jbscout2002

They were National Guard. Like it was said earlier, they were under trained, very inexperienced, and had a leader that was rejected from active duty for mental incompetence. No training in crowd control, and the students, expecting them to be better trained and more professional and restrained, basically overwhelmed them and they panicked.

I don't care. I think Germans are overly sensitive. My grandfather was a German born American immigrant and he was a dick too.

Well I'm not on active duty anymore. I am medically retired. I had a lot of complications after being shot and was unable to continue my service. However, you should know: Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. Because: After World War II, Nazi war crimes were prosecuted at Nuremberg, and those trials established an important principle: that is the responsibility of every individual to make an independent determination of the legality of any law or official act. No one may delegate that duty to others, not to superiors, and not to judges. It is no defense that you were "just following orders". Oh, and here are some smiley faces for you

Well I'm not on active duty anymore. I am medically retired. I had a lot of complications after being shot and was unable to continue my service. However, you should know: Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. Because: After World War II, Nazi war crimes were prosecuted at Nuremberg, and those trials established an important principle: that is the responsibility of every individual to make an independent determination of the legality of any law or official act. No one may delegate that duty to others, not to superiors, and not to judges. It is no defense that you were "just following orders". Yes, I am now a cripple. I guess that means in your country I would have been marched into an oven. I don't know where I come off as a "tough dude", I'm not getting all butt hurt like some of you guys and threatening to kick anyone's ass like we are still in grade school or something. I don't know if a picture of my ugly mug is an advatar, but I'm not really a techie so maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if you left your sheltered little life and contributed anything to your country, you would have some sort of understanding for patriotism.

Well I'm not on active duty anymore. I am medically retired. I had a lot of complications after being shot and was unable to continue my service. However, you should know: Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. Because: After World War II, Nazi war crimes were prosecuted at Nuremberg, and those trials established an important principle: that is the responsibility of every individual to make an independent determination of the legality of any law or official act. No one may delegate that duty to others, not to superiors, and not to judges. It is no defense that you were "just following orders". But I can see where someone of your cultural background would be confused about this

Well I'm not on active duty anymore. I am medically retired. I had a lot of complications after being shot and was unable to continue my service. However, you should know: Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it. Because: After World War II, Nazi war crimes were prosecuted at Nuremberg, and those trials established an important principle: that is the responsibility of every individual to make an independent determination of the legality of any law or official act. No one may delegate that duty to others, not to superiors, and not to judges. It is no defense that you were "just following orders".

I can't imagine anything in the world comparing to the feeling of absolute hopelessness. Being in a plane that is going down, cutting away and having a total mal on the reserve, being a Yazidi girl in ISIS controlled territory, or being in those rooms hoping he either runs out of amo or doesn't see you. Some things are completely out of our control. For me, being in that room without a chance is something I can control, unless I'm the first one inside the door, then hopefully someone else who thinks like me is there as well.

Nope. Just your bio. No comments on how you think an untrained but armed civilian would respond if suddenly placed in a high stress life or death situation. Would you like that person in the same crowded room with you when a psycho starts shooting? My bio lol. Post 207 I kind of answered that question. Well, how about actually answering this: You are listening to a talk in a crowded room with with a bunch of strangers (none of whom have any tactical training to the best of your knowledge). Suddenly a psycho walks in the back of the room and starts shooting the place up. How do you feel about the possibility that some of those strangers might themselves be armed and think themselves the reincarnation of Rambo? (We know there are people like that, several of them post here). The initial reflexive action, even among moderately trained people is to duck for cover and then assess the situation. While most people will be in a panic and will try to make themselves as low and small as possible (I swear to God himself that I have actually tried to take cover behind an empty soda bottle during a battle where I was caught off guard out in the open), the shooter will be standing. Out of the handful of armed strangers, some will panic and freeze up and stay low with everyone else, and some will shoot at the one guy who is still standing or walking around. As I mentioned in a previous post, a couple of untrained people focusing their fire on one person are likely to hit him (or her). IMO, the risk of ricochets and crossfire is outweighed by the definite enevitabilty that the gunman will methodically and systematically work his way through the room killing everyone there until he runs out of amo or authorities arrive. I would rather see one victim and the shooter get shot and one additional person get hit by a stray bullet, then be in a room full of people and listening to them cry, beg, and pray, while waiting their turn to be shot in the head at point blank.

I don't use my words very well. That's why I was a Soldier and not a politician. I'm just afraid of going to bed perfectly legal, and wake up in the morning breaking the law. It happened with the SAFE act. I had to load up a couple things and drive them cross country to my dads house because they became illegal that night. I can get rid of high capacity magazines and make cosmetic modifications to semi automatic rifles to make them compliant, by that only goes so far. Eventually I reach a point where I can't comply. I can give away thousands of dollars worth of hunting, sporting, competition, and collectible firearms because of a lack of common sense, or I can take my chances with mandatory prison time and demonization by the public.

Nope. Just your bio. No comments on how you think an untrained but armed civilian would respond if suddenly placed in a high stress life or death situation. Would you like that person in the same crowded room with you when a psycho starts shooting? My bio lol. Post 207 I kind of answered that question.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/08/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/

Post numbers 185 and 201 were my answers to your two questions.

I've spent my whole day arguing my point of view, and pretty much for nothing. Gun control advocates will never agree with anything pro gun people say, and pro gun people will always fight every effort to impose additional restrictions on guns. Nothing will change. I have this same argument with my wife at least three times a week. I'm from Country Fuck, OK and she is from NYC, so we do not see eye to eye on this topic. It ends the same way every time. I explain to her why she is wrong and she gets mad and says, "we're not having this discussion again".

It's just that they fight to protect the rights of the people, while also working to come up with actual solutions to the crime problems that threaten those rights. Gun control advocates just scream for stricter laws, but usually don't know what the current laws are, don't know anything about the guns they are trying to restrict, and offer no real solutions to the violence problem.

Besides, gun violence is a drop in the bucket. If we want what the hippies referred to as " love, peace, and hair grease" we should unite the world in an effort to ban religion. You say guns are killing people, but how many people have been killed by, Al Qada, Taliban, ISIS, Boko Haram, and Al-shabaab? Religion is way more of an epidemic of violence than guns.

We've got these same video games in all European countries. Mass shootings are due to kids playing Grand Theft Auto?? According to many gun control advocates, the mere presence of a gun leads to violence. It's as if a gun possesses people and forces them to pick it up and use it in a violent way. So according to that mindset, why not? I say yes. If you play Grand Theft Auto, you will walk into a Burger King with a Tech 9 and start wasting people. I think some countries actually require that disclaimer to be displayed on the packaging.

There are actually a few (IMO) "sensible" gun laws that were proposed by the NRA and voted into law in an effort to stem "gun" violence. Making misdemeanor crimes committed while in possession of a gun automatically upgrade to a felony, mandatory sentencing for crimes where a firearm was used, harsher punishments for misuse of firearms and straw purchases are some of the results of the NRAs efforts to solve some of the violence problems while (and in order to) protect gun rights. I agree with your point on "responsible" ownership. I have seen some pretty ignorant gun owners in my day. Perhaps the irresponsible ones should be charged with negligence, or criminal negligence, if it is found that their irresponsible practices enabled the criminal to gain possession of the gun. I felt that Adam Landzas mother should have been charged with manslaughter for having firearms unsecured in a house with her son whom she knew to be unstable. The problem is, she was killed, so that was not an option to be considered and was never brought up.

I guess maybe these seemingly minute "rights" would mean more to some of you if you actually put your ass on the line to protect them, or if you have ever been to a country where the people have no rights.

Very much agreed. Unfortunately cooperation and compromise are signs of weakness these days. Everything seems to get framed in an us vs. them type of argument. No, the problem is not properly identified. Gun violence is a symptom Not the root problem The problem is Violence. People put catch phrases on it. Gun violence, gang violence, domestic violence, sexual violence. The focus isn't on the "violence" part, it's on the catch phrase. When a shooter is killed in the attack, there is no one to take out your anger on, no one to answer the "why" question. With no one to lash out at, people focus their anger on the gun and people who believe in owning them. Then the issue itself gets lost in the argument of gun rights verse gun control. I fight gun control because it criminalizes me and restricts my rights over something I had nothing to do with, while doing nothing to curve the violence in any way. Gun control people fight me because they think guns shouldn't be allowed in our society, and that these new laws will eliminate the presents of guns in America.

I believe there is absolutely zero chance of any one of my guns falling into the hands of a criminal, or someone unstable, or a child, because every gun I have is secured in a heavy duty fireproof safe that is bolted to the floor, except the one on the night stand that is in a lock box and requires a finger code to open. However, if there was a realistic system that took all guns out of the equation and guaranteed that criminals couldn't get them, I'd gladly surrender all of mine and keep a baseball bat next to the bed. I prefer to hunt deer with a bow anyways. I don't think I've fired more than a handful of rounds since I started skydiving anyways, because I have no budget left over for ammo. Until that system is in place, I think I'll keep arguing for to right to bear arms.

That is not a counter, that is what I am saying. There is no significant difference in culture between Americans and Canadians. Gangs, drug trade and Mexican Cartels are certainly big factors in gun crime, but much smaller factors in innocent people dying. That leaves geographic location as the only reason why so many more innocent people get shot in the US? I find that hard to believe. So Washington D.C., the U.S. city with the highest rate of gun violence in the country, is a 100% gun free city. Absolutely no firearms of any type are permitted by civilians. There are no exceptions to this. You can be fully legal and in full compliance of VA state law with your pistol, but I'd you enter the district, you are committing a felony. This place, mind you, has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation. Now, Bumfuck, OK, is a place where open carry is allowed. You can go to the mall, get lunch, a new outfit, new watch, a pistol, ammo, and holster, and walk out the door with it loaded on your hip. Bumfuck, OK hasn't had a gun crime in 50 years, not since Ciecel caught Jethrow courting his wife one night. So if you make it illegal for Jo Bob in Bumfuck to own a gun, this will fix the violence problem in D.C. where guns have always been illegal? Nothing will fix the problem, there are options that over a long period of time will help reduce the violence problem. Yes, like parents being more involved in their children's lives. Helping them with homework, encouraging good behavior, punishing bad behavior. Grounding kids for breaking curfew, taking away their internet privileges for cyber bullying, telling them "no" when they want certain games or movies because they are too violent for kids, encouraging them to participate in community events... Also tell them that they will never be allowed to skydive if they don't straighten up.

That is not a counter, that is what I am saying. There is no significant difference in culture between Americans and Canadians. Gangs, drug trade and Mexican Cartels are certainly big factors in gun crime, but much smaller factors in innocent people dying. That leaves geographic location as the only reason why so many more innocent people get shot in the US? I find that hard to believe. So Washington D.C., the U.S. city with the highest rate of gun violence in the country, is a 100% gun free city. Absolutely no firearms of any type are permitted by civilians. There are no exceptions to this. You can be fully legal and in full compliance of VA state law with your pistol, but I'd you enter the district, you are committing a felony. This place, mind you, has the highest rate of gun violence in the nation. Now, Bumfuck, OK, is a place where open carry is allowed. You can go to the mall, get lunch, a new outfit, new watch, a pistol, ammo, and holster, and walk out the door with it loaded on your hip. Bumfuck, OK hasn't had a gun crime in 50 years, not since Ciecel caught Jethrow courting his wife one night. So if you make it illegal for Jo Bob in Bumfuck to own a gun, this will fix the violence problem in D.C. where guns have always been illegal?

It is also important to note that 1st world countries with strict gun control have far less innocent people getting killed by guns. It is a lot easier to get a gun into a city than to get it into a country. The main reason gun crime in the US is so much higher than other 1st world countries is because of the easy availability of guns. There is nothing else that makes Americans significantly different from Canadian or Australians etc. My counter to that is the number of guns already here, differences in cultures and geographic locations, gangs, the drug trade, and Mexican cartels will always offset or undermine these efforts. Again resulting in good people not being able to have guns, but guns still being readily available for criminals all across the country

I have some that are neat, and fun to shoot, but otherwise "unnecessary". I'm willing to compromise and participate in a buyback program offering fare market value, because some people buy guns as investments and never even shoot them, but to my knowledge, that has never been proposed in American gun control pushes. Only banning manufacture, sale, or possession of certain items. When the SAFE act was passed (illegally) you had like 9 months to "get rid of" the stuff that was now banned. People in bordering states took advantage by offering pennies for thousand dollar guns, because what else were you going to do? Give it away or turn it in to be melted down.

Yes it does. And just because gun ownership is increasing even furtehr in the US and gun crime isn't going up doesn't negate that. Actually according to the 2014 FBI crime report, violent crimes have been steadily decreasing for the last decade, and 2014 saw the lowest rate of violent crimes since 1994. It's also important to note that the American cities with the highest rates of gun violence have the strictest gun control in the U.S. NYC, no guns allowed except by special permit issued by a judge on a case by case basis only after showing sufficient reason for needing it. D.C., absolutely no guns allowed by civilians whatsoever, wth no waivers or special permits. Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, all gun restricted cities within states that have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.