[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Yes. And before Columbine it was common for seniors who drove to school to have a rifle rack with shotguns in the back window of their pickup in the school parking lot. My school, 450 kids per grade, would have a dozen or so in the lot every day. And this is in North NJ in the mid 80s, 40 min from NYC, not some backwoods. Guess what, no problems.

Yeah I hear ya, I was spanked with a belt as a kid... my dad didn't go to jail and I am a better person for it. I learned a lot of good lessons that way.

[The0pportunist]

I get the whole 'we must protect ourselves against government tyranny' Actually i quite respect it but for goodness sake America tighten your gun controls. The maniac would not have done the same damage if he could only buy hand guns!

[dreamingat30fps]

Personally I think both sides are wrong. I do think that having no guns in the country would reduce these types of events. Sure you could make a bomb or use a car or knife but all of these increase the barrier to entry for the nutter. You may still have these events but I think there would be fewer and with a smaller number of deaths.

That being said I think the ONLY way that would hold true is if you got rid of EVERY gun. I don't think banning large magazines, or "assault" weapons or any of that crap will do absolutely anything. I also believe it would be impossible to remove all the guns from this country.

Therefore I think the whole gun debate is completely pointless. The more time is spent on it the less time is devoted to other solutions that may actually have some possibility of working. Instead of arguing over how we will get rid of all the nails in the roads we should be focused on developing a run flat tire or air less tire or something realistic.

I think we have a lot of angry people in this country and I think the media is partially responsible for this. I know people on the left and the right that, to me personally, are just bat shit crazy when it comes to this stuff. A friend of mine blamed all of his problems on Obama and the liberals. Can't get a job, Obamas fault, business is down, Obamas fault, got the flu, Obamas fault.

Then I have some of my own relatives on the left claiming the world is going to end because of Trump. Vegas shooting Trumps fault, hurricane Irma, Trumps fault, lost my job, Trumps fault. They are on Facebook all day and all night posting political crap and spreading BS nonsense which has to be real because it was on facebook.

For most that's where it ends, but I can totally see someone who's mentally unstable with this kind of hate going full psycho and committing one of these mass shooting.

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Yes. And before Columbine it was common for seniors who drove to school to have a rifle rack with shotguns in the back window of their pickup in the school parking lot. My school, 450 kids per grade, would have a dozen or so in the lot every day. And this is in North NJ in the mid 80s, 40 min from NYC, not some backwoods. Guess what, no problems.

I'll take it one level further we had rifle team at in my high school, and we had an indoor shooting range below the gym and I use to be on the team. and we never had issues with anyone thinking about shooting anyone one and there were always people in the parking lot with hunting rifles and shotguns in the cars or trucks.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by The0pportunist

I get the whole 'we must protect ourselves against government tyranny' Actually i quite respect it but for goodness sake America tighten your gun controls. The maniac would not have done the same damage if he could only buy hand guns!

I didn't want to get involved with the gun control mess, but VT shooting was perpetrated with hand guns. 32 dead, in a quite university setting where people could hear him coming and flee the scene. I would imagine a guy walking through a crowd of 22k people during a VERY loud concert with a pistol could make an equally fatal impact. Though, your point is valid when it comes to the massive quantity who were wounded. BUT there are other factors at play that drove those figures up.

To your overall rifle point. On average, there are about 350 or gun deaths per year which are attributed to long guns. (rifles and shotguns) Hand guns are by far and away the most utilized tool when it comes to gun deaths in the US, as they account for about 95% of all firearm homicides.

Banning rifles will not curb gun violence in the US. It seems somewhat obtuse to say this, but in our country, with our constitution, there is very little to stop someone from perpetrating this type of sick, cowardly act. What could make a difference in over all gun violence is mandatory sentencing for people who use guns to commit crimes and those who use guns to murder people and don't plan to commit suicide after the fact. Yes, there are mandatory sentences in place throughout the difference cities & States but they are seldom enforced because the DA uses plea bargaining to reduce those penalties. In some cases allowing cold blooded murderers to serve only single digit years behind bars.

There was a recent murder in Orlando (about 70 miles from me) where the 22 year old perpetrator was caught on surveillance film outside a public library running up behind someone and shooting him in the back. He was eventually picked up from hiding, confessed to the incident claiming he shot the 18 year old boy because he "dissed his rapping" ability on Facebook. In exchange for some type of shitty info on where he acquired the gun, he ended up getting 6 years in prison. When you live day to day where your main concern is defending your rapping honor, 6 years for murder isn't much of a deterrent. It should be noted that the "mandatory" sentence for shooting someone in FL (wounding or killing) is supposed to be 25yrs to Life. If it's murder in the 1st degree, which this example was, the maximum sentence is the Electric Chair.

But they get off regularly with less than the mandatory minimum. I feel that this needs to be addressed first and foremost. But no one talks about it on a political level, ever. It's never brought up when people are campaigning for local, county or state offices. I know our prisons are over crowded, but going to prison is supposed to be a deterrent. If it is, going to prison for a longer time is more of a deterrent. Maybe i don't understand how the DA's office works, but from my point of view, it's utter bullshit.

[upstatedoc]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

Yes. And before Columbine it was common for seniors who drove to school to have a rifle rack with shotguns in the back window of their pickup in the school parking lot. My school, 450 kids per grade, would have a dozen or so in the lot every day. And this is in North NJ in the mid 80s, 40 min from NYC, not some backwoods. Guess what, no problems.

Check this out, when I was in high school a friend and myself brought in our shotguns for kind of a show Intel presentation. We had to check them in at the principals office but one class time came around we went downstairs and got them and brought them up showed people how they work. Had ammunition that we passed around. When the presentation was over we packed them up and brought him back to the principals office. Pick them up on the way out of school and I think I even got on the bus. With it.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by upstatedoc

Check this out, when I was in high school a friend and myself brought in our shotguns for kind of a show Intel presentation. We had to check them in at the principals office but one class time came around we went downstairs and got them and brought them up showed people how they work. Had ammunition that we passed around. When the presentation was over we packed them up and brought him back to the principals office. Pick them up on the way out of school and I think I even got on the bus. With it.

More proof that the general public is getting dumber. Idiocracy, here we come!

[Vigilante375]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

I didn't want to get involved with the gun control mess, but VT shooting was perpetrated with hand guns. 32 dead, in a quite university setting where people could hear him coming and flee the scene. I would imagine a guy walking through a crowd of 22k people during a VERY loud concert with a pistol could make an equally fatal impact. Though, your point is valid when it comes to the massive quantity who were wounded. BUT there are other factors at play that drove those figures up.

To your overall rifle point. On average, there are about 350 or gun deaths per year which are attributed to long guns. (rifles and shotguns) Hand guns are by far and away the most utilized tool when it comes to gun deaths in the US, as they account for about 95% of all firearm homicides.

Banning rifles will not curb gun violence in the US. It seems somewhat obtuse to say this, but in our country, with our constitution, there is very little to stop someone from perpetrating this type of sick, cowardly act. What could make a difference in over all gun violence is mandatory sentencing for people who use guns to commit crimes and those who use guns to murder people and don't plan to commit suicide after the fact. Yes, there are mandatory sentences in place throughout the difference cities & States but they are seldom enforced because the DA uses plea bargaining to reduce those penalties. In some cases allowing cold blooded murderers to serve only single digit years behind bars.

There was a recent murder in Orlando (about 70 miles from me) where the 22 year old perpetrator was caught on surveillance film outside a public library running up behind someone and shooting him in the back. He was eventually picked up from hiding, confessed to the incident claiming he shot the 18 year old boy because he "dissed his rapping" ability on Facebook. In exchange for some type of shitty info on where he acquired the gun, he ended up getting 6 years in prison. When you live day to day where your main concern is defending your rapping honor, 6 years for murder isn't much of a deterrent. It should be noted that the "mandatory" sentence for shooting someone in FL (wounding or killing) is supposed to be 25yrs to Life. If it's murder in the 1st degree, which this example was, the maximum sentence is the Electric Chair.

But they get off regularly with less than the mandatory minimum. I feel that this needs to be addressed first and foremost. But no one talks about it on a political level, ever. It's never brought up when people are campaigning for local, county or state offices. I know our prisons are over crowded, but going to prison is supposed to be a deterrent. If it is, going to prison for a longer time is more of a deterrent. Maybe i don't understand how the DA's office works, but from my point of view, it's utter bullshit.

And that is what's wrong with our Judicial system. People get way less time or no time in jail for a crime that they should be in jail for the rest of their life.

Plea bargains need to be revised and loop holes need to be gone. There is no reason why a person who kills another person gets 10 years of prison time and released or someone who gets life in prison but can be looked at parole in 25 years.

There are plenty of cases where people are caught on camera doing something, get arrested, go to court and the lawyer gets them off for some stupid technicality.

[Fundguy1]

The problem is right here. This is the ex gf of the cop murderer and pregnant gf murderer and murderer of his gf brother. She helped this murdering pos avoid the police. And she has no respect for authority like everyone else in her portion of the community. Cursing in court, not doing what police instruct her to do, talking back to police. Who tf do these idiots think they are? Lloyd btw was a felon and was not allowed to have a weapon, but he still got one and used it multiple times. When he was captured, he had two 9mm handguns. One was a glock with a 100 round clip. Laws didn't protect any of the people he shot. Maybe if he had been locked up for the max for what he had done before this wouldn't have happened. Maybe if Orlando had thrown the book at the people known to have helped him it would have helped disuade others from helping fugitives and felons commit more crime. But the liberal bs government officials won't do that. Which is why non felons choose to arm themselves around here to protect themselves. When did it become ok to say don't f'in touch me instead of ok officer or ok sir to a police officer?
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/ma...after-outburst

[zinengineer]

correct me if I'm wrong, but (at least in the US), killing someone is against the law.

if someone has decided to commit the ultimate offense, no "laws" on the books will stop them. Granted, one could make the argument that we could make it more difficult, but an evil person will figure out how to execute their plans, regardless of whatever ineffective laws are on the books.

agree, enforcement of existing laws is lame to say the least. We seem to be in a time when "the rules apply to everyone else". A little respect, courtesy, and follow the f-ing rules would go a long way. It starts at the top, and unfortunately we've got a long history of our "leaders" being above the law, on both sides of the aisle (Nixon, Clinton - slick Willie, Clinton - the other one, GW - weapons of destruction, I could probably come up with other examples).

anyone ever hear the expression "locks only keep the honest people out"??

bad people will violate whatever laws are put on the books. We have to decide to ALL follow the rules for them to be effective. In today's world of "me, me, me" - that's unlikely to happen

[sleeprequired]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Sounds similar to what Austrailia did a while back. Their annual murder rate is the same as it was before they banned guns. Taking one tool away won't stop the real problem. It makes it very marginally harder.

The guy owned two planes... if he had not used guns, I wonder what he would have done.

Wrong.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....son-per-100000

Oz - 1 in 100000
US - 4.88

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by The0pportunist

I get the whole 'we must protect ourselves against government tyranny' Actually i quite respect it but for goodness sake America tighten your gun controls. The maniac would not have done the same damage if he could only buy hand guns!

Agree, based on his mental state he could have used a truck bomb instead (Okla City Bombing).

Pre-WW1 bombings were common in the US and Europe.

[Kev312]

Originally Posted by dreamingat30fps

Personally I think both sides are wrong. I do think that having no guns in the country would reduce these types of events. Sure you could make a bomb or use a car or knife but all of these increase the barrier to entry for the nutter. You may still have these events but I think there would be fewer and with a smaller number of deaths.

That being said I think the ONLY way that would hold true is if you got rid of EVERY gun. I don't think banning large magazines, or "assault" weapons or any of that crap will do absolutely anything. I also believe it would be impossible to remove all the guns from this country.

For most that's where it ends, but I can totally see someone who's mentally unstable with this kind of hate going full psycho and committing one of these mass shooting.

Your beginning statement about removing guns is an unviable solution given the current state of the nation. New laws can be implemented to help control better, but this situation is solely about your last comment. It's a mental health issue in the US that needs to be addressed, because that is what is driving these people to commit these crimes.

You can strip a lunatic of their guns or knives, but based on the amount of precautions he took, the numerous venues he had hotel rooms based around other events, etc...., if he didn't have a gun at his disposal, he damn well had enough money to complete his task in many other ways.

[BimmerAg]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Wrong.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....son-per-100000

Oz - 1 in 100000
US - 4.88

The murder rate has been steady decreasing since the 1990's for both countries, but the rate actually did go up in the year following Australia's gun ban. Basically, murder rate does not appear to be tied to whether or not gun ownership is legal

[Fundguy1]

In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.

More on Australia:

Take Melbourne, Australia’s second most populous city. Between January 16, 1998 and April 19, 2010, 36 criminal figures or partners were murdered during the Melbourne Gangland Killings.

Alas, family environments, from businesses to parks, were drawn into the mess.

The passage of gun control laws fueled our illegal arms market, and gun-hungry gangs multiplied. The significance: many gangland deaths/wars involved bullets. The tribal fights exploded after the Port Arthur massacre-inspired gun laws, against mainstream media predictions.

So much for disarmament.

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by sleeprequired

Wrong.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....son-per-100000

Oz - 1 in 100000
US - 4.88

You banned guns in 1996. What does the murder rate do in the 7-8 years following that? Congrats, it is now steadily declining... not from something that was done 20 years ago.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

[seedyrom]

What I’m about to say will directly feed the American gun lovers egos ... but please read beyond the first line.

In Australia, after gun laws were tightened up, It is largely the criminals who still have guns. It’s true. There are still lots of shootings in Sydney.

So if you were sitting in the US, scrambling to find Australian-based “statistics” to support the fact that taking away guns still causes deaths, then you will find them. And yes, it is the criminals who have the guns, not “law abiding citizens”.

BUT ... what statistics show are the end results.
The fact is that it isn’t Joe Average being shot by guns.


Criminals are shooting criminals. There is a battle for drug supply control occurring in Australia (and in particular, Sydney). Lebanese gangs are vying for control of a booming drug market, integrating into existing bikie gangs and shooting each other. Gun violence (as per the map I linked to above), is almost exclusive to the area of western Sydney which is where Middle Eastern immigrants are located.
If you aren’t involved in the drug trade, you really don’t need to be concerned about gun violence in Australia.
We’ve had two ISIS inspired killings with guns involved, funnily enough, it was Middle Eastern people committing these murders, and they were from Western Sydney.


The other thing is Australia is the lucky country. Not only do we provide free health care for our residents, we also provide “victims of crime” compensation.
If you are a victim of crime, you qualify for $50,000 of compensation for your incident. Therefore, if someone hurts you, and you can’t sue them in a civil trial, the government will give you $50,000.
So the Lebanese gangs have worked this one to their advantage. If you have a drug debt owing (e.g. $40k), the dealer will come and shoot you in the legs. You tell the police you don’t know who it was.
“It was a random crime officer, I swear”.
You then get $50k off the government, pay your $40k to the dealer and keep $10k. The dealer gets to look tough to his other clients, and also gets paid.


The long story short is that there is still gun violence in Australia, but it doesn’t involve random citizens. Statistics over represent the actual problem, and I do understand that American shooting numbers would also be skewed by Mexican and Black gangs shooting each other. However we don’t need to worry about a law-abiding citizen shooting at us from a hotel window.

Serious question to the gun owners. As an adult, how often have you draw your weapon to resolve a serious threat? And could it have been handled without escalating the situation to an end point level?

[Fundguy1]

But it's the same here too. The vast majority of murders by gun just like in Australia are drug and gang related. You don't find many outside that. However, since the gun ban on Australia, violent crime has increased. Rape, assault, etc. This is what guns stop. There's a disconnect here.

As for the mass murder idiots, you have more chance to be killed by lightning than them. Literally.

And to answer your last question, 3 times. Twice to stop being assaulted/carjacked, once to stop a home invasion. In all 3 cases, the outcome was far superior because I had a firearm. Next question?

[Lups]

Originally Posted by seedyrom

What I’m about to say will directly feed the American gun lovers egos ... but please read beyond the first line.

In Australia, after gun laws were tightened up, It is largely the criminals who still have guns. It’s true. There are still lots of shootings in Sydney.

So if you were sitting in the US, scrambling to find Australian-based “statistics” to support the fact that taking away guns still causes deaths, then you will find them. And yes, it is the criminals who have the guns, not “law abiding citizens”.

BUT ... what statistics show are the end results.
The fact is that it isn’t Joe Average being shot by guns.


Criminals are shooting criminals. There is a battle for drug supply control occurring in Australia (and in particular, Sydney). Lebanese gangs are vying for control of a booming drug market, integrating into existing bikie gangs and shooting each other. Gun violence (as per the map I linked to above), is almost exclusive to the area of western Sydney which is where Middle Eastern immigrants are located.
If you aren’t involved in the drug trade, you really don’t need to be concerned about gun violence in Australia.
We’ve had two ISIS inspired killings with guns involved, funnily enough, it was Middle Eastern people committing these murders, and they were from Western Sydney.


The other thing is Australia is the lucky country. Not only do we provide free health care for our residents, we also provide “victims of crime” compensation.
If you are a victim of crime, you qualify for $50,000 of compensation for your incident. Therefore, if someone hurts you, and you can’t sue them in a civil trial, the government will give you $50,000.
So the Lebanese gangs have worked this one to their advantage. If you have a drug debt owing (e.g. $40k), the dealer will come and shoot you in the legs. You tell the police you don’t know who it was.
“It was a random crime officer, I swear”.
You then get $50k off the government, pay your $40k to the dealer and keep $10k. The dealer gets to look tough to his other clients, and also gets paid.


The long story short is that there is still gun violence in Australia, but it doesn’t involve random citizens. Statistics over represent the actual problem, and I do understand that American shooting numbers would also be skewed by Mexican and Black gangs shooting each other. However we don’t need to worry about a law-abiding citizen shooting at us from a hotel window.

Serious question to the gun owners. As an adult, how often have you draw your weapon to resolve a serious threat? And could it have been handled without escalating the situation to an end point level?

Omg lol dude gtfo

Now, if you read after that line, you must be able to read actual words too, so I'll write the rest to show i agree with you.

Man, these guys don't want poor people to have access to birth control, they want no social security and they want guns. For them Australia is the crime capitol of the world after Sweden and and the eu (which is a country).

Anyway. I like to assume that if i would be robbed, i would live to tell the tale. If someone would want me dead, it should be harder for her to execute it. I'm cool with the tough gun laws every civilized country has.

[seedyrom]

Originally Posted by Lups

For them Australia is the crime capitol of the world after Sweden and and the eu (which is a country).

[seedyrom]

Originally Posted by Fundguy1

And to answer your last question, 3 times. Twice to stop being assaulted/carjacked, once to stop a home invasion. In all 3 cases, the outcome was far superior because I had a firearm. Next question?

WOW. Sounds terrible.
For every single person I know, it is never.

Never in my life has there been an incident which could have been resolved with a gun. I even spent 12 years working the graveyard shifts at Off-track betting shops (gambling on horses, dogs, Sports etc) .
Single person, no bullet proof screens, large cash handling.
Never had any holdups or threats of violence.

I wonder if there is a possible link?

[Fundguy1]

Originally Posted by Lups

Omg lol dude gtfo

Now, if you read after that line, you must be able to read actual words too, so I'll write the rest to show i agree with you.

Man, these guys don't want poor people to have access to birth control, they want no social security and they want guns. For them Australia is the crime capitol of the world after Sweden and and the eu (which is a country).

Anyway. I like to assume that if i would be robbed, i would live to tell the tale. If someone would want me dead, it should be harder for her to execute it. I'm cool with the tough gun laws every civilized country has.

Ok, this is ridiculous
"these guys don't want poor people to have access to birth control, they want no social security and they want guns."
100% lie of the left. We don't want to force people with religious objections to birth control to pay for others birth control. You can buy a condom for a buck on a bathroom. Noone is stopping that. And of you're citing abortions-r-us, I mean planned parenthood who get 95% of their income for abortions and huge sums from tax dollars, that's bs also. Same objections. If you want to cry women's health, take the pp money and give it to a non abortion clinic that does women's health. Dems hate that idea.
Social security is the biggest ripoff of Americans perpetrated by the government ever. It needs reform. It was designed to give people 2 1/2 years of income. That's it. When it was made, the life expectancy after retirement as 2 1/2 years. It's now doing 30+ years. Unsustainable. It needs reform on preretirees to push off retirement to later years. It also needs the ability to grow your money faster than a CD, which it hasn't. Both are crushed by dems even though the founder of SS, FDR said it needed updates in the future and was imperfect.