue about me. I watch Fox AND CNN AND HLN AND NBC, CBS, AND ABC. I also search the web.

- You brought it up, not me!
Only as an example of how a good guy used an AR-15 for a good reason, with good results, yet you don't want him to have that gun. It goes to show your lack of logic when it comes to "gun control."

-So you admit you were speculating.
Just laying out the possibilities that haven't been disputed or proven otherwise, based on the evidence at hand.

They can't change evil hearts, but they can change the laws regarding gun ownership and what it takes to buy a deadly weapon!
But will that stop mass killers? Probably not. It would just infringe the rights of everyone else.
 
I am not sure if you read my post in the first page of this thread. OP is famous for creating controversy topics and never makes remarks. Take look at OP's previous posts. Just google his name. He is a writer and ran for city council position and lost.
It took him over 13 years to make 41 posts, so....

:lol:
 
You are the one who doesn't get it. If you keep the crazy's from getting the guns in the first place, you don't have to worry about having a John Wayne or Bruce Willis in the crowd to take out the bad guys.
No, you don't get it. The crazies can't always be identified at the time they get their guns, or they get them illegally. More laws can't change that.
 
It took him over 13 years to make 41 posts, so....

:lol:

Ha! I wonder what possessed him to choose this alldeaf. I doubt he is deaf or HOH or whatever it is... I did google his name. He likes to write, but he is not practical. Nope!
 
Yet you expect perfection from more in-depth background checks on gun purchases?


At the time, it was the Department of Investigative Services. The local NIS for each area did the interviews of neighbors. They mostly check criminal history records, character and association with subversive groups.

For submarine sailors, they have to undergo psychological testing (that you seem to promote for gun owners). Even with that, some "nuts" squeak thru the system. No one can predict every possibility of someone going lethally crazy.


No. Because it's not foolproof and it would be very time consuming and expensive.

I hate top security clearance interviews and questions. FBI still has my files since I was a preteen. It is very time consuming and long brutal process. In the 90s, my dad had the top security clearance. They questioned my life, character, and beliefs and made me take psychological test. They took my blood and feces for tests. They asked if I love my country. I was 13 years old. Now, I had to start all over again since my husband recently had to renew his security clearance. The questions are more personal and tougher than before. Thanks to the Digital Era and 9/11. My background took forever than my husband's because my parents are naturalized citizens and my relatives are from both countries. I had to provide the long list of foreign names, current addresses, jobs and birthplaces I'm in contact with. :(

There is nothing wrong with background checks. I'm all for it. I read the link that nearly 74% of NRA members support requiring background checks for all gun sales.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top