Shooting in Conn. School

So my nephews are really into this stuff called "Airsoft" which are basically these air powered guns that shoot plastic pellets/b bs. Our media definitely glorifies violence but their are plenty of parents letting their children run around shooting each other with guns like this.

http://www.airsplat.com/

http://www.redwolfairsoft.com/redwolf/airsoft/Home

http://www.airsoftgi.com/

http://www.airsoftmegastore.com/

Sure seems to me that stores like this glorify violence a ton more than sitting at your tv or pc playing COD or Battlefield. You are actually out there shooting guns. I am not sure how many kids play this but as you can see there are plenty of stores so business is good. Hell they even sell grenade type weapons.

motivator_airsoft.jpg
 
Yeah I've noticed that airsoft has gotten a lot more popular lately, and unlike paintball markers, they look pretty realistic.
 
Yeah, and in my city, there's a law or something that if you own a toy or airsoft gun that looks VERY similar to a real gun, it is a crime.

I can't wait for the backlash over the President's call to have at least common sense gun control rules. It's a damn shame that the Daily Show and Colbert Report are off this week. I don't wanna watch Fox News in any form.

I'm guessing we're going to see a lot of:
"Responsible citizens" wouldn't have let tragedies like this happen. "Crazies" shouldn't have access to guns.
Click to expand...
Responsible citizens don't let their government try to take away money that could go toward helping "crazies."
 
[quote name='Clak']So I was again listening to National Communist Radio, and a caller brought up a good point. you often hear about how more guns could actually improve these situations, that it would make people think twice about doing something like this. To that the guy posited a question, what about the fort hood shooting? I'm sure they've got plenty of guns there, it didn't stop Hasan.[/QUOTE]


Gun control advocates

President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke, said that "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."[118] However, Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home."[119] Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.[120] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."[121]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting#cite_note-Stripes-121
Army reserve Captain John Gaffaney attempted to stop Hasan by charging him, but was mortally wounded before he could reach him.[26] Civilian physician assistant Michael Cahill also tried to charge Hasan with a chair, but was shot and killed.[27] Army reserve Specialist Logan Burnett tried to stop Hasan by throwing a folding table at him, but he was shot in the left hip, fell down, and crawled to a nearby cubicle.[28]




So they weren't armed like we would assume. Sounds like if they were, the fool would have been smoked a lot sooner. And an armed person did indeed stop him, so the answer is still "more guns".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting#cite_note-Stripes-121

 
[quote name='egofed']Gun control advocates

President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke, said that "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."[118] However, Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home."[119] Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.[120] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."[121]


Army reserve Captain John Gaffaney attempted to stop Hasan by charging him, but was mortally wounded before he could reach him.[26] Civilian physician assistant Michael Cahill also tried to charge Hasan with a chair, but was shot and killed.[27] Army reserve Specialist Logan Burnett tried to stop Hasan by throwing a folding table at him, but he was shot in the left hip, fell down, and crawled to a nearby cubicle.[28]




So they weren't armed like we would assume. Sounds like if they were, the fool would have been smoked a lot sooner. And an armed person did indeed stop him, so the answer is still "more guns".




[/QUOTE]


31545_309794535787391_917365863_n.jpg
 
I found this article while looking for something relevant to the pic you posted, I found this, I found it to be a very informative article even though it's a bit outdated.

Also what you posted was very vague and only part of the whole story.

I also found this story that was posted two days ago that totally twisted a lot of key parts to better fill there own agenda.

Here is another article I found that coincides with the first link I posted.

EDIT: After reading the last article it seemed to be more pre-meditated then just a random act of violence.
 
So, hair of the dog? In the same way that it's said that drinking more alcohol is the way to cure a hangover, the way to address gun violence is more guns?
 
[quote name='egofed']
So they weren't armed like we would assume. Sounds like if they were, the fool would have been smoked a lot sooner. And an armed person did indeed stop him, so the answer is still "more guns".
[/QUOTE]

Or had he not been able to purchase the guns legally in the first place, it could have possibly been avoided all together.

But hey, that couldn't possibly work right?
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']Or had he not been able to purchase the guns legally in the first place, it could have possibly been avoided all together.

But hey, that couldn't possibly work right?[/QUOTE]

So let me get this straight.

Murdering people = illegal/Ok

Obtaining guns = illegal/not ok

If the guy was willing to go on a murdering rampage, why would he be unwilling to break the law to illegally obtain guns?!
 
This is how I kind of see the debate. I agree DURING a shooting it would be helpful for there to be some people to shoot back. This is sort of the acute part of the argument that is hard to not agree with pro-gun people. For me though I am more concerned about all the time in between these shooting or the chronic part of the argument. Gun violence in my opinion will not be solved by allowing access to more guns. Are these 2 views opposed to each other? Yes in some ways they are opposite ideas but I think that by saying if other people had guns during this or that shooting then that shooting would have been avoided/mitigated is ignoring the long term issue of why we have so many guns in this country and why so many people find them a solution to problems. Armed guards to prevent shootings? Great! Everyone being armed like the old west? Nope not the society I want to live in.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Good point.

Guy attacks a US Military base and does quite a bit of damage, in spite of all the superior firepower and technology that the US Military has.

Kinda blows the entire argument about how the little people wouldn't stand a chance against the federal government out of the water.

Thanks for bringing that up, Clak.[/QUOTE]

No, it is not a good point.. Have you been on a military base.. It is a gun free zone. They don't carry side arms like world war II.. Soldiers are not allowed to store firearms on base housing and you have to check guns in to go to the shooting range.
 
Let me make it clear that I don't own a gun. But living in a society that is willing to take away a person's freedoms because of someone else's actions is a society I don't want to live in, especially when its an expressly documented Constitutional right. I'm all for extensive background checks and proper sales processing though. Getting guns out of the hands of "bad guys" and mass murdering psychos while still protecting the 2nd Amendment is a tricky business.

Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin:
  • They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
    He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
    He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
    People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
    If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
    He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
    Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
    Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.
On a side topic, Franklin is quoted as saying, "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer"


I'm right there with you, Benny.;-)
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']So let me get this straight.

Murdering people = illegal/Ok

Obtaining guns = illegal/not ok

If the guy was willing to go on a murdering rampage, why would he be unwilling to break the law to illegally obtain guns?![/QUOTE]

If a guy was willing to go on a murdering rampage, why not use more than guns? Sure, some have used bombs, but not all of them. Not all of them run people down on the way to the school or kill their parents before doing it. While some certainly would still find a way, some may not be able to.

And frankly, seeing how some people get, I'm not sure I want more carrying guns. Seeing stories of people pulling guns because they get pissed at someone who flipped them off in traffic or were being rude while shopping is a tad ridiculous. I could see those occurrences happening more often. Adding more fuel to the fire doesn't put out the fire.
 
The simple answer is the average unstable whack job doesn't know how to buy guns illegally. A lot of these shootings take place in smaller towns where there isn't exactly a plethora of illegal arms dealers on the black market to pick from.

So anything that makes it a bit harder for people to get guns (more thorough background checks, longer waiting periods etc.) is a good thing as it ups the odds that they give up or carry out a lesser attack with other weapons or less deadly weapons (i.e. not semi-automatic, high capacity clip weapons) etc.

Will it solve the problem and prevent all mass shootings? Of course not. But it will probably prevent a few, and less then body count of some others, with no real consequence other than gun nuts having some more hoops to jump through and longer waits to add to their arsenal, and perhaps not being able to legally buy assault rifles or high capacity magazines. Seems a worthwhile trade to me. Any saved lives is worth some inconveniences to gun fanatics IMO. No one is advocating keeping people from buying guns, or banning any guns anyone reasonably needs for hunting or self defense.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']This is how I kind of see the debate. I agree DURING a shooting it would be helpful for there to be some people to shoot back. This is sort of the acute part of the argument that is hard to not agree with pro-gun people. For me though I am more concerned about all the time in between these shooting or the chronic part of the argument. Gun violence in my opinion will not be solved by allowing access to more guns. Are these 2 views opposed to each other? Yes in some ways they are opposite ideas but I think that by saying if other people had guns during this or that shooting then that shooting would have been avoided/mitigated is ignoring the long term issue of why we have so many guns in this country and why so many people find them a solution to problems. Armed guards to prevent shootings? Great! Everyone being armed like the old west? Nope not the society I want to live in.[/QUOTE]

I think it's very easy to disagree with them. You have a bunch of people shooting, the police show up, now they have to figure out wtf is going on with all these people shooting at each other. Instead of a single guy shooting, which is pretty easy to figure out. It honestly seems like some folks would rather just take justice into their own hands.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The simple answer is the average unstable whack job doesn't know how to buy guns illegally. A lot of these shootings take place in smaller towns where there isn't exactly a plethora of illegal arms dealers on the black market to pick from.

So anything that makes it a bit harder for people to get guns (more thorough background checks, longer waiting periods etc.) is a good thing as it ups the odds that they give up or carry out a lesser attack with other weapons or less deadly weapons (i.e. not semi-automatic, high capacity clip weapons) etc.

Will it solve the problem and prevent all mass shootings? Of course not. But it will probably prevent a few, and less then body count of some others, with no real consequence other than gun nuts having some more hoops to jump through and longer waits to add to their arsenal, and perhaps not being able to legally buy assault rifles or high capacity magazines. Seems a worthwhile trade to me. Any saved lives is worth some inconveniences to gun fanatics IMO. No one is advocating keeping people from buying guns, or banning any guns anyone reasonably needs for hunting or self defense.[/QUOTE]

What is a the difference between an assault rifle and semi auto hunting rifle such as a mini 14?

What is the difference between a MAGAZINE and a CLIP
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The simple answer is the average unstable whack job doesn't know how to buy guns illegally. A lot of these shootings take place in smaller towns where there isn't exactly a plethora of illegal arms dealers on the black market to pick from.

So anything that makes it a bit harder for people to get guns (more thorough background checks, longer waiting periods etc.) is a good thing as it ups the odds that they give up or carry out a lesser attack with other weapons or less deadly weapons (i.e. not semi-automatic, high capacity clip weapons) etc.

Will it solve the problem and prevent all mass shootings? Of course not. But it will probably prevent a few, and less then body count of some others, with no real consequence other than gun nuts having some more hoops to jump through and longer waits to add to their arsenal, and perhaps not being able to legally buy assault rifles or high capacity magazines. Seems a worthwhile trade to me. Any saved lives is worth some inconveniences to gun fanatics IMO. No one is advocating keeping people from buying guns, or banning any guns anyone reasonably needs for hunting or self defense.[/QUOTE]


In many states you can legally buy guns at yard sales or through classified ads without the need for a background check. That is a loophole that should be closed.

And I'm not clearly understanding your point; its been mentioned that the newton shooter had legal guns.... however unless they were legally registered in his name or obtained by him (which I don't not believe is the case) how can they be considered legally obtained? He fucking stole them. So I guess this whackjob did know how to obtain guns illegally.

If we are going to consider that legally obtaining (i.e. taking them from someone else) then I suppose all murders were committed by legally obtained guns.
 
[quote name='Tiako']What is a the difference between an assault rifle and semi auto hunting rifle such as a mini 14?

What is the difference between a MAGAZINE and a CLIP[/QUOTE]

I'm far for a gun expert as I hate them and hate living in a country that has such a fetish for them...

But in a nutshell it comes down to fire rate, bullet velocity and round capacity. Assault rifles far exceed what's needed for hunting or self defense on all accounts. But to your point, I'm sure there are some hunting rifles that do as well, and a ban should be expanded to include them by being more specific and banning guns that exceed certain fire rates, bullet velocities and ammo capacities.

Don't give a shit about the difference between Magazine and Clip, both should be capped at 10 max.

In a perfect world there wouldn't be anything but bolt action hunting rifles and single shot shotguns available for citizens as that would satisfy any hunting and home defense needs.
 
Taking justice into their own hands? During a murder spree? Hell yeah people should have the right to protect themselves. I would much rather have the police have to figure out who the crazy shooter is then have many helpless innocents killed for lack of concealed carry permits. The police could institute a warning call that directs all people to lie down and place their weapons out of reach before they enter the scene. We can not guarantee that we could eliminate all gun possessions even if we did ban them. It leaves law abiding citizens totally defenseless.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think it's very easy to disagree with them. You have a bunch of people shooting, the police show up, now they have to figure out wtf is going on with all these people shooting at each other. Instead of a single guy shooting, which is pretty easy to figure out. It honestly seems like some folks would rather just take justice into their own hands.[/QUOTE]

I see what you are saying but if I am being honest with myself I have to agree that if I was involved in a shooting like this I would much rather have a gun than not have one. The reality for me though is that I have no interest in carrying a loaded weapon around and think we need to address the larger issues on why this country in particular loves to shoot each other. I think the problem is that pro-gun advocates believe that having the gun is the long term solution. I want a country that does not need to have the gun and there is no reason why that cannot be the case.
 
[quote name='Tiako']What is a the difference between an assault rifle and semi auto hunting rifle such as a mini 14?

What is the difference between a MAGAZINE and a CLIP[/QUOTE]
I don't understand the point of this type of bullshit. I mean I get that there's a difference, but if you chuckleheads can't ass yourselves into explaining the difference, then no one's going to give a fuck either way.

[quote name='egofed']Taking justice into their own hands? During a murder spree? Hell yeah people should have the right to protect themselves. I would much rather have the police have to figure out who the crazy shooter is then have many helpless innocents killed for lack of concealed carry permits. The police could institute a warning call that directs all people to lie down and place their weapons out of reach before they enter the scene. We can not guarantee that we could eliminate all gun possessions even if we did ban them. It leaves law abiding citizens totally defenseless.[/QUOTE]
It's almost as if we have examples of what happens when cops start unloading on public streets...

And in case you haven't noticed, almost all the libs aren't calling for a complete ban on guns.:roll:
 
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


in·fringe

/inˈfrinj/
Verb

  • Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
  • Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
Any regulation or law "limits or undermines" this right, strictly speaking, and therefore is unConstitutional.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I don't understand the point of this type of bullshit. I mean I get that there's a difference, but if you chuckleheads can't ass yourselves into explaining the difference, then no one's going to give a fuck either way.


It's almost as if we have examples of what happens when cops start unloading on public streets...

And in case you haven't noticed, almost all the libs aren't calling for a complete ban on guns.:roll:[/QUOTE]

A clip is like..well it is a clip that holds the rounds together.. Think M1 Garands I am sure you have played a game with them.. They make CHING sound when the last round is spent..

A magazine holds rounds and feeds them with a spring. You don't throw these away like you would clips

People that know what they are lol because it is like someone who starts talking about video games then goes to to talk about their kids "Sony Xbox U" If you don't know the basics of what something is how can you come to the conclusion about something?

Also, there really is no difference from an AR and a mini 14 hunting rifle. One looks friendly and lacks kick suppression in the butt of the gun..Both use the same AR .223 rounds which by the way are less deadly than hunting rounds based off the 30-06 called the 30-30.. World war II rounds are far more deadly than used today.
 
[quote name='egofed']Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


in·fringe

/inˈfrinj/
Verb

  • Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
  • Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".
Any regulation or law "limits or undermines" this right, strictly speaking, and therefore is unConstitutional.[/QUOTE]


what about

mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
Noun
A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
A military force that engages in rebel activities.

or

regulated past participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb)
Verb
Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

and because we're being stupid

of
/əv/
Preposition
Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole: "the sleeve of his coat".
Expressing the relationship between a scale or measure and a value: "an increase of 5 percent".

SO are we just gonna pick and choose only the words we like?

p.s in case you hadn't notice REGULATED in in the fucking amendment. So- regulations are constitutional.
 
Found an interesting* article about how the NRA has traditionally felt about "mental health" issues.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyn...er-rights-and-obamacare-yes-it-is-in-the-law/

In Florida last year, the legislature and governor passed a law backed by the National Rifle Association that would penalize physicians if they asked a patient about gun access and ownership except in the case of emergencies.

I hope they fucking change their tune in this Friday's press conference.

(* interesting as in, not surprised one bit the NRA would not really care about arming the people with mental issues)
 
[quote name='usickenme']what about

mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
Noun
A military force of civilians to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
A military force that engages in rebel activities.

or

regulated past participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb)
Verb
Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

and because we're being stupid

of
/əv/
Preposition
Expressing the relationship between a part and a whole: "the sleeve of his coat".
Expressing the relationship between a scale or measure and a value: "an increase of 5 percent".

SO are we just gonna pick and choose only the words we like?

p.s in case you hadn't notice REGULATED in in the fucking amendment. So- regulations are constitutional.[/QUOTE]

Punctuation, what does it mean? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed are two separate thoughts.
 
[quote name='Clak']I think it's very easy to disagree with them. You have a bunch of people shooting, the police show up, now they have to figure out wtf is going on with all these people shooting at each other. Instead of a single guy shooting, which is pretty easy to figure out. It honestly seems like some folks would rather just take justice into their own hands.[/QUOTE]

Give me an example of a single instance of this happening.


Oh, and just FYI.

http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had-a-concealed-weapon-thought-about-shooting-oregon-mall-killer


Oh, and:

http://now.msn.com/nick-meli-who-had-a-concealed-weapon-thought-about-shooting-oregon-mall-killer
 
[quote name='usickenme']Found an interesting* article about how the NRA has traditionally felt about "mental health" issues.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolyn...er-rights-and-obamacare-yes-it-is-in-the-law/

In Florida last year, the legislature and governor passed a law backed by the National Rifle Association that would penalize physicians if they asked a patient about gun access and ownership except in the case of emergencies.

I hope they fucking change their tune in this Friday's press conference.

(* interesting as in, not surprised one bit the NRA would not really care about arming the people with mental issues)[/QUOTE]

You know they don't ask because of mental issues right?

They ask because drs get cut up from removing fragment edhollow points. A doctor that asks me such a retarded question when I am going to him because I can't stop throwing up blood is not going to be my doctor long.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The simple answer is the average unstable whack job doesn't know how to buy guns illegally. A lot of these shootings take place in smaller towns where there isn't exactly a plethora of illegal arms dealers on the black market to pick from.

So anything that makes it a bit harder for people to get guns (more thorough background checks, longer waiting periods etc.) is a good thing as it ups the odds that they give up or carry out a lesser attack with other weapons or less deadly weapons (i.e. not semi-automatic, high capacity clip weapons) etc.

Will it solve the problem and prevent all mass shootings? Of course not. But it will probably prevent a few, and less then body count of some others, with no real consequence other than gun nuts having some more hoops to jump through and longer waits to add to their arsenal, and perhaps not being able to legally buy assault rifles or high capacity magazines. Seems a worthwhile trade to me. Any saved lives is worth some inconveniences to gun fanatics IMO. No one is advocating keeping people from buying guns, or banning any guns anyone reasonably needs for hunting or self defense.[/QUOTE]

But it has been proven over and over again that these bans don't do jack shit to lessen the amount of violent deaths that occur. Remember, CT already had a ban in place, how did that work out?

I can't help but wonder if you'd be so willing to sacrifice any other rights in the name of safety.
 
[quote name='Tiako']A clip is like..well it is a clip that holds the rounds together.. Think M1 Garands I am sure you have played a game with them.. They make CHING sound when the last round is spent..

A magazine holds rounds and feeds them with a spring. You don't throw these away like you would clips

People that know what they are lol because it is like someone who starts talking about video games then goes to to talk about their kids "Sony Xbox U" If you don't know the basics of what something is how can you come to the conclusion about something?

Also, there really is no difference from an AR and a mini 14 hunting rifle. One looks friendly and lacks kick suppression in the butt of the gun..Both use the same AR .223 rounds which by the way are less deadly than hunting rounds based off the 30-06 called the 30-30.. World war II rounds are far more deadly than used today.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to give you credit for this, but let's get real...if gun enthusiasts are going to get bent out of shape over something so petty, the problem isn't with the person not knowing the difference between a clip and a mag when the entire point of the comment was about capacity and not the feeding mechanism or case/clip holding the bullets. Yeah, I might wince a little too, but I'm not going to outright dismiss someone based on terminology alone when concepts and context are more important.

A more apt analogy would be the difference between a mini usb and micro usb connection.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']So anything that makes it a bit harder for people to get guns (more thorough background checks, longer waiting periods etc.) is a good thing as it ups the odds that they give up or carry out a lesser attack with other weapons or less deadly weapons (i.e. not semi-automatic, high capacity clip weapons) etc.[/QUOTE]

I think the government should just put us all into little 10x10 rooms. That'll make it harder for people to get guns and keep us all nice and safe.

[quote name='Tiako']No, it is not a good point.. Have you been on a military base.. It is a gun free zone. They don't carry side arms like world war II.. Soldiers are not allowed to store firearms on base housing and you have to check guns in to go to the shooting range.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but the government has laser guided nuclear bombz. They should have just taken out the shooter with one of those.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']But it has been proven over and over again that these bans don't do jack shit to lessen the amount of violent deaths that occur. Remember, CT already had a ban in place, how did that work out?

I can't help but wonder if you'd be so willing to sacrifice any other rights in the name of safety.[/QUOTE]

And it has been proven time and time again that these banned places arent where they obtain the guns in the first place. Remember, CT isnt where she purchased the guns. Obviously allowing these guns to be purchased at all havent lessened the amounts of violent deaths that occur.

I cant help but wonder how many more people need to die to keep our rights thats some long dead slave owners who had no idea what this country would be like in 200+ years invented.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'm going to give you credit for this, but let's get real...if gun enthusiasts are going to get bent out of shape over something so petty, the problem isn't with the person not knowing the difference between a clip and a mag when the entire point of the comment was about capacity and not the feeding mechanism or case/clip holding the bullets. Yeah, I might wince a little too, but I'm not going to outright dismiss someone based on terminology alone when concepts and context are more important.

A more apt analogy would be the difference between a mini usb and micro usb connection.[/QUOTE]

I made a reference to moron gibberish the other day and the perfect example is the inevitable person who wanders into a discussion on guns or gun control and plays the pedant on the clip/mag thing.

As if people I KNOW in the marines or the national guard dont use the common vernacular interchangeably. Or more importantly as if it somehow makes them knowledgeable or their opinion is worth more.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I made a reference to moron gibberish the other day and the perfect example is the inevitable person who wanders into a discussion on guns or gun control and plays the pedant on the clip/mag thing.

As if people I KNOW in the marines or the national guard dont use the common vernacular interchangeably. Or more importantly as if it somehow makes them knowledgeable or their opinion is worth more.[/QUOTE]
More "moronic gibberish" for my favorite pratteler.

Clip vs mag is just endemic of debate where assault weapons and assault rifle are used incorrectly and interchangeably and automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons are conflated (many believe intentionally) to shift the debate and advance the sporting use fallacy.

-I enjoy your moronic gibberish msut but wince at the thought that everyone is less informed (read: dumber) after reading such posts.

I've know many marine officers, army regulars and even naval aviators all of whom bristle and are quick to correct the use of "clips." Even the National Guard guys I know don't do this.

It's a quick and effective benchmark of who's talking out of their ass and backing things like arbitrary capacity limitations, AWB, prohibitions on pistol grips & threaded barrels, and evaluating their knowledge and rationale for doing so.
 
[quote name='Tiako']You know they don't ask because of mental issues right?

They ask because drs get cut up from removing fragment edhollow points. A doctor that asks me such a retarded question when I am going to him because I can't stop throwing up blood is not going to be my doctor long.[/QUOTE]


please clarify because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

FWIW- A doctor (my wife is one) isn't/ shouldn't ask for no reason. If you are throwing up blood, a doctor should ask you about that. If you have mental issues and tell your doctor you are suicidal- she should be able to ask if you have access to guns. Just like she would ask about other potential dangers.

Health isn't just what is happening to you the moment you're in the office, ya know?

but another point is the Right-wingers made such a big stink about the government dictating your care and turns out, one of the few provisions which tell a doctor what they can and can do comes from them!
 
[quote name='usickenme']please clarify because I have no idea what you are trying to say.

FWIW- A doctor (my wife is one) isn't/ shouldn't ask for no reason. If you are throwing up blood, a doctor should ask you about that. If you have mental issues and tell your doctor you are suicidal- she should be able to ask if you have access to guns. Just like she would ask about other potential dangers.

Health isn't just what is happening to you the moment you're in the office, ya know?

but another point is the Right-wingers made such a big stink about the government dictating your care and turns out, one of the few provisions which tell a doctor what they can and can do comes from them![/QUOTE]

I personally don't have a problem with it, and never realized it was even done until my daughter was born.

Dr's or PAs asked every single(edit: time) we went for a well visit and sick visit if we had guns in the home, and sometimes gave a little speech. I always informed them ours were locked in a safe and just ignored it- some advocates felt this was an attempt to stigmatize gun owners, alienate their children and feed paranoias- I don't think that was the APA or AMAs intent. While I understand the annoyance and concede the "potential" for an agenda- the reaction against it is woefully overblown.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='GBAstar']What music is popular in Canada? The U.K.? [/QUOTE]

Geddy Lee, best bass player ever!
Unicorns are pretty awesome.
 
537559_10151139887745493_717204613_n.jpg


That pretty much sums it up for me.

But there's really not much hope of major change. America is always going to be full of gun nuts, conservatives, bible thumpers, anti-intellectuals etc. It's always going to culturally bankrupt and dominated by capitalism and rampant consumerism.

It just is what it is, and I have no energy to waste time trying to change things when there are so many other countries that fit my cultural and other beliefs more, and my girlfriend is of the same mind of wanting to move elsewhere and live somewhere we're not ashamed of. So we're working to make that happen in the next couple of years hopefully.

But anyway, I'm going to bow out of vs. These discussion do nothing but ruin my mood, and it's pretty silly to keep visiting a forum that does that when I have enough stress in real life already.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
537559_10151139887745493_717204613_n.jpg


That pretty much sums it up for me.

But there's really not much hope of major change. America is always going to be full of gun nuts, conservatives, bible thumpers, anti-intellectuals etc. It's always going to culturally bankrupt and dominated by capitalism and rampant consumerism.

It just is what it is, and I have no energy to waste time trying to change things when there are so many other countries that fit my cultural and other beliefs more, and my girlfriend is of the same mind of wanting to move elsewhere and live somewhere we're not ashamed of. So we're working to make that happen in the next couple of years hopefully.

But anyway, I'm going to bow out of vs. These discussion do nothing but ruin my mood, and it's pretty silly to keep visiting a forum that does that when I have enough stress in real life already.[/QUOTE]

Good luck and have fun wherever you go!
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']I personally don't have a problem with it, and never realized it was even done until my daughter was born.

Dr's or PAs asked every single(edit: time) we went for a well visit and sick visit if we had guns in the home, and sometimes gave a little speech. I always informed them ours were locked in a safe and just ignored it- some advocates felt this was an attempt to stigmatize gun owners, alienate their children and feed paranoias- I don't think that was the APA or AMAs intent. While I understand the annoyance and concede the "potential" for an agenda- the reaction against it is woefully overblown.[/QUOTE]

Gotcha. However from a medical perspective they are simply asking about dangers in the home. I'm curious - did they also ask about smoking or baby proofing?

My wife went to residency with the doc who did some of our well baby checks and we still got asked the "safety" questions too
 
[quote name='usickenme']Gotcha. However from a medical perspective they are simply asking about dangers in the home. I'm curious - did they also ask about smoking or baby proofing?

My wife went to residency with the doc who did some of our well baby checks and we still got asked the "safety" questions too[/QUOTE]

Only at the first well-visit were we ever questioned about whether-or-not we were smokers (that one "no," and a "we each lost a parent to cancer" seemed to suffice), same with the: breast feeding vs bottle, do you co-sleep, do you have anyone outside the nuclear family living at home Q&A- all only once. Interestingly, never even once were we asked about baby-proofing but we did get a small packet from our pediatric firm at our pre-delivery interview and office screening.

The gun ownership question involved some single sheet green check form- with said "facts/blurb/speech" that was only given a few times and was consistently at every appointment- from birth until her 6 y.o. well visit; However, at her most recent (7 y.o. well visit) they did not, but we are now in a different state with a prohibition on doing so.

Again, I am agreeing that it is absolutely germane but maybe poorly implemented, unless that is the intent?
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']And it has been proven time and time again that these banned places arent where they obtain the guns in the first place. Remember, CT isnt where she purchased the guns. Obviously allowing these guns to be purchased at all havent lessened the amounts of violent deaths that occur.

I cant help but wonder how many more people need to die to keep our rights thats some long dead slave owners who had no idea what this country would be like in 200+ years invented.[/QUOTE]

I don't care how many more people need to die.. Just as I don't care how many more people die from drinking a 12 pack and ramming their car into to a family.. I still want to be able to drink beer.
 
Enter thread with expectations of teenage liberals who don't own guns to spout emotional anti-gun posts.

Not disappointed.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
537559_10151139887745493_717204613_n.jpg


That pretty much sums it up for me.

But there's really not much hope of major change. America is always going to be full of gun nuts, conservatives, bible thumpers, anti-intellectuals etc. It's always going to culturally bankrupt and dominated by capitalism and rampant consumerism.

It just is what it is, and I have no energy to waste time trying to change things when there are so many other countries that fit my cultural and other beliefs more, and my girlfriend is of the same mind of wanting to move elsewhere and live somewhere we're not ashamed of. So we're working to make that happen in the next couple of years hopefully.

But anyway, I'm going to bow out of vs. These discussion do nothing but ruin my mood, and it's pretty silly to keep visiting a forum that does that when I have enough stress in real life already.[/QUOTE]
And you know, between my gun or my shoes, I think I'd rather have the shoes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top