Omaha Mall Shooting

So far, 9 people dead, 3 in critical condition, and 1 wounded still in the hospital. The mall is less than a mile down the street from me. I was actually just leaving to go there to get my haircut there and my brother called me and told me what was going on as he knows I go there often to the food court, to get my haircuts and whatever else. He had a friend who was in there when it happend who called him from inside. Which gave him the idea to call me to make sure I wan't there. Which thankfully, I wan't, but would have been in about 5-10 mintues. They are calling it the worst shooting in Nebraska ever.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/06/content_7206758.htm

Another dozen people have died senselessly and America doesn't need to reform the gun laws, yet again.

I hate the world we live in. I hate it more and more every day because of shit like this - another piece of human shit that takes his anger out on someone else because he was the one with the problem. Good riddance to him, though it is so unfortunate that he couldn't be the only person to die.

Really sad! :shakehead

Nothing but a mentally disturbed home grown American psychopathic terrorist. America's troubled youth. IMO not a gun control issue and hopefully this thread doesn't go off track harping on the issue. :rolleyes:

Another dozen people have died senselessly and America doesn't need to reform the gun laws, yet again.

Nope - there is no need to reform the laws. Enforce the existing ones, yes, but not reform them. The guy had a felony conviction and there are already laws on the books that make it illegal for a felon to own a firearm. Short of going ghestapo and tracking down the three hundred million guns in the country there going to be there for other criminals to provide.

They need to find where he got his weapon and if it was given/sold to him, then that person needs to be held responsible for at least nine murders.

My prayers go to the families.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Call me lazy for not googling it, but what do you have to go through to get a gun in the US?

I'm pretty sure, and someone correct me if I'm wrong that all you need is:

-to be at least 18
-to have a FOID card (takes about 2 weeks, requires background check, I believe)
-to submit for purchase of the firearm and subsequently submit yourself to another background check (I think)
-After the waiting period, you have a gun.

OR

You get it from some guy's trunk or you steal it from someone you know.

I'm pretty sure, and someone correct me if I'm wrong that all you need is:

-to be at least 18
-to have a FOID card (takes about 2 weeks, requires background check, I believe)
-to submit for purchase of the firearm and subsequently submit yourself to another background check (I think)
-After the waiting period, you have a gun.

OR

You get it from some guy's trunk or you steal it from someone you know.

Isn't that just for a rifle/shotgun tho? I haven't looked at it for a while, but I thought you had to be 21 for a handgun.

Yeah you have to be 21 for a handgun I believe. In fact, don't you have to be 21 to buy any rifle?

Right now they're saying they think he stole the gun from his stepfather. If it turns out that this is true, the stepfather has to be responsible at least to some degree. And if our gun laws don't need changing, our attitude about responsibile ownership and ability to keep them out of the hands of people who are not mentally fit to posess them certainly do.

All I know is Al Qaeda certainly isn't the scariest thing out there anymore, if it ever actually was. Recently more people have been killed in this country by the guns of stupid Americans in malls and schools than by any foreign idealist. I think we've always known that America is good at turning out murderous lunatics, it just seems like we've recently turned it into an art.

The motivations seem to remain the same though. This guy left a suicide note that said "Now I'll be famous", which is basically the same reason John Lennon and lots of other people were killed. The Virginia Tech guy supposedly felt tormented and outcast by society, which also isn't anything we haven't seen before. So nobody has any new ideas, they're just getting better at being more shocking about it. We don't shoot from the top of belltowers with long range rifles anymore, it's up close and personal with automatic weapons.

The only thing that all of these people have in common is that they are certainly mentally ill, and until we can figure out a way to identify and help these people instead of selling them guns and intensifying them, I don't think there will be a solution for this.

Yes this is a gun issue and not something bigger at hand :rolleyes:

Christ how fucking stupid do you have to be? The kid wrote a note saying he wanted to "go out in style" in his suicide. Could this shooting, the VT shooting, and others be problems of our violent society that we see in the media and the lack of parenting that is going on?

Oh, fuck no, it's those damn guns.

I'll just quote a good friend of mine, who is as liberal as they come so don't say he's a right wing wacko.

I saw we make gun laws as lax as possible. Think about it, if half the kids in the classrooms had a gun, the VT shooting would not have gotten as far as it had gotten. The kid walks into a class and opens fire, three or four kids shoot back. Problem solved. You want to know why people don't go psycho in Switzerland? Everybody and their dog has a gun. If you decide to go on a shooting rampage you have to think, "I'll be able to shoot one, maybe two, people before several others open fire. Is it worth it?" People in this country wouldn't go flashing their guns so much if they knew most people were packing and wouldn't think twice about laying their ass out if they wanted to fuck around.

Ineligible Persons

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:

Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.

Fugitives from justice.

Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.

Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.

Illegal aliens.

Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.

Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.

Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.

Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.

Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

more info here: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Federal/Read.aspx?id=60

Musclestang, your friend might have thought he was smart to note such a thing - but it's also a completely asinine comparison to make. It completely negates all other variable to take into consideration. Bluntly, Switzerland is not the United States. The Swiss are not Americans, their culture and society, politics, and just about everything else that could have even the slightest effect on how people operate is different. Their schools are different, their economy is different.
I've heard the "if everybody had a gun" spiel before, and never once had anybody back it up with even the slightest shred of proof or fact, just speculation - but further to draw a comparison blatantly ignoring all other possible factors and influences - it's just plain retarded.

Regardless, I do think the problem has much more to do with Society and not with gun laws. The guns, and gun laws have been around for a long time, but it's only been the past decade or so these things have begun to happen frequently.

Perhaps your friend may have been wiser to state, that instead of relaxing gun laws, we should just replace trigger happy, angsty Americans, with quiet, reserved, neutral Swiss...

I saw we make gun laws as lax as possible. Think about it, if half the kids in the classrooms had a gun, the VT shooting would not have gotten as far as it had gotten. The kid walks into a class and opens fire, three or four kids shoot back. Problem solved. You want to know why people don't go psycho in Switzerland? Everybody and their dog has a gun. If you decide to go on a shooting rampage you have to think, "I'll be able to shoot one, maybe two, people before several others open fire. Is it worth it?" People in this country wouldn't go flashing their guns so much if they knew most people were packing and wouldn't think twice about laying their ass out if they wanted to fuck around.

problems of our violent society that we see in the media.

You want your society to be LESS violent. Having everyone carrying a lethal weapon is a BRILLIANT way to do it. That's a GREAT way to have a LESS VIOLENT SOCIETY. You must be an completely bonkers.

Obviously he hasn't thought too much about the effects of a classroom full of students shooting at a guy and the bullets bouncing around.

I'd say the answer is probably in the middle somewhere. I think it is true that the VT shooter might not have gotten as far if a few people in that situation were armed. One of them could have taken him out.

Gun ownership carries a lot of responsibility. It requires training and constant practice to be proficient in the use of that firearm. Personally, I would not allow someone to have a carry permit unless they can demonstrate ongoing proficiency. That should be a big part of the process.

Having said that, how many of those gun carrying students would be skilled enough in the art of an urban firefight to keep from killing others with stray shots? It's all speculation.

The gun control crowd keeps chanting about these incidents. The mall was reported to be a gun free zone and gun control won't matter much to criminals or crazy people. anyway. They don't give a shit about the law.

Bob, you're right, and I apologize for going into the control issue, but it does fit with some of the posts, and it certainly fits with these incidents. Our brothers across the pond will always point out that the control issue would address these problems better. While I'd love to think it would, I doubt it. We have open borders, and a sometimes entirely-too-free society.

I'd be one of the first to agree that the US is a messed up place in some respects, but reality often asserts itself in a vicious and cruel way. We will always have criminals and mentally ill people in our midst. The world contains evil and warped individuals. They are NOT confined to our shores, but we have to deal with the ones who do live here.

The only true answer would be guard towers at every public place, with metal detectors and frequent random pat-downs. I doubt even our nanny state brothers across the pond would like that. (some of this is tongue in cheek; let the reader decide for himself whether or not to take offense.)

Justify this for me:

Why the fuck would you need to carry a handgun on a day to day basis?

First and foremost: Students/more people packing is NOT the answer to making sure stuff like this doesn't happen. That's just asking for more trouble. Think about that for a second: How do we combat acts of violence? We arm ourselves to the teeth! NO. You don't.

Now, I think a lot of people are examining the gun issue waaaaaay to closely here. You're placing a lot of the blame on the tool that was used to commit the action and seem to be forgetting that the tool was USED by a person. Forget the gun - what about the hand that held the gun? What about the hand that took the money for the purchase of the gun? Do you blame your pencil because you wrote the wrong answer on a test? Do you blame the nail gun because you fastened down the wrong spot?

After all is said and done, whether it was a gun or a baseball bat or a knife that killed those people, a PERSON was the reason for it.

Am I discounting the fact that this incident should prompt a closer look at gun issues? No. I think this serves as another example of why we should have better background checks performed by trained individuals. But again, this comes down to an issue about the person that the gun is going to and the person who is selling the gun more than the gun itself.

I think that this incident is going to bring up (or should) the issue of what we should be looking for in people that we know have histories of violent depression, and maybe even working out some type of symptoms list of someone who has the potential to become violent based on past and current issues in their personal, social and professional lives. If that brings gun reform then so be it, but as I've said over and over again in this post, we need to focus on the PERSON.

Bob, you're right, and I apologize for going into the control issue, but it does fit with some of the posts, and it certainly fits with these incidents. Our brothers across the pond will always point out that the control issue would address these problems better. While I'd love to think it would, I doubt it. We have open borders, and a sometimes entirely-too-free society.

:dunno:

So much for wishful thinking. I guess once a thread gets derailed you might as well go with the flow.

:popcorn:

Hey, let's blame it on Kyle. He threw fuel on the fire. :evillol:


I don't see how it wouldn't progress to the gun control issue, though. These incidents will always rekindle that discussion. I think that suggesting they'll go away with tight gun control is nothing more than a pipe dream.

Psychos and criminals will find a way to do it, regardless. It would have been just as easy to drive a pickup truck full bore into a crowd of people waiting at a bus stop and blowing himself up in the process.

I'll commit to keeping the discussion fairly civil on my end. I don't think we have to take pot shots at each other. (maybe the pun was intended, maybe not)

:popcorn:

I think that this incident is going to bring up (or should) the issue of what we should be looking for in people that we know have histories of violent depression, and maybe even working out some type of symptoms list of someone who has the potential to become violent based on past and current issues in their personal, social and professional lives. If that brings gun reform then so be it, but as I've said over and over again in this post, we need to focus on the PERSON.

Yes, we need to look at the person, but in light of how common these high profile serial murders have become in recent years, I think we need to look at a culture that fosters such an environment. Violence is rampant in the media, video games, etc...kids are highly impressionable and whether the nut job NRA right wingers admit it or not, kids ARE influenced by ultra violent media and video games. What teenage boy hasn't played Grand Theft Auto or seen hundreds of movies and TV shows glorifying violence.

United States foreign policy has become highly unilateral and militaristic in recent times, a reflection of our country's attitude towards violence. It shouldn't come as any surprise that these things are happening within our borders, and until cultural attitudes towards violence change, these things will not change.

Gun control has nothing to do with this problem as I see it. And suggesting that arming the population would curb high profile attacks is simply ridiculous. If I knew there was an army of college students packing concealed weapons, I would NEVER go to class. Can you imagine what would happen on college campuses if students were packing regularly, resolving drunken disputes with guns instead of fists? Yeah, great idea.

I've heard the "if everybody had a gun" spiel before, and never once had anybody back it up with even the slightest shred of proof or fact, just speculation - but further to draw a comparison blatantly ignoring all other possible factors and influences - it's just plain retarded.
Lots of examples out there, Kennesaw, Georgia probably being the most well known.

Guns laws vary from state to state, currently Florida has laws that favor gun ownership. Recently laws were passed that makes Concealed weapons permit ownership records exempt from the freedom of information act. This was due to a newspaper writer that thought it would be cool to print the names and addresses of everyone in the state with permits. There was also a new law passed recently that makes it unlawful for anyone, including the state of florida, to maintain a gun registry, and any lists in existance must be destroyed.

For Shotguns and Rifles, you have to be 18. At time of purchase they do a quick backgrouind check and you purchase the gun right then and there. You must be 18 to purcahse the ammo.

For handguns, you have to be 21. At the time of purchase they do a quick background check, then you can pay for the gun, you then have to come back 3 days later to pick it up, unless you have a permit inwhich case you can take possession of it immediately. You have to be 21 to buy handgun ammo.

Private party sells are pretty much unregulated, and IMO need to be cracked down on, Anyone wanting a gun can simply pick up a newspaper and pick one out of the classifieds, go buy it, and there is no record of who they are.

Kennesaw is nothing but hot air. For even though there is a "law" requiring all individuals to be armed, there is not a fine for breaking it, and nobody has even been charged with not upholding it. Further, people can decline to carry guns for many reasons, religion etc.

Comparing statistics, Somerset MA. has slightly fewer people than Kennesaw - a slightly higher violent crime rate, and a slightly lower property crime rate. It has no law requiring individuals to be armed. Roughly same population and crime rates - no similiar law.

Now I'm sure I could find many, many cities where the crime rates are nearly the same as those in Kennesaw, and I could probably find many cities where the crime rates are higher. I think arming every individual is a moot point, since we can obtain exactly the same results in other places without it.

For fun I looked up some places I have lived. Parker Co. No law such as in Kennesaw, much higher population - lower crime rates. In fact basically no violent crime compared to national or Kennesaw levels. There's quite a few places that achieve lower crime rates than Kennesaw, with no such law. It's not weapons, it's other factors.

I bet if you give everybody in Detroit a gun, they're still going to have high crime rates. The arm everybody myth is just a myth. It hasn't (and probably can't) be empirically proven.

Kennesaw is nothing but hot air. For even though there is a "law" requiring all individuals to be armed, there is not a fine for breaking it, and nobody has even been charged with not upholding it. Further, people can decline to carry guns for many reasons, religion etc.

Comparing statistics, Somerset MA. has slightly fewer people than Kennesaw - a slightly higher violent crime rate, and a slightly lower property crime rate. It has no law requiring individuals to be armed. Roughly same population and crime rates - no similiar law.

Now I'm sure I could find many, many cities where the crime rates are nearly the same as those in Kennesaw, and I could probably find many cities where the crime rates are higher. I think arming every individual is a moot point, since we can obtain exactly the same results in other places without it.

For fun I looked up some places I have lived. Parker Co. No law such as in Kennesaw, much higher population - lower crime rates. In fact basically no violent crime compared to national or Kennesaw levels. There's quite a few places that achieve lower crime rates than Kennesaw, with no such law. It's not weapons, it's other factors.

I bet if you give everybody in Detroit a gun, they're still going to have high crime rates. The arm everybody myth is just a myth. It hasn't (and probably can't) be empirically proven.I find it odd that you mention that there are too many factors to prove it works, but then in the same post compare Kennesaw to other cities with countless other factors and use that as proof it doesn't. You can easily compare Kennesaw to Kennesaw, and look at the crimes rates before and after the law. In which case, the only differing facter is the law, and the result an effect that it caused.

I find it odd that you mention that there are too many factors to prove it works, but then in the same post compare Kennesaw to other cities with countless other factors and use that as proof it doesn't.

On the contrary, I never tried to prove it doesn't work, I only showed that there are other factors than a simple hot air law that come into play regarding crime. I even stated, that if I wanted to be selective, I could find cities without the law that have higher crime rates - and suggest that this law would work for them. Of course, then I'd have to ignore every other factor besides the law.

Basically, if I say "it worked in kennesaw, so it's a sound idea for anywhere else" I'd be saying a Cruise ship would work well as a river barge, because it works well in the ocean. It's a logical fallacy. I can provide examples of cities with lower than national average crime rates all day, which have no law like that in Kennesaw. Or we can take the singular circumstances of Kennesaw, and say that their lower than national average crime rates are directly related to this law (which the thousands of other cities don't have) and thus, this law should work everywhere else. Nobody can honestly make that claim, because there isn't anything to back that claim up with.

As for comparing Kennesaw to Kennesaw, we could do that, but even so it's not so simple. For one crime rates have been falling nationally since the end of the 80s. Probably Kennesaw's demographics, and God knows what else have also been changing in the past 20 years (perhaps an improved police force? tougher sentencing for crimes? and who knows what else).
Then you have to take into account, obviously the people of Kennesaw haven't been using their weapons to stop mall shooters. In fact, I can't find any information to suggest they've actually been using their weapons to stop crime. If the lower crime rate can be linked to the law, it's more probable it has nothing to do with actual gun ownership as it does with the idea that everybody there owns guns (which is a different idea than the "if everybody had a gun, they could stop a mall shooter like this" it's more of a "if the mall shooter thought everybody had a gun, he wouldn't go shooting" - which is kind of a naive thought, considering he was obviously not well mentally, and the vast majority of us don't even need that much incentive to not go around randomly shooting people).
Further, the city only had the idea of this law, as a sort of knee jerk reaction to the total ban of firearms in some other city (I forgot where) - so there's obviously going to be some city pride coming into play in trying to make the law work (that is, it would be embarrassing to the city if they tried to make their point against a firearm ban, by requiring everybody to have a weapon and crime rose). Probably dozens of other factors to think about as well. I'd believe it's probably some combination of all of the above mentioned factors that make up for their decrease in crime rates since the 80s when this law was passed.

Further, the city only had the idea of this law, as a sort of knee jerk reaction to the total ban of firearms in some other city (I forgot where) -
I remember when Kennesaw passed that ordinance. At the time, they did say that it was doubtful anyone would be prosecuted for a violation of the ordinance. They did say that it was pretty much a statement against the Morton Grove, IL ordinance banning handguns in the village. I do not know if the Morton Grove law is still on the books, and I do not know what effect it may have had on crime in Morton Grove.

Gun prohibitions won't stop crime. Mandatory ownership might deter some criminals, at least those who would have a reasonable expectation of getting shot while committing a crime, but it won't stop determined lawbreakers and mentally ill individuals.

People control is what it will take. That means we'd have to more closely monitor and control behavior and remove the "bad machines" from society. Too many of these incidents reveal patterns of behavior that were known beforehand, but close enough attention wasn't paid to the individuals, or civil liberties prohibited those in authority from dealing with it.

How much instability does an individual need to display before the black helicopter whisks him away to the "detention center"? What if the killer incident is his first and last display of mental illness? What if he doesn't use a gun at all, but uses a vehicle to plow through a crowd?

thrasher's point about violent recreational activities, i.e., movies, video games, maybe even paintball tournaments, is well taken. I may not be as far left, and as desirous of nanny state laws and curbs on personal freedoms as some on this list, but I think we can all agree that violent role playing activities can contribute to the problem. I've never thought all the gore flicks and violent movies were such a great thing for kids to watch. As I get older, I think even less of them.

I own guns, and I know how to use them. I also know what happens when the trigger is pulled and the projectile enters living tissue. I've seen lots of human blood and broken bodies (not caused by my actions) and the carnage is real to me. I'm not so sure kids brought up on violent video games and gore-fests in the theaters can say the same.

While the law was only recently passed...well, maybe not recently, seems like it, also in Florida if you feel threatened (and obviously after the act there's proof) you can open fire. OF course there are limitations.

It's just the world and the media. The US is made to look bad, 'cause we're "the best". It's life, let us worry about us. Wanna talk about gun control, let's talk of Africa shall we. Seriously, why aren't we compared to them? Just 'cause we don't admit there's a problem? Bleh...

:rolleyes:

I'm totally surprised no one has raised the issue the shooter used an AK47 assault rifle that was allegedly stolen. Very deadly weapon in the hands of the wrong person even with only semi-automatic capability. :eek:

I'd like to see the discussion on this one. :grinyes:

:popcorn:

Was it an AK-47, or one of those cheap Chinese SKS semi-auto knock offs?

The rabid anti gunners in the mainstream media always seem to "conveniently overlook" some of the technical details, so they can make a better case for their agenda. To be fair, though, most of them honestly wouldn't have the slightest clue what the difference is, nor would they care enough to make that distinction.

The difference is that the SKS models are legal, the full auto AK models generally aren't. It's easy enough to modify the SKS models for full auto, anyway, so I guess it's not an important enough detail to get hung up on.

Was it an AK-47, or one of those cheap Chinese SKS semi-auto knock offs?

The rabid anti gunners in the mainstream media always seem to "conveniently overlook" some of the technical details, so they can make a better case for their agenda. To be fair, though, most of them honestly wouldn't have the slightest clue what the difference is, nor would they care enough to make that distinction.

The difference is that the SKS models are legal, the full auto AK models generally aren't. It's easy enough to modify the SKS models for full auto, anyway, so I guess it's not an important enough detail to get hung up on.It was originally identified as a SKS, but later corrected and said to be an AK. The owner was retired Air Force and a gun collector as well as several relatives. Although the image released to the media is pretty low quality, it does look more like an AK than a SKS.

The MAK90 is the Chinese version of the AK-47. The Chinese SKS is a knock off of the Russian SKS, not the AK-47. The Norinco (Chinese) seems to be the most common, but there are a lot of SKSs from different countries. The SKSs are far more abundant than AK-47s and involved in more incidences, however, (as you stated) they are normally identified as AK-47s, so it can be claimed that an "assault rifle" was used. The SKS is not an assault rifle.

The rumored SKS is nothing but typical hunting rifle with a standard 10 round magazine. No comparison to the regular AK47 with the 30 round magazines and high fire power. On close examination they do not look the same but I can see why there is confusion in the matter. Of course, the media has a tendency to blow things out of proportion. Hard to tell by the pics released.

http://cbs3.com/national/omaha.mall.shooting.2.606180.html

One of the most common AK47s available based on my experiences is the Century Arms AK47 assembled in Romania. Around $300-$400. Modified for US use in semi-automatic. I have one stored and secured at a local US Military Base that I use for OPFOR (Opposing Forces) training in an official capacity a few days a week. I can load 30 rounds of 7.62mm ammo in each clip and fire two clips in 20 seconds or less with a fast magazine swap. The 7.62mm round is equivalent to the .308 caliber ammunition used in typical hunting rifles which will drop a deer easily so you can imagine what it will do to a human.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y186/lizzywiz/ak47mag.jpg

Yeah, you guys said it better than I did. My post wasn't very clear.

The Norinco SKS still seems to be dirt cheap and plentiful. We can see them at gun shops around here for 100 bucks used, but I really have no use for one.

It also makes for more sensational news and better political mileage to call them AK-47s, since even the most naive listener will associate the AK-47 with terrorists and mass casualties. Granted, it's easy enough to gun down unarmed civilians with even a semi auto, and the SKS looks enough like the AK-47 when the bullets are flying and people are scrambling.



edit: have you guys found anything definitive whether or not it was an AK47 or an SKS (maybe the D model?) modified to take detachable mags? Both weapons take the same ammo and inflict the same damage. Not that it matters, and it certainly makes no difference to the dead, but it can go a long way for political purposes to keep telling people it was an AK47.

The SKS can easily be distinguished from an AK in its original form. The confusion becomes understandable when the SKS is modded. There are tons of after market accessories. The fixed 10 rd mag, can be easily removed so that high capacity mags can be used, and quickly changed. Add a 30 round mag, plus the right stock, and you have an SKS that can fool a lot of people.

The SKS gained popularity has a hunting rifle mainly because of it's price, and not because of it's abilities. It gives rednecks a cheap rifle, and the belief that they are hunting with an "assault rifle".. I've seen them used and heard the quotes "I'm gonna assault some deer" several times. The reality is that it's a poor hunting rifle. They are cheaply made, with lose tolerances, and inaccurate at long distances when not strapped to a bench or tripod. The 762 x 39 is often compared to the .308. And sometimes even referred to as a "necked down" .308. It's actually not that comparable when looking at the ballistics charts. They have comparable muzzle velocities, but the .308 has a lot more (almost double) knock down power, and a much flatter trajectory.

Damn three pages since I last left? I get to type a nice huge response, goody.

Before I start I must say I take this subject maybe too far sometimes so I'll try to be civil. I like guns. Like to shoot. I'm the type of person that likes to take the old toilet out when the new one is in, set it up, and blow it to shit with a M-16? Why? Have you ever tried it? It's fun as hell. Am I violent? No. Would I ever kill or go on a rampage? No.

The thing is there are many, many people like myself who like to shoot or collect. There are people who just collect guns!? Yes there are. I know a guy who collects AK-47s. He can tell you the difference betweent he original Russian versions and the new types that are made in the Middle East and Africa.

Anyway, there are more sain people out there than insane. So why should we punish the sane? I'll let you in on a little secret...

Guns do not kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. If you ban guns, guess who doesn't have them? That's right, law abiding citizens. Do criminals follow the law? No, that's why they're criminals. Do you really think the criminals will follow bans, restrictions, ect?

Also, if you really think banning guns or restricting them will help, you're wrong. What would have happened if the kid here had a dart gun or made Molotov cocktails to throw in the mall? Would we be talking about gasoline being too cheap to make deadly devices?

With that all said, here we go...

Regardless, I do think the problem has much more to do with Society and not with gun laws. The guns, and gun laws have been around for a long time, but it's only been the past decade or so these things have begun to happen frequently.

EXACTLY what I said. There is a MUCH bigger problem going on here. Violence is big in our society and if you say "yeah, it's guns" then you're a dumbass. Sorry, but you are.

SAW and Hostel are big favorites around colleges and young people. Lets not forget Faces of Death while we're at it. People make and watch this stuff for fun. We have sites that have crime scene photos of people that have been shot, stabbed, and other horrible things. I know in high school there was a site that many kids saw and visited where it showed a woman get hit by a train and a guy get his head cut off with a pocket knife.

What's the problem here? A kid wanted to kill himself and decided to take a few with him. He could have made a simple bomb and blew up part of the mall or ran his car into the entrace and killed a whole lot of people that way too. It's not the fact he did it with a gun. What is the problem here people? I'm sorry but as much as some of you may want to be true, picking up a gun doesn't magically release this violent chemical that makes you go crazy and shoot people up Sopranos style. As stated, something else is at work here.

You want your society to be LESS violent. Having everyone carrying a lethal weapon is a BRILLIANT way to do it. That's a GREAT way to have a LESS VIOLENT SOCIETY. You must be an completely bonkers.

Guns cause violence eh? So if we get rid of guns or just make it extra hard to get them for regular citizens, the violence goes away right? Wrong.

A personal account you can take fore truth or lie, I don't care. A friend of the family was at a club before going to Iraq and he was in his military outfit. As he was walking out he was in a huge crowd felt a "pinch" and when he got out, he saw blood everywhere and realized he had been stabbed. Who did it? Don't know? Who knew? Well he didn't know until he saw the blood and the person who did it got away. Should be ban knives now?

How about people who drive cars into people? Should be ban cars too? (http://www.times.co.nz/cms/news/2007/09/art100017779.php)

There are around 14,000 homicides in the U.S. every year and about half are with guns, most of those are handguns. The other half is knives, fist, fire, poison, and other ways you can kill people. (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html)

Yes handguns make it easier to kill people. However, they are not the only way to kill people.

Perhaps your friend may have been wiser to state, that instead of relaxing gun laws, we should just replace trigger happy, angsty Americans, with quiet, reserved, neutral Swiss...

Justify this for me:

Why the fuck would you need to carry a handgun on a day to day basis?

customer with concealed-gun permit shoots robber (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=555468)

"Oh but that's a one time thing and it doesn't work."

The right to carry may also be affecting Texas' crime rate in a positive way. Texas had a serious crime rate in the early 1990s that was 38 percent higher than the national average.

Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole.

Murder rates have dropped 52 percent, compared to 33 percent nationally.

Rapes have fallen by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally.
This experience is consistent with the experience of other states with concealed carry laws. According to University of Chicago law professor John Lott, concealed handgun laws on average reduce murder by 8.5 percent, rape by 5 percent and severe assault by 7 percent.

SOURCE (http://www.ncpa.org/press/nrsb052600.html)

"Oh but most of the time you never need the thing anyway."

It's like having a condom at a college party. I'm sure you'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

"Oh but people could misuse it and that's just one state."

Yes it's one state but it does help proove my point. Also did you read the article I posted about the guy and a car. We have no problem giving people keys to two ton hunks of metal that can go 100 mph. And when you think about it folks, with the right car, at the right speed, and at the right spot, you can kill a whole lot of people.


Now this goes back to people going crazy over this guy and killing people with guns. The question is not, did the guns do this? The question is what in the hell made this guy and the VT guy do this? Really? It's not the guns or weapons you can go out and buy. Is it the media? Are Americans just really violent in general? Does our society promote killing? What is it?

We've had guns for a long time and just in the past 20 years have people seemed to have gone off the deep end. All of a sudden it's guns? Give me a break. They've shot bullets like always, they didn't change. Something else did.

what other purpose does a gun have other than to kill or injure?
The problem is the ease with which a gun can seemingly be obtained and the ease with which injury and death is caused by its use.
Yes, if an individual so wishes, he can make a bomb, buy a knife/sword whatever but none of those are as devestating, easy to conceal and easy to use.

Blaming one or the other (guns vs society) is a rather short sighted way to look at this because both need to be addressed.

We have no problem giving people keys to two ton hunks of metal that can go 100 mph. And when you think about it folks, with the right car, at the right speed, and at the right spot, you can kill a whole lot of people.
Well, in everyday life - what's more likely to happen? Get run over by a car, or get shot? Cars are statistically far more dangerous than guns, and actually I would sooner make it much harder to get a driver's license than I would decide we need more gun laws.

Now this goes back to people going crazy over this guy and killing people with guns. The question is not, did the guns do this? The question is what in the hell made this guy and the VT guy do this? Really? It's not the guns or weapons you can go out and buy. Is it the media? Are Americans just really violent in general? Does our society promote killing? What is it?

Anytime something like this happens, immediately people start pointing fingers "movies" "video games" "rock music" "guns" etc. They never seem to take note that there are plenty of people who enjoy all of those things, and never go on shooting sprees in their life.
I'll set the VT shooting aside in my mind, because for a number of reasons I don't think it is on the same level as most mass shootings. But as for the others, we as a society have grown to feel more entitled, more in need of instant gratification - and more upset, depressed, and desperate when our expectations for life have not been met - I don't think it's any coincidence that most of these gunmen happen to fall into roughly the same age category.
America has always had a sort of "success above all else" attitude, but now we expect we can just walk into success and fulfillment, and we don't have to work hard at it. We've grown angrier as a whole I'd say, and we feel more and more helpless.
We live in a society dominated by monolithic figures. This is no longer the age of the entrepreneur going from rags to riches, or the farmer born in a log cabin being able to become president. It just doesn't happen.
We feel more alienated, more incapable, but still just as pressured to succeed as we always have. Which makes a lot of people very grumpy and desperate. And select few very violent.

Well, in everyday life - what's more likely to happen? Get run over by a car, or get shot? Cars are statistically far more dangerous than guns, and actually I would sooner make it much harder to get a driver's license than I would decide we need more gun laws.



Anytime something like this happens, immediately people start pointing fingers "movies" "video games" "rock music" "guns" etc. They never seem to take note that there are plenty of people who enjoy all of those things, and never go on shooting sprees in their life.
I'll set the VT shooting aside in my mind, because for a number of reasons I don't think it is on the same level as most mass shootings. But as for the others, we as a society have grown to feel more entitled, more in need of instant gratification - and more upset, depressed, and desperate when our expectations for life have not been met - I don't think it's any coincidence that most of these gunmen happen to fall into roughly the same age category.
America has always had a sort of "success above all else" attitude, but now we expect we can just walk into success and fulfillment, and we don't have to work hard at it. We've grown angrier as a whole I'd say, and we feel more and more helpless.
We live in a society dominated by monolithic figures. This is no longer the age of the entrepreneur going from rags to riches, or the farmer born in a log cabin being able to become president. It just doesn't happen.
We feel more alienated, more incapable, but still just as pressured to succeed as we always have. Which makes a lot of people very grumpy and desperate. And select few very violent.

You bring up some very good points, except for the last. It is not a select few who are violent. The US has one of the highest violent crime rates in the industrialized world, which is why people turn the blame towards the media in attempting to explain how such a violent culture has arisen. Yes, many ADULTS enjoy violent films, video games, etc...but adults have the mental capacity to differentiate reality from virtual reality. Children, including teenagers, have not fully developed the ability to distinguish right from wrong, aside from rote memorization and regurgitation of principles like "You shouldn't kill people" that they have taught been since preschool.

Media outlets that glorify violence serve only to reinforce the notion that violence is an acceptable means to solving problems. Kids turn on the TV and see our executive leaders touting military solutions to foreign policy issues, and then flip over to fox network and see the protagonist kick the shit out of some bad guys, then turn on GTA and blast 100 people with a shotgun and kill 100 more with a sword. It's a systemic problem that extends throughout our culture and is part of our way of life. And things won't change until attitudes towards violence as a means of solving problems change. Or maybe it won't change, who knows.:2cents:

what other purpose does a gun have other than to kill or injure?

Ummm you can have fun with them too. I mean tanks are used for war, like guns, but wouldn't you like to drive a tank too through a course where you could crush cars and such? I mean there is target and skeet shotting.

As I also stated, people collect guns as well. I mean several of my dad's friends love guns from WW2. If the price is right and they're in good condition they'll snatch it up. Yes the things were made to kill Americans, Germans, and Japanese. Yet they're good shooting guns and they want a piece of that history and to say, "I shot the same gun the American G.I. had on the beaches of Normandy. Sounds silly to some but they enjoy it.

Yes, if an individual so wishes, he can make a bomb, buy a knife/sword whatever but none of those are as devestating, easy to conceal and easy to use.

I disagree here. It sounds like a WMD here when it's not.

http://www.hoinews.com/uploadedImages/Shared/News/National_Stories/okc-bombing.jpg?w=250

That's devestating if you ask me. Were guns used? Nope, he used everyday fertilizer you could get anywhere (at the time).

Blaming one or the other (guns vs society) is a rather short sighted way to look at this because both need to be addressed.

I disagree again. As I said guns have been around a while. They fire bullets out the same way back then as they do now. They could kill then and can kill now. The thing is, did we have people going psychotic back then? Some but now it seems as if it's just everywhere now.

Guns haven't changed much in the past 20 years. Our society on the other hand appears to have.


Now 2stroke hit a nice area and I have something else to add. I think violent behavior is shown to people to be almost rewarded. Hear me out. Lets use this shooting or the VT one. This is what I've noticed from observation.

Tomorrow I go to my job and I shoot all of the people that work there, innocent people, and then maybe myself. I WILL BE IMMORTALIZED FOREVER. I know that the bigger the tragedy, the more attention I'll get. I can't just shoot anybody anymore, I have to shoot many people. That or I have to go over the top like make a bomb or do something very destructive. It doesn't matter if it's a full auto machine gun or a handgun. It doesn't matter if I just spill gas all down the hall of my school and set it on fire or build a bomb.

The more death and/or destruction, the more media attention.

My friends, family, and town will get swarmed with news people. Time, Newsweek, and every other major publication will be interviewing everybody I know. My name will be a name known throughout the world in a matter of hours. Memorials will be built in honor of the tragedy I created.

See where I'm getting at? The VT thing was bad but it was thrown in everybody's face for weeks. It's all we were forced to look at. I already know that if I fly a plane into a national monument I'll get on the front page of every newspaper in the world overnight.

Hell if I'm lucky they might even make a movie over it, whatever I decide to do.

We say violence is bad yet we show it as "entertainment" all the time and when it really happens we flash it all over the place.

If it's just as easy to make a bomb instead of getting a gun, why don't they do it?

For the sake of discussion, I am not differentiating between loss of many lives and loss of a single life. Life is life and a gun has the sole of purpose of injuring and taking lives. A bomb has the sole purpose of injuring and taking lives. In their essence they are the same, so yes, bombs aren't allowed so why should guns be?

That bomb you used as an example was made from fertiliser. The guy who made it took the substance and made it into a bomb. The fertiser itself has other purposes and uses. I'll ask again, what other use has the gun because I'm not sure that "shooting is fun" is a valid one. I mean, I;m sure blowing things up is fun too.
If you were to suddenly remove every single gun in the world, what changes? What benefits are gained from guns being in the world.

....frequent random pat-downs. I doubt even our nanny state brothers across the pond would like that.
Good Idea!
Why didn't we think of that?
Wait a minute.....

I mean, I;m sure blowing things up is fun too.
:grinyes:

That's all I got from your post and any in here. Nothing will change and why bother changing it? Making it harder will leave the good people unarmed for those rare cases (I'd rather have something and not need it then not have it and need it) and making it easier will just make things once illegal and somewhat hard to get well that much easier. People run into building with bombs on them, why would anyone else think twice on, "I can only kill 2 or 3 people till someone pulls a gun since everyone has one."

So logic on everyone owning a gun is beyond stupid and making them harder is, once again. Might as well stay the same, just enforce what exists. Like in Man of Year, we need to have actual security and not just the illusion. I flew 4 times roundtrip with a 4" blade in my on board bag. No wonder box cutters got on so easily.

And while easy to make a bomb, it's not that easy to make that kind of bomb.

So many debates are pointless. Now something to debate that would actually change something...should we or should we not revert to imperialism and take over oil rich countries? Let's see those gas prices drop! Big money big money no whammies!!!

oh the power...

i stand corrected, there are other uses for guns (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7091904.stm)

carry on.

At some point, well adjusted, law abiding citizens become so frustrated with law enforcement's inability to contain burgeoning crime that they find a way to deal with it themselves.

We have some problems down in Texas right now that can probably dovetail with this thread, since gun control would affect the outcomes. Bob, you might be able to shed better light on this, since you get better state news about it than we do up here.

Texas passed a Castle law back in Sept., which allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect property, both theirs and their neighbor's, if the neighbor has asked them to watch their property. We are talking about property; the right to protect one's person has always existed. A man shot and killed 2 burglars with a shotgun when he went outside to stop them. He had already called 9-11, but he was determined not to let the thieves escape before the cavalry got there. He went outside and gunned them down. They were robbing his neighbor's house. He said they came on his property.

Not too long after that, a property owner became so fed up with thieves robbing his storage yard (they were bringing trailers and hauling off the goods) that he went to the yard to watch for activity. While he was there, he hid and watched a thief go through the yard to look for things to steal. The thief saw him and came toward him. The man told him to stop, he did not, and the man shot him with a .44 mag. The thief died at hospital.

Conjecture on another forum is that they will not be prosecuted under Texas law. Let that one sink in, remembering that property crime has risen so high down there that average citizens are now killing thieves, and the law says they can do it.

Bob, if anything I posted needs to be corrected or clarified, feel free to do so. Let me know.

here are some links:

http://www.click2houston.com/newsar...826/detail.html (http://www.ford-trucks.com/lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.click2houston.com%2Fnewsarch ive%2F14597826%2Fdetail.html)

http://www.click2houston.com/newsar...086/detail.html (http://www.ford-trucks.com/lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.click2houston.com%2Fnewsarch ive%2F14731086%2Fdetail.html)


Guys, don't all start screaming about vigilantism, or call the citizens all kinds of names. Let's discuss vigilantism, but let's keep it civil. You don't live down there and you don't know what they are dealing with. Neither do I, but I correspond with people who do.

At some point, well adjusted, law abiding citizens become so frustrated with law enforcement's inability to contain burgeoning crime that they find a way to deal with it themselves.

We have some problems down in Texas right now that can probably dovetail with this thread, since gun control would affect the outcomes. Bob, you might be able to shed better light on this, since you get better state news about it than we do up here.

Texas passed a Castle law back in Sept., which allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect property, both theirs and their neighbor's, if the neighbor has asked them to watch their property. We are talking about property; the right to protect one's person has always existed. A man shot and killed 2 burglars with a shotgun when he went outside to stop them. He had already called 9-11, but he was determined not to let the thieves escape before the cavalry got there. He went outside and gunned them down. They were robbing his neighbor's house. He said they came on his property.

Not too long after that, a property owner became so fed up with thieves robbing his storage yard (they were bringing trailers and hauling off the goods) that he went to the yard to watch for activity. While he was there, he hid and watched a thief go through the yard to look for things to steal. The thief saw him and came toward him. The man told him to stop, he did not, and the man shot him with a .44 mag. The thief died at hospital.

Conjecture on another forum is that they will not be prosecuted under Texas law. Let that one sink in, remembering that property crime has risen so high down there that average citizens are now killing thieves, and the law says they can do it.

Bob, if anything I posted needs to be corrected or clarified, feel free to do so. Let me know.

here are some links:

http://www.click2houston.com/newsar...826/detail.html (http://www.ford-trucks.com/lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.click2houston.com%2Fnewsarch ive%2F14597826%2Fdetail.html)

http://www.click2houston.com/newsar...086/detail.html (http://www.ford-trucks.com/lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.click2houston.com%2Fnewsarch ive%2F14731086%2Fdetail.html)


Guys, don't all start screaming about vigilantism, or call the citizens all kinds of names. Let's discuss vigilantism, but let's keep it civil. You don't live down there and you don't know what they are dealing with. Neither do I, but I correspond with people who do.
xhtRr4vwo6Q&NR

I don't have a problem with it. I hate fucking thieves.

I guess this could also bring up the topic of immigration considering the two thieves were illegal aliens. I don't think they broke into the house to pick produce.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315477,00.html

Appearently this individual had some serious mental issues.
Just another prime example of how our psychiatric medicine is not working. :screwy:


.....what a fuckin looser, and good riddance to him! :wave:

Sounds like psychiatric-malpractice (http://www.power2u.org/articles/legal/malpractice.html)to me, not a gun control issue.

Granted nutjobs should not be able to pick up guns so easily,
but the problem is, you can buy them just about anywhere, not much controling the 10+ million guns on the streets IMO.

Wow, I just heard on the news another mall shooting in Ohio.....
The news media sucks about as bad as these situations.

Just another reason not to goto the mall. :disappoin

I don't have a problem with it. I hate fucking thieves.

You and me both. These guys were class "A" scumbags. AND I would have been happy to see them gunned down in the street by the police when they arrived.

But the issue I can see is: even if the thieves are worthless individuals, do we justify killing human beings to defend property? Is property worth more than a human life? When does it cross the line?

I'd say the state of Texas thinks it's OK to gun down thieves, especially since the city of Houston has its collective head up its ass. It will be interesting to see what the Grand Jury has to say in these cases. There are reports that the autopsy says the 2 illegals were shot in the back.

You and me both. These guys were class "A" scumbags. AND I would have been happy to see them gunned down in the street by the police when they arrived.

But the issue I can see is: even if the thieves are worthless individuals, do we justify killing human beings to defend property? Is property worth more than a human life? Is it up to the citizenry to perform the state's duties as judge, jury, and executioner? Where is the line between vigilantism and acceptable conduct? Does that line exist any more now that Texas has passed the Castle law?

I'd say the state of Texas thinks it's OK to gun down thieves, especially since the city of Houston has its collective head up its ass. It will be interesting to see what the Grand Jury has to say in these cases. There are reports that the autopsy says the 2 illegals were shot in the back.

I've read all about that case, and listened to the 911 call several times. Around 6 minutes into the 911 call, before the guy went outside, he says "I'm gonna fuckin kill em" to the dispatcher. Then he goes outside, tells the thieves to stick em up, they run towards the street in a pattern that does bring them closer to him, and he blasts them with his shotgun. That both of them were shot in the back is the telling story here...if they were coming towards him and were only 7 feet away, as he claims, there is no way he would have had time to reload and shoot both of them. Not to mention that they would have been shot in the front, not the back.

In commenting on the law, I am simply astounded...that Texas law now authorizes the execution of criminals by civilians for theft of property is disgusting beyond belief. It's simply shocking that an entire culture of people in this day and age place the value of material objects over that of human life. We might as well just resort to martial law if this is the sort of behavior that is considered acceptable.

In commenting on the law, I am simply astounded...that Texas law now authorizes the execution of criminals by civilians for theft of property is disgusting beyond belief. It's simply shocking that an entire culture of people in this day and age place the value of material objects over that of human life. We might as well just resort to martial law if this is the sort of behavior that is considered acceptable.
I agree with you, BUT, there are a lot of things going on in that area that we probably can't imagine. (well, I can't, anyway) People tell me that property crime is rampant, with repeat break-ins, constant thefts, and frustrated citizenry beyond belief.

On top of that, Houston has declared itself a de facto sanctuary city, and has said it will not cooperate with federal authorities for Homeland security when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants. It's not much of a stretch to see where that ends up. I think we're looking at it.

One guy tells me that copper theft is so bad down there, that they hit schools, businesses, and hospitals, disrupting communications and services. He tells me the replacement costs are soaring, and people have just flat had it. I can't say how much of it is true; it seems to me that we'd hear more about it if it was that bad. Then again, why would mainstream media report things that would only reinforce what some of us have been saying all along about the state of affairs that exists due to the massive influx of illegals, a number of them criminals?

I can't say that I condone killing for property, but if it takes the hard core, determined criminals out of circulation, then maybe it has to be. God help us all when it comes to that.

If some of the info I get from the south is crap, I'm sure some of our Texas members can set the record straight.

Well, if we can get back to the issue at hand (which is not a weapons control debate) :rolleyes: I went to the mall today to get some food and decided to take a few pictures of the things people have brought with the camera on my phone.


http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t60/SL3000gt/Westroads3.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t60/SL3000gt/Westroads2.jpg

http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t60/SL3000gt/Westroads1.jpg

Sorry, man.

It looks like they're coming out of the woodwork:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/church.shooting/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/09/blogger.threat.ap/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

Texas passed a Castle law back in Sept., which allows homeowners to use deadly force to protect property, both theirs and their neighbor's, if the neighbor has asked them to watch their property. We are talking about property; the right to protect one's person has always existed. A man shot and killed 2 burglars with a shotgun when he went outside to stop them. He had already called 9-11, but he was determined not to let the thieves escape before the cavalry got there. He went outside and gunned them down. They were robbing his neighbor's house. He said they came on his property.
Not too long after that, a property owner became so fed up with thieves robbing his storage yard (they were bringing trailers and hauling off the goods) that he went to the yard to watch for activity. While he was there, he hid and watched a thief go through the yard to look for things to steal. The thief saw him and came toward him. The man told him to stop, he did not, and the man shot him with a .44 mag. The thief died at hospital.

That we as a society will stoop to murder to prevent burglary is a sure indication of just how violent and aggressive we are as a society. Anybody who supports these kind of actions, really cannot make any claim against the idea that we as a society endorse violence as a way to solve problems. But I suppose that is the American way these days.
I don't feel that society would be at a great loss if those two killers were locked up for a few decades to think about how they value material possessions over a human lives. Absolute scum.
Colorado BTW has a somewhat similar law, which unfortunately has also been abused, in an even more heinous manner, but I don't feel like digging up the particulars ATM.

On the mall subject:
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t60/SL3000gt/Westroads2.jpg

Is that caption creepy or what?

Oh goody more replies here I go with another long post...

If it's just as easy to make a bomb instead of getting a gun, why don't they do it?

Lazy maybe? I can go to the gas station, fill a glass bottle, put a rag in it, light it, throw it, and run like hell. Sounds simple enough but most don't. It's easier to pull a trigger.

In their essence they are the same, so yes, bombs aren't allowed so why should guns be?

Apples and Oranges. How many bombs are made to destory and kill? Almost all of them. How many guns are used to kill people? Not that many. The only killing most guns do are for hunting.

I'll ask again, what other use has the gun because I'm not sure that "shooting is fun" is a valid one. I mean, I'm sure blowing things up is fun too.

Yes it is. I mean do you know there are shooting sports in the Olympics? Not to mention there are clubs for that sort of thing.

http://tulsaredcastlegunclub.com/

Look I'm sure you don't see the point, many people don't, but you can use a gun for fun. As I've said, I love to shoot targets and bust clay disk. YOU probably don't see it but others do. I'll say it now, I don't get hunting and don't care for it. Really think it's a waste of time for deer meat when cow is better but that's me. However, I know several people that love to do it and that's fine for them. It doesn't bother me and whatever floats their boat.

If you were to suddenly remove every single gun in the world, what changes? What benefits are gained from guns being in the world.

As stated above many people couldn't hunt or shoot for recreational purposes. Look, I live in Oklahoma so I know many, many, many, many, many, many people with guns. Most of them hunt but I'd say 25% shoot recreationally.

So with that many people is there as much death, doom, and gloom that you preach? No.

I can think of one murder in the past coulple of years that people in town knew and backs your argument. The guy caught his wife in bed with another guy so he grabbed the gun in the closet and shot them both and then almost shot himself (police talked him out of it).

That's it. All of the other murders were people running with drug rings. Do you really think the law is at the top of their list when you're in that kind of life? No. When you smuggle meth and/or buy it and sell it and then you short somebody, you'll probably get knocked off. But that's a different debate and subject.

I mean how many people hunt in the U.S.? It's around 12 million every year. How many people are killed by guns? Around 7,000 maybe? See the difference? Most guns don't kill people my friend.

That we as a society will stoop to murder to prevent burglary is a sure indication of just how violent and aggressive we are as a society.

Uh huh. Well here's a little bit of advice...

if people wouldn't go fuck around with other people's shit maybe we wouldn't have these problems?

In Oklahoma we have the "make my day" law. If somebody enters your house without your concent, you can legally shoot them. Why not?

Lets break this down for the people who think this is just barbaric when it's not. Do you go fucking with a rattle snake? No? Why? Oh it'll bite you. Ok. What about at the zoo. You see a lion in his cage and you can't go any farther. What happens when people enter the cage? Sometimes nothing but most of the other times when people enter the cages at the zoo they get fucked up. Why?

YOU DO NOT GO FUCKING WITH SHIT YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS FUCKING WITH.

I would never go break into somebody's house or get on their property and start messing with stuff? Why? I know better and I also know I'm messing with something I shouldn't. Could somebody shoot me for it? Maybe but maybe somebody will just yell, "get the hell out of here!" I really don't want to risk it.

"OH MY GOD THIS IS MADNESS! We might as well go to anarchy as we're such a violent, godless, governmentless society!"

Seriously stop whining. Were you planning on the robbing that person next week and now that you know they'll shoot you you're having second thoughts? So what if they shot at a guy messing with their stuff? Here's the real question, what the fuck were those guys thinking going onto that guy's property in the first place? Guess what, if they wouldn't have done it, they'd still be alive.

Same thing with the tiger cage. Do you go in a tiger cage at the zoo? No. Why? You'll probably get killed. Do you go into somebody's house or go running around their property without their concent? No. Why? Well they could shoot you.

Now before you go shouting, think about this. IF the theifs would have said, "gee maybe we shouldn't go breaking into people's stuff and should obey the law" then they'd probably be around still. Oh wait, I forgot, they're the innocent ones here...

so by your own admission, even though filling a bottle with petrol and setting it alight is easy, getting a gun and pulling the trigger is easier?

If you want to talk percentages and statistics, how many incidents where a gun was discharged with the intent of killing, has the victim's died?
How many of those deaths was the result of a single gun?
How many other multiple deaths were caused by a singular event/cause/device?

Shooting as a recreational sport and it being an Olympic event.
I'm pretty sure that if all guns in the world were suddenly to be destroyed for the good of mankind, the AOC would back that decision.

By the way, please don't take this as what my position on guns and gun control are. I'm just asking questions as they come to me that I myself can't think of a valid enough answer to.

That's a pretty good rule Muscletang, one rule, "don't fuck with my shit!". :thumbsup:

I wouldn't think it's easy to shoot to kill another man usless you are incapable of understanding the consequenses, legal or moral.

We need crazies control, not gun control. :grinyes:

Now we have another shooting at a Colarado church, the kid had an assault rifle with over 1000 rounds, plus a handgun. :disappoin

Oh goody more replies here I go with another long post...



Lazy maybe? I can go to the gas station, fill a glass bottle, put a rag in it, light it, throw it, and run like hell. Sounds simple enough but most don't. It's easier to pull a trigger.



Apples and Oranges. How many bombs are made to destory and kill? Almost all of them. How many guns are used to kill people? Not that many. The only killing most guns do are for hunting.



Yes it is. I mean do you know there are shooting sports in the Olympics? Not to mention there are clubs for that sort of thing.

http://tulsaredcastlegunclub.com/

Look I'm sure you don't see the point, many people don't, but you can use a gun for fun. As I've said, I love to shoot targets and bust clay disk. YOU probably don't see it but others do. I'll say it now, I don't get hunting and don't care for it. Really think it's a waste of time for deer meat when cow is better but that's me. However, I know several people that love to do it and that's fine for them. It doesn't bother me and whatever floats their boat.



As stated above many people couldn't hunt or shoot for recreational purposes. Look, I live in Oklahoma so I know many, many, many, many, many, many people with guns. Most of them hunt but I'd say 25% shoot recreationally.

So with that many people is there as much death, doom, and gloom that you preach? No.

I can think of one murder in the past coulple of years that people in town knew and backs your argument. The guy caught his wife in bed with another guy so he grabbed the gun in the closet and shot them both and then almost shot himself (police talked him out of it).

That's it. All of the other murders were people running with drug rings. Do you really think the law is at the top of their list when you're in that kind of life? No. When you smuggle meth and/or buy it and sell it and then you short somebody, you'll probably get knocked off. But that's a different debate and subject.

I mean how many people hunt in the U.S.? It's around 12 million every year. How many people are killed by guns? Around 7,000 maybe? See the difference? Most guns don't kill people my friend.



Uh huh. Well here's a little bit of advice...

if people wouldn't go fuck around with other people's shit maybe we wouldn't have these problems?

In Oklahoma we have the "make my day" law. If somebody enters your house without your concent, you can legally shoot them. Why not?

Lets break this down for the people who think this is just barbaric when it's not. Do you go fucking with a rattle snake? No? Why? Oh it'll bite you. Ok. What about at the zoo. You see a lion in his cage and you can't go any farther. What happens when people enter the cage? Sometimes nothing but most of the other times when people enter the cages at the zoo they get fucked up. Why?

YOU DO NOT GO FUCKING WITH SHIT YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS FUCKING WITH.

I would never go break into somebody's house or get on their property and start messing with stuff? Why? I know better and I also know I'm messing with something I shouldn't. Could somebody shoot me for it? Maybe but maybe somebody will just yell, "get the hell out of here!" I really don't want to risk it.

"OH MY GOD THIS IS MADNESS! We might as well go to anarchy as we're such a violent, godless, governmentless society!"

Seriously stop whining. Were you planning on the robbing that person next week and now that you know they'll shoot you you're having second thoughts? So what if they shot at a guy messing with their stuff? Here's the real question, what the fuck were those guys thinking going onto that guy's property in the first place? Guess what, if they wouldn't have done it, they'd still be alive.

Same thing with the tiger cage. Do you go in a tiger cage at the zoo? No. Why? You'll probably get killed. Do you go into somebody's house or go running around their property without their concent? No. Why? Well they could shoot you.

Now before you go shouting, think about this. IF the theifs would have said, "gee maybe we shouldn't go breaking into people's stuff and should obey the law" then they'd probably be around still. Oh wait, I forgot, they're the innocent ones here...

Thank you. You have just illustrated the mentality that is so pervasive in this country, the reason that violence is so rampant. You believe that you have the right to resort to violence, in this case homicide, in order to solve problems? When people, and a lot of people at that, openly consider the value of material objects to be greater than that of a human life, it is symptomatic of problems much deeper that simply gun control.

Thank you. You have just illustrated the mentality that is so pervasive in this country, the reason that violence is so rampant. You believe that you have the right to resort to violence, in this case homicide, in order to solve problems? When people, and a lot of people at that, openly consider the value of material objects to be greater than that of a human life, it is symptomatic of problems much deeper that simply gun control.
I don't have all the answers. In fact, maybe I don't have any of the answers, but it's obvious something isn't working. Repeat offenders are not being taken out of circulation, no matter how many times they're caught. It looks like the imports have figured out how easy it is to steal stuff here in the States.

Career criminals are stealing with impunity and law abiding citizens have to just bend over and take it in most places. These people obey the law, leave everybody else's shit alone, as Kyle says, and they listen to the authorities for the most part.

The average Joe works his ass off to make a reasonably comfortable existence for himself and then the hard core scumbags keep taking it away. The good guys watch the crime rate go up, watch property theft go through the roof, and don't see anyone effectively stopping it. They're stretched, and they don't know what to do. After a while, they lose faith in law enforcement's ability to keep up with it, as it certainly appears that they can not.

They don't know what else to do, but it's an irrefutable fact that even the most hard core, determined thieves don't steal any more once they're dead. They'd have a hard time stealing if we started lopping off a few arms here and there, too, but they'd be more pissed about it.

I'm appalled that it comes to this, but I'm not surprised. I don't think any of us are. What would you do for a fix to the rampant problem? What would you do if you lived in one of those areas where you were robbed blind more than once while you weren't home? Would you be able to keep replacing everything that keeps getting stolen, once your homeowner's insurance is cancelled for all those claims?

I'm not giving you a hard time; I'm interested in dialog. I don't think it's right to kill for property, either, but I'm safe and warm up here in the sticks, and we don't have the kind of crime they do down in those parts of Texas.

I don't have all the answers. In fact, maybe I don't have any of the answers, but it's obvious something isn't working. Repeat offenders are not being taken out of circulation, no matter how many times they're caught. It looks like the imports have figured out how easy it is to steal stuff here in the States.

Career criminals are stealing with impunity and law abiding citizens have to just bend over and take it in most places. These people obey the law, leave everybody else's shit alone, as Kyle says, and they listen to the authorities for the most part.

The average Joe works his ass off to make a reasonably comfortable existence for himself and then the hard core scumbags keep taking it away. The good guys watch the crime rate go up, watch property theft go through the roof, and don't see anyone effectively stopping it. They're stretched, and they don't know what to do. After a while, they lose faith in law enforcement's ability to keep up with it, as it certainly appears that they can not.

They don't know what else to do, but it's an irrefutable fact that even the most hard core, determined thieves don't steal any more once they're dead. They'd have a hard time stealing if we started lopping off a few arms here and there, too, but they'd be more pissed about it.

I'm appalled that it comes to this, but I'm not surprised. I don't think any of us are. What would you do for a fix to the rampant problem? What would you do if you lived in one of those areas where you were robbed blind more than once while you weren't home? Would you be able to keep replacing everything that keeps getting stolen, once your homeowner's insurance is cancelled for all those claims?

I'm not giving you a hard time; I'm interested in dialog. I don't think it's right to kill for property, either, but I'm safe and warm up here in the sticks, and we don't have the kind of crime they do down in those parts of Texas.

I'm no stranger to property theft. I have had my Maxima vandalized several times, keyed, windows smashed, etc...and every time it makes my blood boil. If somebody were to touch my Corvette, man oh man, I can't imagine, but I wouldn't want to be around me when I found out. Several people close to me have had their cars stolen, houses broken into, the list goes on. I know what it feels like to be so mad that you want to shoot somebody. But that doesn't mean that you can.

I'm not chastising law abiding citizens, or applauding criminals who repeatedly offend and take advantage of others. I am disgusted by people who think that they have a right to take things that do not belong to them, and I of course think they need to be punished. In jail. Removed from society. Of course there are some that are going to reoffend, that is always going to happen, but that option is far superior to an alternative involving homicide.

What if a law were to be introduced that allows citizens to shoot at cars that are driving recklessly? The same logic behind the Castle law would apply here, only that reckless drivers actually pose a threat to your life. What about people making illegal right turns? Can you shoot at them? You can imagine where I'm going with this...the door has already been opened wide. IMO the castle law steps WAY over the slippery slope in authorizing citizens to execute criminals w/o fair trial. What happens if a citizen kills a person who is not involved in a crime but is an unfortunate bystander that appears to be involved? There are all sorts of reasons why any law like this should not exist, not the least of which is that it defies common sense and reason.

As I said earlier, the whole point is that there ARE people who believes laws like this to be completely acceptable. It shouldn't come as any surprise that serial murders are so common nowadays. If such laws are being passed and citizens are voting for officials who pass these laws, then there is an undeniable public discourse that supports INCREASING violence as a means to solve problems. That is what really troubles me. As horrifying as the Castle law is itself, it is merely a superficial representation of the REAL problems that we will be facing in the future in the US.:2cents:

Now we have another shooting at a Colarado church, the kid had an assault rifle with over 1000 rounds, plus a handgun. :disappoin

And was stopped by a CITIZEN, legally carrying a concealed handgun. A volunteer security guard for the church.

Frankly, musclestang, if I had to choose between not having a TV and murdering somebody - I'd rather not have the TV.

That you can justify committing a greater more heinous crime to stop a lesser pettier crime is absolutely outrageous.

thrasher, I agree with you. Where does it stop? I actually said the same things you did on another forum, where the guys from Texas want to give these guys medals. They wouldn't have cared if Horn chased the thieves down the street and killed them in the middle of an intersection. "String 'em up, it'll teach 'em a lesson."

I wonder if it's some grand plot to let the citizens control what the government can't. Saves time and money on trials, and clears jail space. Sounds like something straight out of a movie, doesn't it? A news write-up says the whole thing was witnessed by an undercover cop who "just got there". How do we know he wasn't there the whole time and saw a way to get rid of a couple of hard cores, without all the hassle of formalities?

If this happens enough, it may have a chilling effect on the crime rate. Sad way to keep order, but career criminals and psychos never will give a shit about the law.