The Lunatics Rule The Asylum

What would the “founding fathers“ think? They intended us to bear arms: Single shot muskets with bayonets. Nothing more. Picture that scenario in a night club.

gringal wrote:

lunateak wrote:Just as in the Cold War follow the money.

Just speculating here, like we all are:  I think it was about hate, not money.
Naturally, Trump said it was about Islamic terrorism.
Only the dead shooter knows for sure.

Oops, I was referring to the gun culture in general not this particular shooting.

Civilized world?  Look at France, Spain, Israel, Egypt, MEXICO, etc; Aren't those civilized countries?  There is no civilized world.

Let's talk about the country we are living in.  Would you say Mexico is a civilized society?  I have lived in Mexico for over a decade.  Shootings happen all the time here.  Whole pueblo's are at the mercy of the criminals, be they narco, gangs, police, or military.  90% of the time the bad guys get away with murder here.  

If 1% of the people in that night club were legally armed, there is a strong possibility that a lot less people would have died.

Jeeesh, what a bunch of naive bleeding hearts on this board.  Y'all think the world is sweet, safe place to live.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VM2eLhvsSM

IT IS NOT!!!!!!!

The only thing keeping us free is that there are more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns.  Take away the guns from the good guys and all you are left with is bad guys with guns.  Kind of like it is in Mexico.

Why not talk about Canada, GB, most other European countries and the Netherlands? Instead you want to make comparisons with countries like Egypt and Israel??? This won't likely go anywhere. Carry on......

There is no place in the civilized world that has the kinds and numbers of mass shootings that take place where people gather for peaceful activities. How much more liberal would you like the gun laws in the U.S. to be? How many more "good guys" need to have guns before people in the U.S. will be safe? Does everyone need to strap on a gun before going out the door?
The world is a dangerous place and people who think like you with your ammosexual fantasies will not make it safer.

I never carried a gun to protect you LadyO, or anyone else.  I only want to be able to protect myself from people that would hurt me. That is my right in the USA.  

If you want to rely on the police to protect you that is you choice.  I chose to be able to protect myself.  I jumped thru all the legal hoops to do so.  

LadyO, you really show your complete lack of understanding of this issue when you conclude with stupid, cutting, comments and think this is all about macho "ammosexual fantasies".  I realize that this is a very divisive topic and nobody is going to change their opinion.  Just try to respect each others opinions.

I have been in situations when I was carrying where I turned around and walked away while a crime was occurring.  Not my job.

Cbob, as a Canadian, your opinion on USA gun laws carries little weight beyond this thread.  Just as my opinion on Canadian or Mexican gun laws really doesn't matter.  Do a little research, go ahead and search online for all the mass killing in the countries you mentioned.  You might be surprised how many there are, even in Canada.   

Personally, I think gun purchasing laws should be a lot tighter including mandatory firearms training and complete background checks.  Then I can purchase that UZI I want to play with in the desert.

I rest my case.

Now, I shall return to ignoring Playaboy's posts as I have learned over and over is by far the best thing to do.

Playaboy wrote:...you really show your complete lack of understanding of this issue when you conclude with stupid, cutting, comments and think this is all about macho "ammosexual fantasies".
.....
Personally, I think gun purchasing laws should be a lot tighter including mandatory firearms training and complete background checks.  Then I can purchase that UZI I want to play with in the desert.

I know I understand better now.

Playaboy wrote:I never carried a gun to protect you LadyO, or anyone else.  I only want to be able to protect myself from people that would hurt me. That is my right in the USA.  

If you want to rely on the police to protect you that is you choice.  I chose to be able to protect myself.  I jumped thru all the legal hoops to do so.  

LadyO, you really show your complete lack of understanding of this issue when you conclude with stupid, cutting, comments and think this is all about macho "ammosexual fantasies".  I realize that this is a very divisive topic and nobody is going to change their opinion.  Just try to respect each others opinions.

I have been in situations when I was carrying where I turned around and walked away while a crime was occurring.  Not my job.

Cbob, as a Canadian, your opinion on USA gun laws carries little weight beyond this thread.  Just as my opinion on Canadian or Mexican gun laws really doesn't matter.  Do a little research, go ahead and search online for all the mass killing in the countries you mentioned.  You might be surprised how many there are, even in Canada.   

Personally, I think gun purchasing laws should be a lot tighter including mandatory firearms training and complete background checks.  Then I can purchase that UZI I want to play with in the desert.

I should know better – but on this topic I thought I’d jump in…

After 40-something years living in Canada and 15 in the US – I’ve come to the conclusion that there are open sores that shape the thinking in America that just can’t be explained to an outsider in a way that would ever make sense.

I call them the 5 G’s so I can remember them: Government, God, Guns, Gestation and Group-ism (the last is a word I made up to try and capture the us versus them mentality that too often courses through conversations on gender, politics, race, sexual-orientation, college football, you name it…)  

These unresolved issues are then re-arranged time and again and show up in combinations that make consensus and moving forward impossible.  Throw in the constitution as some outdated but infallible artifact that you must reconciled all new thinking to and you’ve got… well…  a country stuck in a loop.  

Today its guns and groups, tomorrow god and gestation (abortion), or maybe the role of government in guns or the role of god in the government… it never ends, it never gets better… it never gets more understandable to those outside of the US that wonder why even a little progress can’t be made…

All the while these open sores fester and America falls further and further behind its potential…

...and on a day like today - people die unnecessarily.

td’s

Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns. The vote came a day after at least 14 people were killed during the San Bernardino massacre in California by two suspects, including a woman said to have pledged allegiance to ISIS.

The man who committed this act had been under investigation for his ties to terrorism, yet astonishingly, he legally was able to buy guns.  This man was an American, he was a lone wolf, he was mentally unstable, and he had some connections to terrorism.

How can we be protected from crazy-white-guy terrorists or crazy-pro-ISIS-guy terrorists if any terrorist who wants these weapons can get them legally?  Does Trump or the GOP realize that their policies are exactly  how terrorists are allowed to continue to kill and harm us?

Australia got sense - when will we?

toedippers wrote:
These unresolved issues are then re-arranged time and again and show up in combinations that make consensus and moving forward impossible.  Throw in the constitution as some outdated but infallible artifact that you must reconciled all new thinking to and you’ve got… well…  a country stuck in a loop.  

Today its guns and groups, tomorrow god and gestation (abortion), or maybe the role of government in guns or the role of god in the government… it never ends, it never gets better…

Great post toedippers. Ineresting to hear your perspective from a semi-outsider but one with experience in the US. Thanks.

CanuckBob wrote:

jrm30655 wrote:50 people were killed and another 50 wounded.  All were unarmed.  Couldn't have been much worse if someone had been shooting back

Even one more would be worse. No? The fact is, if that idiot didn't have easy access to guns then this would not likely have happened in the first place. That whole premise about everyone carrying guns is kind of like the arms race during the cold war. That didn't work too well either.

You want a good example of gun ownership, ccw gone awry.
How about the biker melee in Waco where everyone was protecting themselves.
Playaboy lives in a perfect world of gun owners where nothing goes wrong.  

I find it amazing how naive most of you are.  There is no perfect world.  If the world was perfect we wouldn't NEED guns.

There are over 300 million firearms in the hands of citizens in the USA.  Less than 1% are used in crime.  

Slainte, look at Mexico.  There is very tight gun control in this country.  How well is that working?  NOT.  The  criminals will always get guns.  They are the only ones with guns.  There are whole States controlled by criminals and their guns.  The law abiding citizens have no means to fight back and live with fear.  When the autodefensia's tried to arm and protect themselves from the criminals, successfully for a time, the bigger crooks took them out.

Rarely does the USA main stream media report on citizens using firearms to protect themselves.  Washington Post

LadyO, I will continue to read your posts.  They are always good for a laugh.  Which one of those women was you on that mountain top singing about "perfect harmony"

I liked Toedippers intelligent comments on the problems in the U.S.  Maybe they are the inevitable result of a country comprised of immigrants from many different cultures, most of whom are only a few generations from arrival.

There is one thing about the "bearing of arms" that we need to clarify:  it's one thing to own a hand gun for "protection" and quite another to claim that you need a machine gun.  Fifty dead people wouldn't have happened in Florida if the shooter had only a handgun to work with.  That's the area the lawmakers should concern themselves with, and what logical argument can anyone make against tighter controls?
"Comes the Revolution"???

BTW: Lady O and Playaboy:  Can't you two argue without getting nasty?

How can one shooter, one handgun and one assault rifle cause so much carnage?

The AR-type-rifle Mateen used to slaughter 50 people at the Pulse nightclub, is known for it's lethality and has been used in other mass shootings in the United States.

Adam Lanza, the gunman behind the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, used an AR-15 and its 30-round magazine to kill 26 people in under five minutes. And it’s not just the AR-15, but semiautomatic weapons of all kinds that can be remarkably efficient killing machines.

At Virginia Tech in 2007, Seung Hui Cho shot 47 people in 10 to 12 minutes using two semiautomatic handguns with magazines that held no more than 15 bullets.

Gringal, I do not consider pointing out someone's fantasization of the American gun culture the day after the wholesale slaughter of 53 human beings as "getting nasty."
In the ammosexual's version of the night, one or more sober, well trained and practiced person(s) concealed carrying in a nightclub on a Saturday night saves the day.
In the ammosexual's world having a designated shooter who goes clubbing without drinking so as to be in top form for a shootout is preferred to any restriction on guns. I disagree.

It's the availability of assault rifles that made all this happen. Before they arrived, there weren't these problems. Seems pretty simple to me.

Since game vanishes after one or two shots, hunting rifles should be limited to two shots.
Handguns, may not be clip-fed or semi-automatic. Just six shot revolvers.
All guns should be registered.
No concealed carry permitted. All must be holstered and visible.
Background checks for all, since there are no gods to protect anyone.
That might take care of mass shootings, but still allow for single killings.
To eliminate those; back to fists and knives, I guess. Unfortunately, Americans like killing from a distance.
My weapon of choice was the Jupiter missile with a 1.4 megaton payload......deterrent.

The last civil war in the US was over slavery, will the next one be over guns?

Playaboy wrote:  Then I can purchase that UZI I want to play with in the desert.

This conflicts with your premise of a perfect world where no one needs guns.

Also, it's rather easy to obtain legal permission to have a .38 caliber or less in Mexico, at home, for "personal protection".
Years ago when I first started coming to Mexico, there was open carry, and a whole lot more shootings, and that is why the stricter laws were implemented.  My best friend's father was shot and killed in a small town outside of Zamora, Mich., in those days, after an argument in a cantina.

Here's my logic.

They say.....guns don't kill, people do.......(when they get into the hands of the wrong people)
Heroin is harmless too, until it falls into the hands of people ( the wrong people)
What intrinsic spiritual redeeming value do guns have for the "right kind of people"  I'd say, making holes in paper targets, holes in cans, shooting animals and few other worthless endeavors.
More advocates of stricter gun control ownership, such as myself, have no illusions of a "perfect world" of no guns, but just put the NRA in their place.

gringal....I hope this doesn't come under your judgment of being nasty.

CanuckBob wrote:The last civil war in the US was over slavery, will the next one be over guns?

I'd say the next one will be fought over Donald Trump. The supporters and protestors on both sides have already started to get a little ugly.
I don't know if it will be a full out civil war but certainly more than the usual heated parlour room political debate.

Slainte, I happen to agree with you on this one, and no, you aren't calling anyone names. When people get into name calling, the discussion stops and the herfuffle begins. Nothing good comes of it.

I'll add to your post that I haven't yet heard a logical reason why individuals should have assault weapons.

For all those who think like this gun lobbyist, please watch this video, then examine your own beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE

I would like to point out France has very strict gun laws and California has very strict gun laws. Didn't stop folks from doing crazy shit in either place with guns. Too many guns exist pretty much everywhere I guess. I don't have an answer and I use to have a CWP for work and have extensive training in firearms. A disclosure I guess.

Suegarn, thank you for sharing that. It is brilliant.

Zedinmexico wrote:I would like to point out France has very strict gun laws and California has very strict gun laws. Didn't stop folks from doing crazy shit in either place with guns. Too many guns exist pretty much everywhere I guess. I don't have an answer and I use to have a CWP for work and have extensive training in firearms.  A disclosure I guess.

I don't have an answer either - but Chris Rock did in this video...

https://youtu.be/VZrFVtmRXrw

(apologies in advance that this may be a little crude and too 'jokey' considering what has happened recently... but there is an interesting point - folks in the US have guns enough to last 200 years - but only 3 years worth of ammo... )

td's