Ex-cop murders theatregoer....isn't it nice that we let people carry guns around? (Page 3)

davidk14: .

Seriously....

We need to enforce existing laws regarding gun ownership. If we need to fine tune some of the laws, so be it. But taking guns away from law abiding citizens....that's just crazy.

.

Captain Canada: But why to law abiding citizens need this guns and i am not talking about hunting rifles that are purchased just to hunt game.
Why does Joe Public need a gun ?

dhasty1949: Because good laws are not enforced and Joe Public wants to protect his home and family when the cops arent around to do it for him.

davidk14: .

I have a right to freedom. I have a right to liberty. I have a right to protect myself, my family, and my property. Police time response is not what it should be especially in the event of natural disaster or worse, they..the police, will not be able to protect me or the ones I love. It is my responsibility to protect myself and my family. The 2nd amendment protects and guarantees me the right under the law that I am able to do so.

.

Captain Canada: And so does every other man and woman in the free world
but we don't carry guns to protect our families and property with guns.
We have alarm systems and the police like you do,however you chose to hide behind the 2nd amendment
To you have bigger freedom with a gun?
Do you have more liberty with a gun?
Do you feel important if you carry a gun ?
Or are you just a coward to face reality without a gun?

davidk14: .

A wise man once said...

Blaming the wolf would not help the sheep much. The sheep must learn not to fall into the clutches of the wolf.

We have learned that a great self defense is the best offense. You might want to think about that.

.
.

Captain Canada: None have responded yet to the
To you have bigger freedom with a gun?
Do you have more liberty with a gun?
Do you feel important if you carry a gun ?
Or are you just a coward to face reality without a gun?

davesdatahut: Guns do not increase freedom. But they do increase some people's peace of mind, and may help defend their territory. And that is not such a terrible thing, as long as the means to that peace of mind and defense is used responsibly. The problem is that our laws are far too inadequate to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of people who should not have them in their hands.
The gun lobby appears to have no concept of this. It seems bent on preserving, not people's right to have guns, but their potential to be gunned down in public.

Captain Canada: Quick question and i am done with this topic
Do banks in the USA rely on gun carrying guards to save keep their money or do they use technology such as alarm systems to guard the money?

davesdatahut: To answer your next to last question (as the last one requires no response), it is my strong belief that many cowards hide behind their guns, as a substitute for using their reasoning skills to resolve conflicts. But they will deny this.

dhasty1949: The right to bear arms does not make make gun ownership mandatory. It is a matter of free choice.Banks have substantially more assets than the average household and Canadian criminals must be far more amiable and reasonable than their American counterparts.

Wild__: Study finds firearms may be inanimate objects?

"A scientific study that concluded the day before Christmas Eve found that guns may actually be inanimate objects with no will of their own. The highly controversial results were published today in Scientific Log, a leading journal in the scientific community, and has already drawn disbelief and criticism from top gun control proponents."

http://stupend.us/2014/01/23/study-finds-firearms-may-be-inanimate-objects/

lori100: This can't end well------------------U.S. Postal Service Announces Giant Ammo Purchase

infowars.com

Kit Daniels | Post Office joins other federal agencies stockpiling two billion rounds of ammo.

LiptonCambell: I gotta simple question- what changes, spefically, are you proposing dave? Not just "more regulations"- what changes? And do you believe it would have stopped this crime? Do you believe it will stop all gun crime?

lori100: Why does the Post Office need ammo?

davesdatahut: Lipton, I have always been for stronger and more frequent background checks to at least make a good attempt, on a regular basis, to discern if someone has demonstrated some level of instability such that allowing them to possess a deadly weapon might not be to the benefit of society. This is not an unfair burden to accept in exchange for being able to own an item that is designed primarily to kill or maim.
How many guns this may keep out of the hands of unstable people, I do not know. But if it helps stop a few murders like the one in that theater, I do not see how anyone could oppose that.
Of course, you may see things differently if you support organizations like the NRA, who appear to be all about protecting people's ability to get gunned down in public.
I also have major problems with concealed carry permits, but we can deal with that another day.

davesdatahut: Presumably, the postal service needs ammo when they are delivering things that are highly sensitive or valuable. They probably have security guards in those cases. There also are postal service police who inspect postal crimes. I'm guessing they carry weapons.

LiptonCambell: >>> But if it helps stop a few murders like the one in that theater, I do not see how anyone could oppose that.

But you cannot even prove it stops any murders? You don't know if the law you are insisting become more intrusive and have harsher restrictions EVEN WORKS?

Shouldn't that be an important point to consider?

Did the man in the story you presented pass legal checks?

dhasty1949: A disturbed young man set fire to a disco in NYC some years back and killed about 80 people. Do we need background checks on people purchasing matches and lighters? Should it be illegal to be in possession of two sticks to rub together unless you have a "Stick" permit?
Criminals will get their weapons on the black market or steal them from others. All that gun control legislation has done is just make it more difficult for the law abiding citizen to arm themselves. So far as what the post office needs with all the ammunition is anybody's guess. Perhaps to guard all the junk mail?

davesdatahut: Lipton, I can't know the answers to your questions....of course I don't know how many murders my ideas might help stop. Nor do I know the exact place where controls become intrusion.
But what I can and do know is that the rational members of the gun owning world have no problem with strong background checks because they understand that if they cut off gun ownership to unstable people, that is a GOOD thing, It is presumed that such action will help reduce some gun violence because it simply makes sense that fewer guns in the hands of nuts equal the good chance of fewer gun-related deaths. It also will make the case for gun ownership for rational and stable people stronger.
Unfortunately, all we hear are questions with no answers thrown up by the harder-core gun owners who have this fear that the ooga booga government is gonna swipe their weapons under the dark cloak of night if they give even one inch in compromise.
At the same time, the NRA and the like seem to have NO interest in doing anything but preserving the ability of citizens to be gunned down in public. This is what they are doing with their blind, arrogant refusal to even discuss some modicum of controls on this item that is built and designed to kill or maim.
Lipton, I am open to alternatives ideas that preserve the right of citizens to defend their homes, but also make the world a bit safer. But all I hear are questions about how this control might be bad and that control might be bad and how all controls are bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad bad. I hear no other solutions. Just a refusal to compromise.
In other words.....you got a better idea?

davesdatahut: Dhasty, I am not sure what the anecdote about matches has to do with guns, other than to serve as a red herring on the issue. Matches have many uses and are not designed to kill or maim. Guns are.
Now let's get back to the issue at hand, without canards and distractions.

Wild__: What you call a "red herring" I call an analogy or a comparison, if you would.

How about if we use the national guard to invade and occupy the crime ridden ghettos of every major city, seizing guns from gang members and drug dealers?

But that will never happen despite the benefits to society, specifically those who dwell in poverty. Why? Because the anti-gun lobbyists rely on blood in order to propagate their agenda: chipping away at the rights of lawful firearm owners one law at a time.

The above statement is an opinion from an independent centrist residing in the ultra liberal state of California, where the politicians know better than to put their anti gun agenda out to the voters.

dhasty1949: The red herring here is that practically any thing can be used to harm others regardless of it's design and intended purpose. The confusion is the blurring of method and motive. Guns are a method, the same as knives, swords, spears, clubs, broken bottles and bare hands, Not all killing is murder, If there had been no murders until the invention of guns then I would be a solid advocate of eliminating them entirely.

Wild__: dhasty... Did you know in California:

A) its illegal to use steel toe boots as a weapon, no provision for self defense?
B) all blows to the head are illegal without exception for self defense?

The right to self defense is slowly and quietly being regulated out of existence.

dhasty1949: As a 30 year resident of California little surprises me when it comes to our legislators. The wording of a bill for "Nut Control" would make for some interesting reading and i am confident that the Hollywood script writers would up to the task.