jbscout2002

You are the anomaly. You are trained to deal with high stress situations with lethal force. Most people who want the right to carry guns everywhere aren't, and that's the problem. Everyone thinks that they'll go all James Bond in a situation like that but it's a fantasy. If it was so easy why would government agencies spend so long programming people to deal with those situations...? If memory serves didn't a couple of policeman mow down a load of bystanders in NY not too long ago while trying to shoot at a criminal? If they're that bad at it, joe public isn't going to be any better... The truth is that having more guns in public in untrained hands can only make the overall situation worse. Both with easier access for criminals to steal them, the liklihood of people with mental instability to have access to them, and the potential for more bystanders to be injured. Can you imagine what would happen if 6 or 7 people were armed in a situation like this? Someone panics or accidentally hits an innocent, someone else thinks they're part of the problem and shoots at them, and all of a sudden it's a free-for-all. I will never be convinced that having more people carrying firearms is the solution to these problems. I just don't trust people that much. This is logical. All I can say, which isn't a good solution, is that in situations like these, the untrained or incapable while most often freeze up and fail to act at all, so they don't actually add to the problem, they just carry a false sense of security. Perhaps then, widen the gap between simple gun ownership and concealed carry privileges. There is training for a concealed carry license that covers gun safety, shooting proficiency, laws, ect, but it could be a little more in depth than what it is. Also, the idea of concealed carry is self defense from imminent danger, not running around playing super hero. If I'm armed in a bank and someone flashes a gun in his waist band and demands money, I'm going to sit there and watch him walk out the door and provide my statement to the FBI. If he has an assault rifle and starts going down the line shooting everyone, I'm going to shoot, because not shooting is certain death. If I'm armed and someone puts a knife to my wife's neck and demands my wallet, he can have it. I'll let the police do their job. If he thinks he is going to hold a gun on us while he rapes my wife, I'm going to help him clear his mind with some .40 cal hydro-shocks.

Of course, they don't have video games in Canada, Australia and Britain. You appear to be a soldier. Don't you think that maybe your training gives you a different view of the effectiveness of a firearm for self defense in a high stress situation than would be the case for an untrained civilian? My perspective as a Soldier will be biased in several ways. -Personally I have whitenessed far more situations where guns where used to save innocent lives than to take them. -I have seen the world for what it really is, a cruel and violent place where the unprotected are raped, tortured, and murdered. -During my 15 years f service, I spent a collective of 5 years in combat zones, seeing a world that most of you will forever be shielded from. -I've seen up to 60 freshly killed bodies laying in a ditch due to sectarian violence between Suunis and Shiites. -I've seen children who were tortured because their parents were suspected of having cooperated with us to name a few While it may be far fetched, or even "silly" to think that this could ever happen in America, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I put my ass on the line doing just that. My military career was cut short when I was medically retired due to wounds received in combat. I think a lot of the things people say these days are stupid, but I will give my life to protect their right to say it. I am an atheist, but I will give my life to preserve every Americans right to practice whatever religion they chose. I attended a funeral for a close friend who was killed in the attack where I was wounded when the Westboro Church showed up to celebrate his death and protest and condemn all Soldiers, and although I would have assaulted them if I had the chance, I agree that they have the right to believe and say whatever they want (even though they are wrong). As soon as one of our constitution rights is stripped away, it sets a precedent. Once it has been done, why can't it be done again? Where will it stop? Today the Democrats take away my guns, tomorrow the Republicans take away your right to let you 13 year old daughter abort her rape baby. Then what, with the Patriot Act and the whole mess with the NSA we just do away with the 4th Ammendment because maybe we can get lucky every once in a while with random search and seizures.

Of course, they don't have video games in Canada, Australia and Britain. You appear to be a soldier. Don't you think that maybe your training gives you a different view of the effectiveness of a firearm for self defense in a high stress situation than would be the case for an untrained civilian? Gun control in Austrailia and UK was a systematic disarming of those countries. After mass shootings in both countries, the citizens agreed to a thorough registration system. The governments then enacted laws that banned semi automatic riffles, then pistols, then severely restricted remaining rifles and shotguns. With the registration systems they had, police simply knocked on gun owners' doors with a warrant and confiscated them (this is we us diehards oppose centralized registration). In both countries there are very limited firearms with even more limited access to them. Someone from the UK or Austrailia please chime in and tell me how easy it is to take your son out in the back pasture and teach him how to shoot a .22, or take him on his first turkey hunt. To a slightly lesser extent, the same has/is happening in Canada, it just hasn't gotten that far yet, and it's too cold to go out and commit crimes.

I believe in the theory that these shootings are becoming more common because the American society is becoming desensitized to violence through video games like Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty. I don't really play video games, but a lot of my Soldiers do. They showed me a level on Call of Duty, where you walk through a mall and kill all the civilians with a medium machine gun. Why? What is the point of having that in the story line of the game? And the. GTA is all about crime. You get your point based on how many murders and rapes you commit. These games and the Internet and such, tends to keep people isolated in their house or room rather than being out and socially interacting with other people. I'm guessing most of these mass shooters are introverts, and not members of a church, volunteer fire department, or play on a local softball team or whatever. Combine all this with making it illegal and taboo to spank a kid when they screw up, and it's a recipe for disaster. This everyone is a winner, nothing is your fault, your not being a trouble maker you just have ADHD mentality.

sure because the gun(s) had nothing to do with it...I mean if he did not have access to guns, he would have used a spoon. or maybe a rake....an iPhone or a piece of a tree, someone easily as accessible.... How many people have been killed by kitchen knives? Have you ever rallied for kitchen knife control? Mass killing in Boston with pressure cookers, should we ban pressure cookers? Women have been strangled with their own underwear, should that be banned? I will help you rally to ban women from wearing underwear.

That's a terrible event and I offer my deepest condolences. There are no words.

No, nor is that a realistic expectation. Generally you would look for ways to reduce, not prevent gun crime. This one I agree with. I just don't think the answer can be found on the far left or far right. My position is that in choosing a side I'm going to protect gun rights because I don't think that stripping them away will solve anything. There are an estimated 200 million guns in America owned by an estimated 60-65 million people. Personally, I think the real number is twice that much. If you ban all guns in America, completely disarm the country, and make everything illegal, there are still 200 million guns out there. Most people will not comply, so those guns will be stashed here and there, and steadily people will get caught with them and the prisons will become inundated with otherwise good law abiding people who became a nonviolent criminal over night because they disagreed with a law that violated their constitution. Even if I played along, my approximately $25k collection of firearms becomes illegal and I just hand it over to be melted down without compensation?

I still want to see some offer one rational idea that would prevent gun crime. Everyone screams gun control gun control, but what is your proposed control measure? Can you offer one single control measure that could effectively prevent anything from happening?

Clearly the law was easily circumvented in Lanza's case by his own mother. Arguing otherwise is disingenuous of you. And then there are the other mass killers: Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Kazmierczak, etc., all of whom managed to circumvent laws that which are so ridiculously easy to work around that even loonies can get around them. This very statement proves the ineffectiveness of gun control. The only thing it accomplishes is to make it impossible for a law abiding citizen to legally obtain a firearm, while the criminals will still squire them and use them in the commission of their crimes regardless.

You'll have to explain the logic a bit more. The idea that the 2nd Amendment prevented Hitler from succeeding appears to be rather laughable. The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a "select corps of moderate size" and that the "people at large (were) properly armed" to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were "afraid to trust the people with arms," the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess "the advantage of being armed," and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a "barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition." Basically, the Second Ammendment was written specifically to prevent situations like Nazi Germany from happening in America. You didn't answer his question. How did the 2nd Amendment prevent all the Jews from being killed, as you claimed? Ok. Name the event where the American government brainwashed its citizens and then mass exterminated millions of that same population because of their race or religion. What's that you say? There was no such event? Hmm, 2nd Ammendment worked exactly as designed then.

You'll have to explain the logic a bit more. The idea that the 2nd Amendment prevented Hitler from succeeding appears to be rather laughable. The Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton argued that the army would always be a "select corps of moderate size" and that the "people at large (were) properly armed" to serve as a fundamental check against the standing army, the most dreaded of institutions. James Madison, in The Federalist No. 46, noted that unlike the governments of Europe which were "afraid to trust the people with arms," the American people would continue under the new Constitution to possess "the advantage of being armed," and thereby would continually be able to form the militia when needed as a "barrier against the enterprises of despotic ambition." Basically, the Second Ammendment was written specifically to prevent situations like Nazi Germany from happening in America.

He didn't steal them. They were unsecured in his home and his mother had taught him to use them. Say my mom taught me how to drive. Then one night, without her permission, I take her keys, jump in her car and run away. I took her care because I'm only 15 and can't get a drivers license, so I don't have my own. She wakes up and reports her car stollen, because it is gone and she didn't let anyone take it. I get pulled over by a cop. Does that excuse get me off with a verbal warning, or do I get arrested for grand theft? Lanza wasn't 15. He was an adult. His mom even gave him the money to buy his own gun, and she let him use hers. And he tried to buy it, but failed the background check, so he was denied. I guess that means you are actually right. Gun control did work. Everything that gun control advocates ask for happened. He tried to buy a gun, but couldn't. Score one for your argument.

Not following your logic here. Because people don't remember the names of the perpetrators you believe people aren't blamed for killing? ***The problem is that everyone is one this band wagon of make guns illegal and it will be all butterflies and rainbows. Not at all. The positive effects of banning guns in the US would likely take decades (if not generations) to take effect. In practice I don't think banning guns in the US is feasible. In my opinion, your founding fathers fucked up on that part of the constitution, resulting in a very violent society. I think if they had written it differently, you and me would both be speaking German right now and there would be no Jews, and if you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, bye bye.

He didn't steal them. They were unsecured in his home and his mother had taught him to use them. Say my mom taught me how to drive. Then one night, without her permission, I take her keys, jump in her car and run away. I took her care because I'm only 15 and can't get a drivers license, so I don't have my own. She wakes up and reports her car stollen, because it is gone and she didn't let anyone take it. I get pulled over by a cop. Does that excuse get me off with a verbal warning, or do I get arrested for grand theft?

I gather from your avatar that training for this sort of situation (more or less) is part of your job. How much time do you think you have invested in training to be ready for this? Do you think there would be a good outcome if 3 or 4 untrained people (maybe spending a few hours a month at a firing range, but none training for an actual active shooter scenario) started shooting in a crowded classroom? Don This is true to some extent. 10 untrained people whipping out a pistol in Times Square trying to be a hero because one thug fired a shot at someone would be detrimental. There does need to be a balance somewhere in there. As for the theater or classroom, when shooting starts, people reflexively get low and seek cover, 4 people directing their fire towards the one guy still standing, even with limited traing, are likely to hit him. The risk of ricochet or crossfire, IMO, outweighs the methodical and systematic killing of a room full of unarmed people all waiting in agony for their turn to be shot.

The problem is that everyone is one this band wagon of make guns illegal and it will be all butterflies and rainbows. Why not just make murder illegal? Oh wait, I know, people breaking the law don't fucking care what the law says. I've noticed that we used to blame people for killing. We all know the names of Bundy, Dahmer, Gacey, Ramirez, Berkowitzs, but now killers are anonymous. Without Google can you tell me the names of the VTech shooter, D.C. snipers, Colorado theater shooter, CT school shooter? Someone could walk into a mall and shoot people and throw the gun down and walk away. As long as the gun is captured, that is all that matters. The poor shooter was a victim of the gun that used him for its dirty work. Maybe if we blame the person instead of the inanimate object and keep murderers in prison longer than 10 years, and stop letting the OJs and Casey Anthonys walk, we will see more progress

But nothing was circumvented. Existing laws did their job and he was unable to obtain a firearm. He then stole them, which is already a felony anyways. So again, what addition law would have changed anything? Just offer up one law that would actually have stopped a pstchopathic murderer from committing his murders.

I think the Nazis used that argument too. It was struck down as invalid in that case as well. I think it was a little different when an entire organized military exterminated millions of people, even going so far as to bring in civil engineers to help streamline the killing to make it more economical and efficient.

Newtown, CT shooter went to two different sporting goods stores attempting to purchase a gun. He failed the background check both time for mental health reasons. That means tha existing laws kept guns out of his hands. What additional laws would have changed anything?

Anomalies happen. Young scared poorly trained weekend warriors during a tumultuous time following orders from an emotionally unstable and inexperienced young Sargeant.

My reaction, were I to whiteness this happening, would be to draw the concealed Glock 23 that I am properly vetted and licensed to carry and neutralize the threat. Instead of 15 dead and 10 wounded, there would be maybe 2 dead and 1 or 2 wound, with one of the dead being the attacker. Those numbers of course are based on the fact that I whiteness begin shooting and the number of shoots he gets off before I can react to it.

Also remember that Soldiers are more sympathetic to their communities and civilian friends and family than they are to a questionable government. We aren't brain washed robots that will mindlessly follow questionable orders. America. It's a beautiful country.

Hey History professor, you seriously need to reevaluate what you think you know about European history. Enough said? It was written for a feudal society 300 years ago and amended 27 times. Your country has more people in prison in absolute and relative numbers than any other country on earth. You have a militarized police. Innocent people are regularly executed by the government. Why do you not stand up to the tyranny? I can't understand why you think a 300 year old document is a good recipe for society. It is clearly flawed as evidenced by all the gun violence - unless of course you think gun violence is a good thing for society then I stand corrected. -Actually our Constitution was written 239 years ago when we decided to become independent of Brittans tyrannical rule. -Feudalism was actually a mideval European system (another one of those things that people immigrated to the new land to get away from) -It was amended 27 times which resulted in a document that was 25 times better (two of them were prohibition and then undoing prohibition) -Seychelles is the country with the highest number of inmates per capita on Earth -Canada, France, and China are all well known for having heavily militarized police forces. I don't even know how you describe your SS. -America is a country that was founded 100% on its citizens standing up to tyranny. This has repeated itself throughout history, it has just never been necessary within our own country since we won our independence. -Germany, on the other had, has a week track record of standing up to tyranny. Germans happily participated in the attempted mass extermination of an entire population of people because they couldn't stand up to one mans idealism. When did this happen? 70 years ago. Not centuries. Our grandparents were there for it. People that are still roaming your streets killed millions of people with smiles on their faces, and it was legal, but America is fucked up? We are a bunch of violent psychopaths because we disagree with the entire population being punished for one persons crime? I guess that makes since to you. With the Nazis, only a small handful of people wear punished for an entire populations crimes.

Hey History Professor. We invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11. Remember? Al Qada, the Taliban, Osama bin Ladens Jihad on America. We invaded Iraq over a year later under false pretense of WMDs. We toppled a brutal regime and brought change and growth. I remember, I lost a few really good friends there. Then we were pulled out too early leaving a power vacuum that is being filled by ISIS.

Hey, you know what did happen in Europe? Russia disarmed its citizens and then Stallin had them executed by the millions. Germany disarmed its citizens and then Hitler. Enough said? Our constitution was written in a way that ensured there would always be a system of checks and balances to protect us from tyranny. Guns aren't the problem. People committing murder is the problem.