No. He had a history of mental illness including being involuntarily committed by his family. The existing infrastructure for background checks failed allowing him to purchase the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrett
Printable View
No. He had a history of mental illness including being involuntarily committed by his family. The existing infrastructure for background checks failed allowing him to purchase the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrett
i can understand how your opinion could be shapedQuote:
Originally Posted by Prime
the stories that go national or worldwide are the ones involving several victims...uses of guns that end without bloodshed or a single victim (most often the bad guy) rarely get reported beyond the town they happen in....visit http://gunssavelives.net/ for a collection of stories telling the positive used of gun to save innocents
also, you asked about about an incident of a licensed carry person stopping a mass shooting? read about Jennie Assam, a former police officer that ended a mass shooting at a church in Arvada, Colorado on one Sunday in 2007...Ms Assam was there because she was a member of the church https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_C...Life_shootings
and you can watch this famous video of 63 year old Samuel Williams stopping an armed robbery with his measly concealed carry .380 acp semi-auto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0SloK6pB4g (young thugs are usually not skilled with handguns--they don't have the money or place to practice whereas a person with a concealed permit is required usually to have some instruction in gun handling and safety, plus he usually has significant time on at the range)
you do a little searching, you will find the stories of guns heading off or minimizing lives lost
one other point...i don't believe statistics about violent crime (with or without guns) are comparable across countries...England, France, Canada, USA as well as other countries all have their own schemes of classifying a crime as violent felony or merely a misdemeanor...so country v country comparisons are not as simple or trustworthy as critics claim.
That wasn't the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by shortbuspokerNo. He had a history of mental illness including being involuntarily committed by his family. The existing infrastructure for background checks failed allowing him to purchase the gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrett
no, the Chattanooga shooter would not be considered law abiding...he was seeing a psychiatrist for depression and drug addiction....that established, his mere possession of a firearm made him a law breaker under Tennessee lawQuote:
Originally Posted by limitlesThat wasn't the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by shortbuspoker
Those prohibited or disqualified under state gun law or federal junctures to be in possession of a firearm:
Convicted of a crime punishable by a year or more of prison time.
Is not considered to be an addict of alcohol, drugs, or controlled substances.
Has not been convicted of two or more DUI charges within ten years by any state.
Is not a legal resident of the United States.
Convictions of domestic violence on file.
http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/tennessee-gun-laws
There would be less gun deaths if 20 year old girls put out more.
http://media.salon.com/2014/05/elliot_rodger3.jpg
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/08/05/pe...kl%20gates.jpg
in after guns dont kill people
In any case, my response was actually wrong anyway. I was referring to the Louisiana shooter not the Tennessee shooter. My bad for not reading your post correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by limitles
It is a nice argument that you always seem to hear from people outside of the US that live in places like Australia and the UK, that their gun laws are working and we should mimic what they do, yada, yada, yada. I actually agree that in theory they are most likely correct in that over time it would solve a lot of our issues, but to anyone from the US it is basically a moot point.
THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS WILL NEVER GIVE UP THEIR GUNS, OR THE RIGHTS TO OWN THEM!!!! NEVER!!!!! This is why guys like Piers Morgan get run out of here, because in reality to any American it is pretty much a retarded suggestion that we could even attempt to mimic a gun buy back program or strict gun laws like the UK. That ship has sailed, a long, long time ago.
FTR, I support stricter gun laws, back ground checks, etc.. The reality of the situation is though, when it comes to these mass shootings, it is 99.9% of the time a mental health issue, not a gun issue. Try getting to the root of the problem instead of trying to cut off some branches thinking it will solve the issues. It is a systemic mental health problem, period.
Personally I think it is too big of a problem now and will take decades, if not a century to fix. Way too many variables at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
That's retarded. But I kid the Jews, :rimshot
I get it, no one is tellin any American what to do. Take cross checking out of the game? Pfffftttttt.
However, if you wear a mouth guard you won't loose as many teeth = endassault rifles.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheXFactor
That's a really ineffective poster imo if you're trying to scare people about shooting sprees. 377 spree deaths in 25 years? I would have thought there were many more than that. Every life is significant, but there's been roughly 1500 struck by lightning deaths in that timeframe. It's basically 1.5 airplane crashes in 25 years. It isn't like I'm walking around worried about getting struck by lightning. In a country of 300 million, that's not a lot. Norway has what, 5million people, and that one guy killed like 20% of our spree death total over the last 25 years in one afternoon?
I'm for increased common sense gun control because of our normal murder rate, but if other countries think we're getting shook about 377 random deaths over 25 years, it isn't happening. We probably have 300 unicycle deaths over the last 25 years. We got a murder problem in our cities, but that random whack job isn't even newsworthy at this point. We're way too desensitized for that shit
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by vegas1369
Also, yeah that is the sad reality of the situation. You got people that think guns are going to protect them, in fact in all likelihood it's not going to protect you from anything. You also have paranoid people like 4D that think it'll protect them from a "government takeover" which the reality is there's going to be about 10000x more dead people that own guns than the government that is trying to take them by force. Basically if it really came down to that it would go "knock knock" "who's there" "the government we're here for the guns. No? Ok that's fine" 5 minutes later there's going to be a swat team kicking down your door and your gun ain't going to save you. No "organized" (LOL) militia of the people would ever be able to stop a government in this day in age from taking their weapons.
Regardless, I just find it laughable that people go "yeah gun deaths will decrease but other weapons will increase." The other increase doesn't even come close to comparing the amount of lives saved by there being no guns but just like religion and everyone wanting to think they have some special place they go when they die everyone likes to think that their gun is going to save them which it's just not. It's a silly notion.
It always happens in a "Gun free" zone meaning if you carry a gun there, you go to jail. Of course criminals don't care about "gun free" zones or gun control laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
The gun lobby has bribed congress so guns are never going away. If you accept that premise, the answer is more guns on well adjusted people to shoot the assholes that think it makes sense to randomly inflict harm with a firearm.
Decriminalizing Marijuana and prostitution would help too, in theory. A community of people getting high and getting laid sounds like a decent place to live from a safety standpoint.
Population in the United States - 318 million, people of all ages
Gun owners in US - 110 million (estimated by NRA): that is people of at least voting age, thus the percentage of voting age people that own guns would be well above 1/3
given that, I believe there is no way guns can be outlawed completely short term--but a long-term program of chewing away may curtail types of guns and places one may carry
People from Europe and Australia simply do not understand the gun/crime issues America faces because they don't live here.
America is unique in that it is a geographically large, highly-populated, powerful, first-world country which quickly sprung from nothing a few hundred years ago, and achieved independence less than 250 years ago. That independence was also achieved through a bloody war, and the country fought other wars on its home turf in its early days, including a huge civil war.
By the time the industrial revolution came around and America started to solidify itself as a real force in the world, guns had already long cemented themselves as part of the culture. Sadly, the chaos in the early days of America (made even worse by the importation of slaves) also gave way to a culture of violent crime.
It's important to understand this. Long before any of us were born, the United States already had a culture of violent crime (much higher than other first-world countries) and gun ownership. The two, of course, are tied together. Some of the gun ownership caused the violent crime, but most of it was in response to the threat of violent crime.
The problem is that many liberals (and people in other countries who don't truly understand the issue) think that you can solve this situation by just outlawing gun sales to private citizens, and by forcing citizens to turn in their guns. Sure, they concede that criminals probably won't turn in their guns, but they feel that it will still be a net win for American society, and that the lives saved by the severe reduction of guns will eclipse those lost by violence by criminals who feel more empowered.
That's false.
The US has seen a sharp decline in violent crime since 1990. This includes gun murders.
Americans are very opportunistic, and that includes the criminals. Once it is known that private citizens are not armed, home invasion robberies will go WAY up, as will robberies at places of business.
Picture yourself as an armed criminal. You happen upon a home you want to break in, or a business you want to hold up. Today if you attempt this, you know you might be facing a gun on the other end, and are risking your life. There is a good chance this would deter you, and instead you will look for "softer" targets where no human beings are currently present. If you attempt this AFTER gun control, you can do it with confidence knowing you will hugely have the upper hand, and can basically take what you want with little resistance.
So you Euros/Aussies are basically asking a country with a long-ingrained cultures of guns and violence to give up our one form of defense, and to also let the criminals know that we are defenseless.
No thanks.
But keep saying, "It worked here, so it will work there" over and over, if it makes you feel better.
Whenever one of my Brit/Euro friends starts railing against "American gun insanity", I ask them when the last time they woke up to strangers in their house was.
America doesnt have a gun problem, it has a dirtbag problem, and guns may not be the solution but they do help level the playing field.
Dear Prime,
Basically what Abrown was trying to write is n-words ruin everything. He's fucking right. How about we ship you over a couple million, see what happens? Now go eat fluffers ass.
Warm regards.
You know what also would stop people going into gun free zones with guns? If they don't have guns at their fingertips?Quote:
Originally Posted by SidewinderIt sometimes happens in a "Gun free" zone meaning if you carry a gun there, you go to jail. Of course criminals don't care about "gun free" zones or gun control laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime
The gun lobby has bribed congress so guns are never going away. If you accept that premise, the answer is more guns on well adjusted people to shoot the assholes that think it makes sense to randomly inflict harm with a firearm.
Decriminalizing Marijuana and prostitution would help too, in theory. A community of people getting high and getting laid sounds like a decent place to live from a safety standpoint.
Yeah...
This is my local news. Jealous, aren't you? I mean, these people could be at my house in 20 minutes, and I'm not supposed to shoot them? The freedom shirt on Kid Rock's little brother is a nice touch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovsthdtQZdw&sns=em
that camo .308? is a bad mothaf'rQuote:
Originally Posted by tommyt
terrible butt stock though, wtf?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BCR
The reporter in that vid was more flaming than that house fire.
DELETE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prime750 million people live in europe. What are the gun death stats there?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muck Ficon
Oh, I don't know, since both World War 1 and Word War II started in Europe I am thinking 50,000,000.
You would never get a Nazi Germany, Stalin, or ISIS in the US. Why? Because we have just about everyone armed. The founding fathers had it right, arm the citizens and you will not have a military state.
Precisely why also the US will never be invaded. In this country an armed militia exists for a reason.
The system is by design, and its checks and balances. You don't see any coups in the US that is for sure.
I like how people keep trying to pass off communism as something the people didn't want. Communism was something people wanted, it's what it turned into that people didn't want. Also in China the mass majority of people greatly enjoy communism it's the people who speak out against it (obviously) that don't enjoy it which is an extreme minority in the country but media tends to blow it up like communism is hated.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyQuote:
Originally Posted by Prime
Oh, I don't know, since both World War 1 and Word War II started in Europe I am thinking 50,000,000.
You would never get a Nazi Germany, Stalin, or ISIS in the US. Why? Because we have just about everyone armed. The founding fathers had it right, arm the citizens and you will not have a military state.
Precisely why also the US will never be invaded. In this country an armed militia exists for a reason.
The system is by design, and its checks and balances. You don't see any coups in the US that is for sure.
The people in China that love communism, 800M of them (the poor/half), do not have indoor plumbing or have to ration electricity. Anything is better than going backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonamooseI like how people keep trying to pass off communism as something the people didn't want. Communism was something people wanted, it's what it turned into that people didn't want. Also in China the mass majority of people greatly enjoy communism it's the people who speak out against it (obviously) that don't enjoy it which is an extreme minority in the country but media tends to blow it up like communism is hated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Most countries in Africa would love communism as well if it rid them of malaria and put something more than insect infected rice on their plate.
You are correct, most people in a hut living in fear of Ebola, arrest for no reason, or decapitation love communism. I would have loved the Pope 500 years ago too if facing the guillotine.
How the fuck do you people think that Mao and Stalin got in to position to get in to power in the first place? Since history is clearly a complete mystery to some of you i'll give you the answer. By overthrowing their respective legal governments with the help of an armed militia.
What kinda dipshit thinks that every uprising is for the good of the people. They very rarely are. That said there's been about 70+ years since US citizens have had access to any weaponry that could severely threaten their own government.
Yeah...except you're wrong and pretty much everyone over there enjoys communism. The exceptions are, liberal bloggers (a couple thousand people at most) and the lands that are claimed to the west that consist of misplaced populations such as Tibet and Urumqi. Those places are a majority of non-ethnic Chinese people that are stuck in China. A lot of people over there are willing to admit that China has faults of their owns, but then point out so does the United States and every other country. If you think Communism is speak out against your country and get shot you're wrong. Millions of people protest daily over there with much success on a lot of infrastructure type items but you never hear about those, you only hear about the ones where people that hate the government form a protest against the government and get shut down. The government doesn't care if it's people protest to get shit done over there, in fact they welcome it in most cases, and are more proactive about responding than in the United States. It's just when people are strictly like "NO MORE COMMUNISM OUR GOVERNMENT IS TERRIBLE" type protests that is when people start being detained.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyThe people in China that love communism, 800M of them (the poor/half), do not have indoor plumbing or have to ration electricity. Anything is better than going backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonamoose
Most countries in Africa would love communism as well if it rid them of malaria and put something more than insect infected rice on their plate.
You are correct, most people in a hut living in fear of Ebola, arrest for no reason, or decapitation love communism. I would have loved the Pope 500 years ago too if facing the guillotine.
From lower class in the boonies where people live on rice farms and rations, to the cities where homeless are paid to clean streets in efforts to help keep cities clean and homeless people fed, to middle class laborers and white collars all the way up to the wealthy elite. You'll be hard pressed to find little to anybody that says communism is terrible (even the people that survived the great famine).
You know probably the moment in China that made me realize shit wasn't exactly as what people over here think it is was when I was sitting my office and a guy comes in to ask a question and instead of a work related question he goes "Why don't more American's listen to Ron Paul?"
This was coming out the mouth of a local council member of the communist party. Sure they fuck shit up, but I mean it's not like people here aren't fucked up either. We have veterans living on the streets begging for scraps and hoping that when they play the piano on the side of the road that someone films it and puts on youtube. There's poor everywhere man there's no government that will ever truly handle it properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonamooseI like how people keep trying to pass off communism as something the people didn't want. Communism was something people wanted, it's what it turned into that people didn't want. Also in China the mass majority of people greatly enjoy communism it's the people who speak out against it (obviously) that don't enjoy it which is an extreme minority in the country but media tends to blow it up like communism is hated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Madman who starved 60million to death: Devastating book reveals how Mao's megalomania turned China into a madhouse
anonamoose, now speaking for 1.3 billion Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonamooseYeah...except you're wrong and pretty much everyone over there enjoys communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonamooseYeah...except you're wrong and pretty much everyone over there enjoys communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
http://inapcache.boston.com/universa...e_2014/bp1.jpg
Everyone over there enjoys communism like everyone here enjoys reading your endless expert opinions about whatevers being discussed.
So, I finally meet another subscriber to World Plumber Digest........ lofloQuote:
Originally Posted by TonyThe people in China that love communism, 800M of them (the poor/half), do not have indoor plumbing or have to ration electricity. Anything is better than going backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonamoose
Most countries in Africa would love communism as well if it rid them of malaria and put something more than insect infected rice on their plate.
You are correct, most people in a hut living in fear of Ebola, arrest for no reason, or decapitation love communism. I would have loved the Pope 500 years ago too if facing the guillotine.
Moreover, much like North Korea, if you asked 10,000 people if they loved communism, you would get 10,000 yes answers. Someone who will remain ananamoose forgot to go to class that day, obv.Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyThe people in China that love communism, 800M of them (the poor/half), do not have indoor plumbing or have to ration electricity. Anything is better than going backwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by anonamoose
Most countries in Africa would love communism as well if it rid them of malaria and put something more than insect infected rice on their plate.
You are correct, most people in a hut living in fear of Ebola, arrest for no reason, or decapitation love communism. I would have loved the Pope 500 years ago too if facing the guillotine.
This would explain the 100% turnout rate for "elections" when there's only 1 candidate on the ballot. It has to be because they love it............ right?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4DragonsMoreover, much like North Korea, if you asked 10,000 people if they loved communism, you would get 10,000 yes answers. Someone who will remain ananamoose forgot to go to class that day, obv.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey GuyThis would explain the 100% turnout rate for "elections" when there's only 1 candidate on the ballot. It has to be because they love it............ right?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Dragons
Tyde hates this one, but he has to understand that it was MaxDreidal that came up with Kim Jong Lolz, not me.Quote:
Comments
DRK Star: marty and jack king off rep